Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by djl0 1160 days ago
In this case, I'm saying that the state can leverage the blockchain for infrastructure and DB access/permission/security. I haven't worked in this specific space, but having a state-affiliated key signing off on a blob of data and store that on the blockchain (and using a standardized open-source front-end for state-side or citizen-side view and editing) has potential to be a much more elegant and robust solution than every state agency around the world creating it's own front and back-end.

I agree that in this case it's not about abstracting trust from centralized authority.
1 comments
stnmtn 1160 days ago
What happens in the case of fraud or illegal activity where someone steals someone else's wallet/keys and is able to transfer the "title"?

If there isn't a really good answer to this question, then how can you seriously say that using blockchain could be a good use case?

link
djl0 1160 days ago
1. At initial rollout, I don't imagine end users would be in charge of their own keys. State-managed keys un-does some of the benefit of being on the blockchain at all, however it sets up a modularity for the future where people could choose to take their own keys.

2. The blockchain can still have similar checks for fraud. IE I'd still imagine the DMV-approved key needs to sign-off on whatever transactions normally pass through the dmv, and perhaps with in-person paperwork. Some crypto maximalists imagine a world where cars and houses are on the blockchain and there are smart-keys or something that prove ownership. That doesn't seem realistic or desirable, however smartcontracts that mimic our current checks could be a big improvement over our current state administration.

link
stnmtn 1153 days ago
So the solution is "I don't know yet, so we'll have the state be in control of the keys"

I'm sure you don't need me to say why this is an unacceptable solution. Yet again, blockchain is found to be a solution in search of a problem.

link