So that 50% attack results in someone taking all the land? No thanks.

It is a poor idea to use blockchain for government registries. If you want transparency, simply publish signed daily updates and that's enough. Just use simple DB with backups, and optionally, a printer printing changes on a paper.

▲

consp 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Merkel tree audit log of the data, the poor man's Blockchain, works fine and good enough. Now you have a db and you can claim to use a blockchain for pr reasons.

▲

c7b 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

2/3 attack. Read up on BFT.

▲

codedokode 21 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	c7b 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can put an index on your blockchain DB, what are you talking? Every node can manage it as it pleases (within the limits of the consensus algorithm). Yes, if you have a centralized model you don't need it. Just saying that this incident is the exact risk a blockchain is meant to mitigate through redundancy. You can say you don't care about this risk, but it doesn't change the truth of the statement.

▲

FeepingCreature 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, the overwhelming majority of the benefit of blockchain here is just gotten by making the data public and signed.

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.

	▲	Ekaros 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	c7b 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	protocolture 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>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.

▲

mschuster91 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It is a poor idea to use blockchain for government registries. If you want transparency, simply publish signed daily updates and that's enough.

A blockchain is essentially that, just with the daily update that's being signed also including the signature and hash of the previous day.

Blockchain as a technology is actually useful here. It does not mean automatically that blocks have to be mined by third parties, although pseudocurrencies have gone that route for decentralization reasons.

▲

codedokode 21 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	homakov 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Blockchain is unnecessary complicated, for example, it has mining depends on configuration, you can make any traditional web service replicated (replication is one and only thing that protects data in decentralized ledger, same as DNA is stored in every cell) using something like CometBFT on top. Mining/PoS or VM - all optional.
	▲	c7b 19 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Clearly, you would scope the features and choose implementation options so that it makes sense for the use case. Mining (ie PoW and/or Nakamoto consensus) is clearly inferior to any deterministic consensus here. A cryptocurrency isn't necessary and would be a distraction. But at least some limited programmability could make sense (eg for escrow).