this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
286 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
1358 readers
33 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One of the things blockchain could do is become a digital proof of ownership, augmenting or replacing things like property deeds and car titles. We already agree that a written record of ownership of such things is legally binding (even if the writing is stored digitally), but transfer of that ownership to another person is still a very manual process. Imagine an NFT that represents ownership of your house, and when you want to sell your house, you transfer that NFT to someone else's custody - adding their ownership information to it. It would record the entire chain of ownership, and specific details about the piece of property involved.
Without law enforcement, which is centralized anyway, your documented ownership is worthless. So if the state or a similar centralized real life organization, whiches existence people agree on, is needed to grant and enforce that ownership, blockchain is unnecessary. They can instead just store that shit in a database.
And who would the largest nodes on that blockchain be? The banks? Who could say and do whatever they conspired since they command >50% of the computing power and/or value?
The average person isn’t going to build a fucking blockchain node just to keep the deed to their house.
“Grandma, please you need to fill your basement with these ASICs or else script kiddies will steal your house”
That's not how that works.
NFT is issued determining ownership to a property. Property sells, another NFT is issued, tied to the original one to maintain a chain of ownership. Issuance of a second NFT for a sale to a new owner would depend on authorization by the previous NFT holder. Lienholder information could also be stored, and linked to a mortgage NFT with payment history.
The "NF" part of that stands for "non-fungible." As in, once created, cannot be changed.
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn't represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
The whole non-fungible part can be a problem, not a solution. It very, very rarely happens that ownership of a property is contested. It happens quite often that a mistake is made during a property transfer/sale that needs to be corrected. How do NFTs deal with this, and are they a solution to a non-issue?
See that's the thing. Not being able to correct transaction errors is a feature of blockchain. I'd go as far as saying it's the #1 feature of the majority of crypto that brings in all the scammers.
Personally I prefer my money being insured and controlled by the government.
That person has it now. They mjght volountarily be willing to send it back with another transactions or the courts could force them to do so (as in give fines, request keys, send to prison, or just have the government own and ooerate all the wallet keys and simulate transactions eith blockchain just as the technology used in a very janky way)
Similarily, either the government does all the transactions with 'your' keys for you, or you write down the keys in your will and have someone of trust (e.g. a lawyer) do the partitioning/transactions part in your stead.
The seller and buyer beforehand, mostly
Rebalance by having everone affected send their portions for redistribution to a trusted entity
As you've said yourself, NFTs seem wholly unsuited for keeping track of general ownership on a large scale. All the problems do have solutions, but they're either complicated for the owners or it's someone else controlling people's keys, defeating the entire point.
It could. It may or may not. I agree decentralization is a good thing, but do governments agree as well? First of all, governments are very resistant to change if that doesn't play into their interests (real or percieved like this privacy violation). Using a traditional database to keep track of ownership seems cheaper (since they already do it) but most of all simpler. I'm not too familiar with the way blockchain functions so I may be wrong, but say someone wants to sell a car. In the current state of most countries you just draw up a paper or fill out a form, maybe get it notarized and pay taxes. A database seems flexible enough that if your sale didn't get logged and the buyer got pulled over and questioned, they could provide the contract and clear up any questions about ownership. Or say the ownership was stripped as part of a court order. If it was a database, then changing the records is simple, but with blockchain the court would either have to get you to transfer the ownership volountarily, force you to disclose your keys or have some mechnism of forcing a transaction from the requester account (which as I understand it seems what blockchain is here to stop abd a core part of the specification). Alternatively the government just uses blockchain instead of a database, managing all the keys, wallets and identities (as in they have everyone's keys and do all the transactions) which is the same level of centralization as a database, but with extra steps.
Ownership was (and is) a social contract, and a flexible one at that. Things get gifted volountarily, sold, taken away lawfully and inherited in a single jurisdiction by the thousands daily, and not all of these are well documented. Blockchain seems very limited in what it can do flexibility-wise which makes it unsuitable for keeping track of ownership, and that's not taking into account that either everyone would have to actively use the blockchain for their sales and be familiar with the technology (decentralized) or having all the wallet keys operated by the government (defeating any useful feature of the blockchain for citizens). Adding blockchain into the mix will just complicate the transfer process and centralize it (as in we either do all validation on the blockchain or none), and with the fact that all the transfer history is centralised in the blockchain (despite it being decentralised in storage, it's still explicitly stored and accessible) it would serve as just another venue of privacy violation and opression.
Maybe blockchain could be useful for things like, say carbon credits, or similar government-issued 'currency', but I don't see it applicable to validating general ownership on a large scale for the general population, ever. The 'digital Euro' proposal, also being blessed by the buzzword Blockchain seems very distopian to me as well. Here, with currency being used I can see how it would be applicable in the real world (instead of heavily unstandardised land deeds, sales contracts and other proofs of ownership you have strictly defined currency units), but this also seems like a gross privacy violation as the government (and maybe anyone) can see where you got your money and where you're spending it down to the cent.