ahnick

Since the on-chain hash is part of an immutable object that no one can change, then anyone can use it to verify that the off-chain data is valid at anytime. (No one needs to go ask someone else whether it is valid they can check for themselves) If the off-chain data was found to be invalid, then a correct version of that off-chain data would need to be provided or a process would have to be developed that would handle exceptions where the document is no longer available and now a new NFT would need to be minted.

The minting process could be managed by the government or some entity using an on-chain contract or it could just be a manual process that the government does in conjunction with banks. The enforcement of the ownership records would still be held with the government. The point of having property records as NFT on-chain data is it enables easy to verify ownership of property records, transparency/auditability of property records, and easy transfers of property records to new owners.

It doesn't prevent the manipulation, but it does assist in detecting it. If someone manipulates the off-chain data, then when that off-chain data is hashed and re-verified against the hash stored in the NFT on-chain then there will be a mismatch in the hash values.

Let's suppose that the off-chain data is a PDF containing all the information for the property deed. If the hash values don't match then it means the PDF should be disregarded. If the off-chain data was kept in multiple locations, then one could potentially still retrieve a good copy of the PDF whose hash matches and then can be trusted.

Now, just because a blockchain can be used as the system of record for property deeds does not mean one wouldn't need to still have laws and other organizations enforcing that system of record. The blockchain is just a tool that makes some aspects of the record keeping easier and opens up some interesting possibilities as I've outlined in other comments of this thread.

You can replicate it to multiple sources or use a decentralized storage solution if you are concerned about data availability.

Just because you host on AWS doesn't mean you get 0 downtime. AWS regions do go down occasionally. Compare that to a hundred thousand node globally distributed network -> https://dashboard.chia.net/d/em15uQ47k/peer-info?orgId=1

> Oh, the real hard problems are creating the standardised representation of a property deed and getting everyone to use it. Something not at all addressed by use of blockchain!

And Oracle databases addressed this? Standardizing property deeds is more of an application level concern not core blockchain infra.

>Cryptographically prove ownership of a property literally no one is asking for this except the sellers of cryptographic proof.

A good UI/UX would make this a push button capability from a wallet. No need for the general public to understand the technology powering push button verification. :)

The blockchain is a piece of additive technology. It doesn't replace existing relational databases, nosql databases, object storage, etc. You can store data in any location you like (doesn't have to be a centralized location) and then verify it's authenticity later by recomputing the hash and comparing that to the hash stored on-chain in the NFT. Also, just because some data is stored off-chain does not mean you need to run your own infra. You could pay a hosting provider to operate it for you.

Public permissionless blockchains help in easing the verifiability of ownership records, transfer of ownership records, and auditability of transactions. In the digital goods you don't necessarily have to rely on a single third party like a government. Checkout Chia offer files (https://chialisp.com/offers/) for an example of this. You can post these offer files on Twitter, forums, text messages, emails, etc.

The hash is critical as it is what enables you to verify that the off-chain data is correct. What exactly did you think was technojargon? I'll be happy to elaborate.

Ownership data meaning the NFT itself and which can be proved by the holder using his/her private key. Off-chain data (such as personal information or supplemental documents) doesn't have to be stored in centralized databases. It could be stored in federated systems, or a local computer at the owner's residence, or a hosted server controlled by the owner. The chain can hold a hash of the identifying information and then an application can pull the data from wherever it is stored and referenced and check that is correct by recomputing the hash and comparing that to what is stored on chain.

> I can literally set up a blockchain that says I own the Mona Lisa. Me saying so, or me putting it on a blockchain doesn't make it so.

Agreed. The parties that are interacting must agree on which blockchain to interact on first. More likely an industry, trade association, or government would say this chain is going to be the system of record of where transactions take place and then individuals and businesses are forced to abide by that. Then once that is decided, any transfer of ownership on that chain would expect to be honored by the transferring party. If not, then consequences would be enforced by the governing industry, trade association, government. etc.

> A blockchain solves the specific problem of how to track ownership of some piece of data in a decentralized fashion where multiple parties do not trust each other.

> This, however is not the hard problem when we talk about ownership databases. The hard problem is ensuring the data entered into that database represents actual real world ownership and having the database universally recognized by everybody as a representation of ownership.

> What purpose does a database like that serve, when the actual place where the rubber of ownership hits the road is somwhere else?

Yes, there is sort of a bootstrapping problem around how do you get people onboarded onto a particular blockchain. For that I think you need some novel use case(s). For Bitcoin it was being the first alternative monetary system. For Ethereum it was the ability to create on-chain programs. Zcash it was private transactions. etc. Once people are onboarded though, then you can use that system to agree on where ownership entry and change of ownership transactions take place. Then you can use the publicly auditable history to prove ownership. For a physical good, then that becomes evidence that can be presented to a third party presiding entity who settles disputes.

