[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.

[kareemsabri]

I agree. It's not only that it's dangerous (let's say the internet always worked, someone could still ship a bug to the protocol, or too many nodes could fail, or it could get hacked), it's just not even better. Technologists often seem to not start with problems. What is the problem being solved by a blockchain based lock? What pain point exists that would no longer exist? Having to carry keys?

Keys are already decentralized and fully controlled by me. I can copy it and distribute it freely. Putting an intermediary (a blockchain) between myself and access to my house just seems silly.

[woojoo666]

Perhaps keys are valid for 24 hours. So if internet goes down, as long as you were validated sometime within the past 24 hours, you can enter. This also means that it takes 24 hours for ownership to change, which should be fine when selling a house. This also gives the city 24 hours to deploy countermeasures (like starlink receivers) in case the internet outage is expected to last longer