[bilekas]

I would be less comfortable with my land registry tied to a blockchain, as soon as I lose it (who is much more likely to) it's impossible to get my land back.

What's wrong with paper records backup up a digital record and audit trail. This all seems like a solution for a non-problem to me.

[c7b]

A blockchain isn't stopping you from doing any of those things, if anything it's facilitating different backup models by different parties. A paper record is so much more susceptible to various kinds of risks, adversarial and otherwise. I recommend to look past the hype or hate at the technology. A blockchain is the logical extreme of where you end up when you think about how to sync backups, and you recognize that it comes with certain mathematical limitations on how much disruption you can handle.

[margalabargala]

> A blockchain is the logical extreme of where you end up when you think about how to sync backups

It's not. Blockchains are only eventually consistent among nodes. They're designed for synced backups among adversarial peers.

There's no reason for a government agency to use one internally. There are better ways to sync backups when the people with access to make updates are also authorized to do so.

[c7b]

Internally, you don't need it, agreed. But that is centralization risk exemplified in this incident. Which isn't necessary. Every notary could be a node. It would be a lot more resilient, and it would look a lot like a blockchain (not necessarily with a crypto currency though) if you do it properly.

[margalabargala]

You can have decentralization without blockchain. A defining feature of blockchain is that each node depends on the precise ordering of prior nodes which is a huge liability if you have network disruptions, etc, in a bureaucracy.

A git repo with cryptographically signed commits solves all the same problems without the headache.

[c7b]

Agreed that you don't need total ordering and hence consensus for pure asset transfers. But if you want to make any changes at all, like updating the list of nodes, you do. So in practice, you do need it. Every other proposal will fall short in a critical and avoidable way. Amending your git proposal with the necessary parts will turn it into a blockchain.

[margalabargala]

Disagree. We're talking real estate here. The time between transactions is months to years, not seconds to minutes. A git history will work fine. If there are racing transactions against the same piece of real estate, that's probably fraud, not something that should be automatically resolved.

[homakov]

You can't do any real money/real estate transactions without canonical order (chain of events). that's why git analogy is not applicable here. You'd need "main" branch to be canonically finalized for each and every participant.

[margalabargala]

What? Sure you can. All you need is confidence in the current owner. You don't need the whole history. Can you imagine the poor store clerk trying to say "sorry sir I can't accept that $20 bill unless you can name every prior owner in order".

Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here but this isn't an issue with the cadence of real estate transactions. Real estate ledgers do not need to support HFT.

[codedokode]

If every notary is a node, you need some mechanism to ensure they perform only legitimate transactions and constantly monitor them. It is easier to just have a central authority.

[c7b]

You need that anyway. It's not technology that's stopping notaries from falsifying transactions in the current system.