It doesn't matter, it's a dumb idea anyway because there is a central authority managing the land registry and there is no need for anyone else to be involved.

Also, SQL database is much more convenient to use, it has query language and indices unlike a blockchain.

Which could easily be solved by just making data publicly accessible. Actually I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to download land registry say every month. Same actually goes for any stock ownership in companies over certain threshold.

That is what I'm saying. And you may be right, but the security guarantees are math and math is patient. If people decide to ignore it today, it'll still be true any time they decide to take another look.

>Now you may argue "that is a blockchain, not every blockchain is associated with a shitcoin" but to be frank that ship has sailed, if you wanted to defend that you'd have had to do a lot more work over the past decade.

What do you mean by "More Work" here?

There were plenty of tests and pilots of systems like that described. Dual goals of reducing the cost of transferring property and publicly attesting all current ownership. Real lawyers and real lawmakers developed proposals to integrate these sort of services with current public land registries.

The issue as far as I see it isnt the "work" its the "antiwork". If you want to learn about land sale nft pilots you literally have to put -metaverse into the google search to weed out the metaverse nonsense. Theres just too much noise around blockchain for even the best signal to penetrate. The stupid monkey nft guys really fucked the whole space. Probably take another decade to dig out all the toxic waste from blockchains reputation.

Blockchain is unnecessary complicated, for example, it has mining, rewards for those who add new records, even VM and scripts and all of these are not needed for a government registry. I do not need scripts within a land registry.

[dead]

No. Blockchain is made for managing transactions between untrusted parties. In case with a land, there is an authority managing the registry, so a standard relational DB (with optional digital signatures) is the bets option. Why someone wants to use a tool, not good for a specific purpose, for that exact purpose?

> 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.