But that exact case makes absolutl no sense to me. Isn‘t the shift in power the problem here. If the new government doesn‘t accept the public lists of ownership then what are they worth.
Look at what Russia did at the Ukraine with the Krim. The Blockchain wouldn‘t have change that for one moment. So I don‘t see the benefit in making just the listing independent. Its always either you live in a free state or not. And we all are responsible.
1 Like
You just destroyed the only use case I came across so far I thought to be really good 
1 Like
Sorry😄 Its up for debate
1 Like
There is no record that cannot simply be ignored. No technology can change that. But this cannot be destroyed, so it will prevail beyond the tenure of any (potentially) temporary and unstable regime.
Even ignoring that aspect though, having a public data set that nobody can unilaterally change / destroy is pretty powerful. It helps protect against corruption in even a stable power system.
EDIT: to elaborate a little; imagine your government DOES recognise the land registry, but some corrupt actor within it wants to remove your claim on your land. Without your private key, they simply cannot do that. Now no-one can stop them coming and chopping off appendages until you transfer ownership to them, but again, no technology is going to solve that problem.
2 Likes
That’s a good example of blockchain being useful.
Absolutely no need for that to be a currency or ‘investment’ though.
1 Like
Thats the point. No technology will change that. So if the Blockchain is just a very elaborate backup system then I think we have to think of systems in between. Its not worth to have that much energy consumption just for backing up list that we still habe to agree on to take affect.
maybe the proof of stake thing isn‘t all that bad. But i would not have build the system about money stake. Thats just dump and makes the same dump mistakes again. Give the power in the hands of the wealthy.
1 Like
No, currency is a strange term in this context.
Now, the network is powered by a “coin”, but the purpose of the coin is to pay for transactions (i.e. registering a land parcel). This transaction fee in turn rewards the people who run the nodes, which in turn ensures the network is decentralised.
So in this sense the coin is necessary. But the financial speculation around that coin is completely unnecessary. I guess in theory the coin could be price-linked to something tangible, like a fiat currency, which would remove the speculation aspect.
This network (LTO network) does use use Proof of Stake.
I am in full agreement that the energy use of Bitcoin is absurd and should be changed. When people argue for that, it is like arguing that we should generate lots of green power so we can keep using incandescent bulbs, even though we have low power alternatives.
I believe there is power in having decentralised information out of the control of any single body. To achieve this, people who maintain the network need to be rewarded. Having a coin which funds the network transactions is one model for this.
1 Like
I don‘t really see the point why they need to be rewarded. We can we just say, everyone that participates has to do a certain amount of proofing. If you really are interessted in going forward why is noone thinking of systems where money is excluded. This I want to know. Its just plain hypocracy trying to build a shiny new system on the one system that forces unequality upon society.
You cant brag with making 40k out of 500 and at the same time think you are building the future. So if all those blockchain people don‘t get that in their heads, that equality has to be at the forefront than the change is for nothing than more power in fewer hands.
All of you advocating to get in early. Stop It. If that system only benefits you if you jump on early its fucked from the start. If its equally good for the one jumping in last then its a good system. So make shure of THAT!
Sorry again. But I really think we need a public debate here
1 Like
I think there are a couple of possible issues here:
- it costs to run a node. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want those costs covered, even if I’m doing it out of belief/enthusiasm. If you really want a level playing field, covering costs will enable more participation.
- For a blockchain to be really useful, it needs to exist long into the future. Perhaps goodwill/enthusiasm is not reliable enough to secure that kind of future.
Understand, I’m no crypto fanatic at all, and much of what I see out there is faaaaaar from having a real, tangible use. But I also see bits of potential here and there. I guess we’ll see the coming decade whether it really turns out to be useful.
Also, for openness, I do own some crpyto.
This. This is the whole point crypto proponents are not getting. A hyperised version of the current system will only continue to fuel the inequalities inherent to the system. We don’t need a mkii; we need a complete overhaul. And as it stands at this moment, crypto is mkii. So why support? Cause of the promises made that it will be green and/or widely accepted as a currency and/or give the public more power? Show me. It’s been 5 years, as Krugmen notes, show us.
The problem with having crypto fun is that it’s compounding in our eco problems. That’s when your fun becomes everyone’s problem.
1 Like
In the opposite, there are cases where private key was either stolen or lost, and the property is gone.
There is no such thing as a coin without two faces I guess.
This is a true benefit, I must admit.
1 Like
Yeah, the system is really fragile in this regard. I’m hoping there is some innovation in this way that makes it much harder to lose, without sacrificing security.
1 Like
One point is missing too which the whole system in general trys to eliminate and which I think is deeply human. Trust.
If the private key is lost, trust the people from the village who live there for all their life that say: that guy owns that property for generations even if he lost his shiny techno private key ( bad example I know cos the list is open for everyone )
1 Like
Lets just imagine the future and nodes run on your cellphone in the background.
No problem in owning crypto. Nothing here is ment to be personal 
1 Like
That’s a really interesting point. Also deeply relevant, because that is precisely the method they are apparently using in rural parts of Afghanistan for working out who actually owns land 
I think when it comes to using computers to automate things, a trust free system is fundamentally desirable, if it’s achievable.
I hope that is the future. I think it might already be a reality for some networks.
Haven’t we already been there ?
I’d like to hear about non-monetary based solutions immune to human greed.
Monetary system started as convenient way of paying for the goods and services and it only went downhill from there.
I am not referring to currency so much as I am referring to a system wherein “whales” can’t manipulate “value”; a system that is accessible to all, not only 60% of the world (and a portion of that without access to high-speed internet), not even speaking of those who could ever afford to dabble in crypto; a system which is not dependent on devouring energy resources. We have not been there (for awhile) and it doesn’t seem we’re even interested in trying; just hyped for the stonks.
1 Like
At least we ve come from monarchy to democracy in some form in some countrys. So progress is indeed possible.
Wasn’t specific enough. My question was mostly related to this quote by @Monobear:
If you really are interessted in going forward why is noone thinking of systems where money is excluded.
You cant have system that’s available for all and not have ‘whales’ manipulating the value.
I think we are being far too idealistic here.