[nostromo]

You could shape the NFT in the form of a metal rod with notches on it. When placed inside a slot and turned, the car could validate that the right pattern of notches exist on the NFT and turn on.

If you want to sell the car, simply hand off the physical NFT to the new owner.

[woojoo666]

Well crypto allows for trustless digital transfers. Like selling a house halfway across the world, without having to fly over to hand off the keys.

[kareemsabri]

So the person halfway around the world can immediately start enjoying their house?

[woojoo666]

I assume it would be something like, the door lock is tied to the current owner as defined by the blockchain. No need for intermediaries, and no physical key.

[kareemsabri]

This is the classic definition of a solution looking for a problem though.

I don't know about "no need for intermediaries" because of course you need someone who creates and maintains this blockchain, since blockchains are not present in nature (perhaps that is a decentralized group of people but the blockchain and its maintainers are then the intermediary between the two parties) so let's focus on the no physical key part.

If the primary benefit of blockchain is that only the registered owner of the house can get access to it, on that blockchain, that's a pretty weak feature and actually pretty shit. I would like my family to also get access to my house, as well as perhaps other people like houseguests or a maid etc. Keys seem to work pretty well, nobody is pounding down the door to buy "smart locks" as far as I can tell.

I'm not saying blockchain won't provide transformative utility, it might, but it probably won't look like what we imagine it will (existing paradigms, but on a blockchain).

[woojoo666]

Sorry I meant centralized intermediaries, which is what is often meant when referring to blockchain tech. Some other examples of centralized intermediaries are banks, ticket resellers like ticketmaster, deed notaries, etc.

And as for sharing keys with family members, perhaps just list them as sub-members of the owning member on the blockchain. When the owner changes, all previous sub-members lose access too. This can probably be done using a smart contract

[kareemsabri]

You can certainly do it. But then the problem being solved is "keys are bad". Typically in startup lore you want a product to be 10x better than the existing solution to gain mainstream adoption. I have a hard time picturing smart locks to your doors on the blockchain as being 10x better than keys.

[pavlov]

So we're back to the original question: without an Internet connection, this blockchain-controlled door won't open, even if you're the legitimate owner.

Or if it does open without Internet, then you can buy the house NFT, but the seller disabled the Internet connection in the house so the door doesn't know about the transaction. Now you're locked out even though you theoretically own the house on the blockchain.

Turns out the blockchain doesn't solve ownership of physical objects. You still need intermediaries like the police and courts to decide who owns the house.

[woojoo666]

Or perhaps it's looking towards a future where internet access is more reliable, as it has been getting for the past few decades

[pavlov]

Do you really want to be locked out of your house or car if the Internet is down?

We've had the electrical power grid for over a century, but power cuts and brownouts are still a thing.

Designing vital systems to assume 100% reliability of shared systems is dangerous.

[MisterBastahrd]

Yes.

But real estate law does not.