> And of course they will need to maintain an IT application: they will need secure wallet implementations, data entry applications to interact with blockchains, security audits for the shitty programs people keep calling "smart contracts" etc.

Most likely a third party company will provide a standardized overlay that government's can tweak to suit their needs, but the bulk of the important data is now stored securely on chain. This should help reduce the security footprint and FTE overhead for governments.

> Ah yes. It automagically conforms to some standard. Just because it's on blockchain.

No magic involved. If you want your NFT to work say on the Chia Blockchain, then you need to conform to this standard -> https://www.chia.net/2022/06/29/1-4-0-introducing-the-chia-n...

> And how is blockchain helping you in this case? Or in the cases I linked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27212564 and that you even failed to understand.

I've already explained this in another comment. No one is claiming blockchain is helping in that situation and that's okay! :)

> Translation: government enforces property deeds. They are enfoceable. > NFTs are not

How did property deeds come into existence? Was there a time before property deeds? The point is technology evolves and blockchains offer an alternative to record keeping that is an improvement over existing systems. If governments adopt them for tracking property ownership, then they will be just as enforceable as property deeds.

> The question isn't about modifying the NFT is it. Go and re-read the cases I provided.

The point is the on-chain historical record of transactions can be provided as evidence to a court. A blockchain will not prevent corruption and bribery from arising, but it does represent an unalterable record of transactions. Ultimately courts are the enforceability layer of the government, but that does not make blockchains useless for the purposes of property record keeping.

> Edit: What amazes me about all the cryptobros is their inability to look beyond the simplest of the most simplest of the most trivial of cases. Probably because of their childlike belief in the magic of blockchain.

This seems like your inner bias coming out. There is certainly no shortage of grift in the crypto space. Nevertheless, the technology is real and there are people with PhDs in CompSci and vast amounts of distributed network experience working in the space. I'd invite you to try and look at the technology objectively, because there are some really exciting and cool things happening in the space.

> Yes. You literally said all the data would be stored somewhere else.

Meta data (ownership data) is stored on-chain. (supplemental data is stored off-chain) So again, no I did not say that all data is stored somewhere else. The meta data that is stored on-chain serves an important role.

> If this is no different than any other system, then it has no benefits of any other system.

We are talking about the enforceability. Governments can choose to embrace a blockchain as their system of record. If they do, then NFT deeds are as enforceable as traditional property deeds.

> Who makes your fantasy tokens referring to physical objects enforceable? Oh right. No one.

The government would in this particular case. Maybe in other cases it would be a company and in still other cases it could be an on-chain contract.

Blockchains are highly distributed systems. At least the good ones are ;-). Blockchains have the ultimate uptime b/c every full node has a copy of the database that houses the state and in large blockchain networks (e.g. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Chia) there is always a node available. It's definitely possible to build other HA systems that are not blockchains, but even spending top dollar for 99.99% availability you probably can't approach the uptime of a one of these blockchain networks and especially if you are running your own infra and not doing it on a public cloud provider.

Blockchains are great for proving ownership because you can provide a signature for verification and then that can be cross-referenced to see if that same signature also owns the on-chain data.

There is no getting around the fact that the government chooses the system of record and property owners have to abide that choice. If the government though chose to use a blockchain as the system of record (for all the benefits I listed previously), then you don't need to worry about other blockchains, because that's not the one the government cares about.

> It's not. NFTs are non-enforceable.

They are as non-enforceable as property deeds. (i.e. property deed enforce-ability relies on the government too)

> No they can't. I literally provided you with examples.

They absolutely can. If someone modifies the NFT on the blockchain you will see exactly when and by whom it was modified. This could be provided as evidence in court.

> I doubt that many people particularly care if property records are available 24/7, or are demanding the ability to update records outside of business hours. Individual pieces of property aren't bought and sold frequently enough to need to be able to be done instantaneously or at any time. Governments have a vested interest in being able to verify that transactions are legal and that identities are known so as to be able collect taxes.

Cryptographic signatures paired with identity information makes all transactions easily verifiable for tax collection purposes. There are purposes such as proving ownership of a record anytime someone needs to that would be convenient if the records are accessible 24/7.

> Ransomware or other attacks are always going to be a risk, and the more municipalities that use a single system, the bigger a target it becomes, so smaller but properly secured and backed up systems have advantages.

If the past is any indication, local governments and small businesses have had a heck of time securing their IT systems. I would much prefer a hardened blockchain system to secure my property ownership record, than the current situation.

> You literally said that all the data is stored somewhere else.

No, I didn't. The NFT would be stored on chain and inside the NFT would be hash of the data that is stored off chain. Anyone can then source the off chain data from any location and then compute the hash of that data and compare it with what is stored on chain.

