[hseager]

I think a good example would be something like the Land Registry here in the UK. A use case where you need digital ownership and the records are public for all to see.

The decentralised part acts as the security and it would be hard to forge records, could make the process more transparent and therefore less corruption.

As a side note, I'm shocked by the amount of cynicism in this thread. It seems a lot of people have been put off from the negative media surrounding crypto rather than looking at the technology behind it with an open mind. It reminds me of when P2P file sharing was demonised by the media because of pirating.

[jon-wood]

Is there any known corruption in the UK Land Registry though? Are there frequent reports of land that someone had bought quietly have its ownership transferred?

[acdha]

Why wouldn’t you use traditional PKI for that? Ultimately it comes down to trusting a known authority and tamper-evidence could be provided at orders of magnitude less cost and greater reliability by either using a Merkle tree or notarization from a third-party.

As for the cynicism, note that this is an audience with deep technical knowledge and the ability to reason about systems, years into salespeople making big claims which have not been delivered. Given the conflicts of interest inherent to a system which requires outsiders to put fresh money in before insiders can cash out, skepticism seems warranted.