I'm not sure how you made that jump in logic. The chain is absolutely needed as it stores and establishes cryptographic proof of ownership. This is the entire premise behind validity rollups for layer 2 networks.
> You literally said that all the data is stored somewhere else.
No, I didn't. The NFT would be stored on chain and inside the NFT would be hash of the data that is stored off chain. Anyone can then source the off chain data from any location and then compute the hash of that data and compare it with what is stored on chain.
> It stores some unenforceable token that is only valid as long as those who actually enforce ownership agree that it proves anything.
This is no different than any other system. What makes that Oracle database that your property assessor uses to store your parcel information in enforceable? Oh yeah, the government.
> Yes. You literally said all the data would be stored somewhere else.
Meta data (ownership data) is stored on-chain. (supplemental data is stored off-chain) So again, no I did not say that all data is stored somewhere else. The meta data that is stored on-chain serves an important role.
> If this is no different than any other system, then it has no benefits of any other system.
We are talking about the enforceability. Governments can choose to embrace a blockchain as their system of record. If they do, then NFT deeds are as enforceable as traditional property deeds.
> Who makes your fantasy tokens referring to physical objects enforceable? Oh right. No one.
The government would in this particular case. Maybe in other cases it would be a company and in still other cases it could be an on-chain contract.
> So again, no I did not say that all data is stored somewhere else.
This is splitting hairs. Actual data that is actually relevant to the property, is stored somewhere else. Which is ironic because elsewhere you stated: "but they no longer need to maintain their own database and IT application."
Oh look. They have to maintain their own database for the actual data
> The government would in this particular case.
Not in this particular case. But in all cases.
> Maybe in other cases it would be a company
So. You need central entities to verify and enforce rights to physical objects. You need central entities to store the actual data pertaining to objects and people.
The blockchain is a piece of additive technology. It doesn't replace existing relational databases, nosql databases, object storage, etc. You can store data in any location you like (doesn't have to be a centralized location) and then verify it's authenticity later by recomputing the hash and comparing that to the hash stored on-chain in the NFT. Also, just because some data is stored off-chain does not mean you need to run your own infra. You could pay a hosting provider to operate it for you.
Public permissionless blockchains help in easing the verifiability of ownership records, transfer of ownership records, and auditability of transactions. In the digital goods you don't necessarily have to rely on a single third party like a government. Checkout Chia offer files (https://chialisp.com/offers/) for an example of this. You can post these offer files on Twitter, forums, text messages, emails, etc.
Sorry, don't mean to be rude but this is the most useless discussion I've seen here.
I think it's fairly easy to understand (but you clearly hate the technology for some reason). The proof of ownership would be in the blockchain. NFT X represents X property, the address owning that NFT would technically own that NFT.
Also NFTs may also have descriptive data on them, so technically you could have a description marking that NFT as X property.
It's very much feasable, but from what I'm reading from you, you just hate the technology for the sake of it. Reminds me of Apple haters.
Ownership data is not stored on chain because it is technically impossible. Chain only knows which wallet owns which URL-hash, and nothing else. Which real life person owns which real life physical or digital off-chain artifact (like deed, or picture, or a key), chain doesn't know and can't know. This info is stored in the centralised DBs managed my centralised entities like a company or government.
Ownership data meaning the NFT itself and which can be proved by the holder using his/her private key. Off-chain data (such as personal information or supplemental documents) doesn't have to be stored in centralized databases. It could be stored in federated systems, or a local computer at the owner's residence, or a hosted server controlled by the owner. The chain can hold a hash of the identifying information and then an application can pull the data from wherever it is stored and referenced and check that is correct by recomputing the hash and comparing that to what is stored on chain.
> as it stores and establishes cryptographic proof of ownership.
But if the entity that is charged with keeping track of who owns what needs to keep a central database anyway, what value does keeping the ownership records elsewhere bring? I see doing that as accomplishing nothing but increasing the number of things that can go wrong.
When it comes to things like real estate, the "proof of ownership" is completely without meaning unless you also have the extra data beyond that. Things like where the land is, what the boundaries of the property are, etc.
What jump? You literally said that all the data is stored somewhere else.
> stores and establishes cryptographic proof of ownership.
It stores some unenforceable token that is only valid as long as those who actually enforce ownership agree that it proves anything.
So:
- all data is stored elsewhere, on centralised servers
- proof of ownership is enforced by centralised entities (governments, courts, police, etc.)
Great application of blockchains.