[ianferrel]

"I mean, locks are all about proving ownership"

I don't think that's true at all. Locks serve two primary purposes:

1. Access control 2. Intrusion detection

Neither one is really about ownership, but about allowable use. And particularly neither one is about proving ownership.

[patcon]

> I don't think that's true at all.

Forgive me for saying, but this whole response seems like a confrontational HN-esque way of saying "What about intrusion detection?"

To which I'd say, "Great point! And you're right, that comes more easily for physical locks. Although I think we could do some interesting things with incrementing nonce's for successful and failed attempts to transact with a smart lock design."

[ianferrel]

I thought your original comment was misguided. I think there are cool and interesting things happening with blockchain technology that are related to ownership, and that are based on locks. But the fact that some new technology touches both doesn't mean that traditional locks do.

"Ownership" is a legal concept. A lock doesn't prove ownership in any way. The person with the keys to a car or a house isn't the owner of it. The person listed on the pink slip/deed is.

I started out saying that locks are just about access control, then remembered the old "locks keep honest people out" adage, and added "intrusion detection" to the list.