[illiarian]

> 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.

So the point of blockchain in all this is...?

[ahnick]

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.

[illiarian]

> The blockchain is a piece of additive technology.

To add it you need to show it produces more value than the problems it causes.

> It doesn't replace existing relational databases, nosql databases, object storage, etc.

Hm. Strange. In a comment elsewhere you literally claimed this, emphasis mine: "The staff still does what they do today, but they no longer need to maintain their own database and IT application."

> Also, just because some data is stored off-chain does not mean you need to run your own infra.

And the people will run the infra for you out of the goodness of their hearts? And of course the data that you store "somewhere elsewhere who knows where" will of course be easily available and accessible in perpetuity because blockchain, right?

Why is it that most NFTs in the world are now pointing to non-existent files?

> Public permissionless blockchains help in easing the verifiability of ownership records, transfer of ownership records, and auditability of transactions.

They don't. Moreover, they only work for the most trivial of cases, and make actual real-world scenarios hard or impossible. I've provide several of those, and you answer? "No one is claiming blockchain is helping in that situation and that's okay!"

> In the digital goods

We're not talking about digital goods.

[traveler01]

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.

[illiarian]

> he proof of ownership would be in the blockchain. NFT X represents X property, the address owning that NFT would technically own that NFT.

On top of that you need many more documents actually linking the actual physical person with that wallet. And additional documents dealing the actual property.

And of course "oh it's just simple record pointing to an address" is exactly why I keep saying that crypto proponents have this childlike inability to imagine anything beyond the most trivial of use cases.

Examples where "the address owning that NFT would technically own that NFT" falls apart and "useless discussion" is the one I'm having, not crypto-absolutists with their trivial cases and increasingly complex workarounds:

- ownership disputes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27212564

- ownership transfer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217681

> you just hate the technology for the sake of it.

As wrote elsewhere: I've had this or similar conversation many, many times. Crypto proponents can only come up with the most trivial examples, and for anything more complex they rely on magic and increasingly complex and arcane constructions that fall under their own weight.

Edit:

Just in this discussion: we "don't need a centralised database", but we need a centralised database, or an external party to store our data that also needs to be available and accessible by anyone, but also reliable, maybe federated, or a local server, and it's also standardised, but maybe third parties will make it standard for governments, or maybe someone will provide infra to store data, or maybe it will be hash of data that may or may not be standardised, or...

And with all that it still doesn't solve or help any of the complex issues that arise from property ownership.

[traveler01]

Again, you're calling me "crypto-absolutist" shows your clear hate for the technology only for the sake of it.

This would also make very easy to prove ownership. You have access to the address that owns said property, it's yours. It's as simple as that.

The database you'd need locally would be pretty much to store useful information and to track data on the blockchain.

I don't see any country using this anytime soon, or at all, but it is possible.

PS: I do understand you hate NFTs representing pictures of monkeys being worth millions of $, I also find it stupid, that doesn't give me the right to hate the entire technology that makes it possible.

[illiarian]

> Again, you're calling me "crypto-absolutist" shows your clear hate for the technology only for the sake of it.

No, it shows that I define people talking about this tech by how much of reality they ignore.

> This would also make very easy to prove ownership. You have access to the address that owns said property, it's yours. It's as simple as that.

Who is this "you"? And who do you prove this ownership to? How all the other use cases like death and loss of access to the address are resolved? How are court orders are resolved? And so on, I've provided links where I listed various use cases in similar discussions.

See? Your "easy" ignores so many complexities.

> The database you'd need locally would be pretty much to store useful information and to track data on the blockchain.

So, you need to store useful information somewhere anyway. What exactly is the value of blockchain in this case?

> that doesn't give me the right to hate the entire technology that makes it possible.

Your emotional outbursts don't affect me. It's not hate when every single thing that you say is possible is only possible for the most trivial cases, makes other cases hard or impossible, requires complex workaround for complex issues, and in general doesn't improve an iota over existing situation.