> It stores some unenforceable token that is only valid as long as those who actually enforce ownership agree that it proves anything.

This is no different than any other system. What makes that Oracle database that your property assessor uses to store your parcel information in enforceable? Oh yeah, the government.

My original question illustrates that an NFT deed is interchangeable with a property deed. Public blockchains can help expose manipulations of property records because the history of record transactions are available for anyone to check. You don't get that with closed centralized property systems.

I think pretty much anyone would like systems to be available as much as possible, no? Any website (which nowadays most property assessors have sites) is vulnerable to DDoS attacks and even worse would be ransomware attacks. The system would be an improvement over their existing system and would likely be cheaper. Most city/town/county would pay for such a system as TCO is important to them.

I'm not sure what you think that proves? Government corruption has and will always exist. If anything, a public blockchain will make manipulation of property records more easily detectable.

I'm not sure how you made that jump in logic. The chain is absolutely needed as it stores and establishes cryptographic proof of ownership. This is the entire premise behind validity rollups for layer 2 networks.

> Of course it doesn't eliminate the need. Who's going to enter those records and enforce them?

The staff still does what they do today, but they no longer need to maintain their own database and IT application.

> Just because it's on blockchain doesn't mean it's standardised, or interoperable.

Once it is on a blockchain it is conforming to a published standard for NFTs for that particular blockchain and others can interact with it and build additional systems that interoperate more easily.

> Yup. Until a corrupt government official puts his friend as the owner of your house and evicts you. Look, the proof is in the blockchain, and it's irrefutable, and cannot be amended.

Because corrupt government officials have never doctored official records that weren't on the blockchain?

> This is just a string off made-up terms that make no sense

No, it's not. A Dapp stands for a "decentralized application" and posting property deeds as collateral is a real thing. Further, being able to do that digitally will likely lower processing costs.

No, it's not impossible. You don't need to store all state on chain. You will just need to store a hash of the off-chain data on chain. The supplemental off-chain data can be stored in standardized storage systems, which they themselves might be highly distributed and standardized. (e.g. IPFS)

How would you design an HA system that has literally 0 downtime and accessible from anywhere in the world that people can cryptographically prove ownership of a property? How would you prevent DDoS attacks of that system? Further, how would you keep costs low enough that a typical small city or township could afford said HA property system?

What value is the property deed? The house has the value - what's the property deed worth? If you have the property deed, are you the house owner?

NFTs are probably best thought of as ownership records or certificates for items that could be either digital goods or physical goods. If you want NFTs to be useful as an ownership record for a physical good, then there will need to be some authority in the physical world that agrees to use the NFTs on a specific blockchain as the system of record for transactions of that good. (e.g. local municipalities using NFTs on Ethereum to represent property deeds)

Some benefits of NFTs in the property deed example would be:

  - The elimination of the need for municipalities to maintain proprietary databases to hold property deeds
  - 24/7 globally accessible property information. (No downtime)
  - Standardized and globally interoperable property records across municipalities and potentially countries
  - Easy to prove and verify ownership of properties, which could be used to grant access to third party services for homeowners. (e.g. HELOCs)
  - Dapps could allow property owners to post the NFT deed as collateral and automate the loan application process to reduce processing costs.

Duplicacy has been incredibly stable for me over the years and I still prefer it's lock-free deduplication design. Looks like 28 days ago there was a major release as well. Time to upgrade. :)

https://github.com/gilbertchen/duplicacy

They are likely not solvent (i.e. they have enough liquid funds to cover everyone withdrawing their money all at once), but they apparently can cover a high percentage of USDT withdrawals. It is still very fishy b/c if you look at the lending rates on Bitfinex there is currently an 18.825% APR for USD. If there was really zero risk with USDT I think you'd see a whole lot more volume pumping through that system.

Yes, I think the two party commit example really illustrates the capabilities of the system.

Two-Party Commit: Using DataLayer offer files and proofs of inclusion, two people can coordinate a simultaneous (“atomic”) update of their respective data:

- Alice proposes an update, creating an offer file that includes proofs of inclusion of the added and changed rows she proposes to make in her own DataLayer tables and the rows she requests that Bob add or change in his tables.

- She saves the offer file and sends it to Bob.

- Bob opens the offer file and reviews the proposed changes to Alice’s DataLayer tables and the changes she requests of his DataLayer tables.

- If the changes are acceptable, Bob attaches an update to his DataLayer tables that includes at least the changes requested by Alice, and submits the completed offer to the blockchain.

- Both Alice’s and Bob’s DataLayer tables are simultaneously updated. If Bob had not completed the offer, neither table would be updated. Alice could have canceled the offer by updating her singleton, even if the update did not change the data.

If 90% of the nodes are controlled by Google, then I think the answer is clear that you do NOT in fact have a distributed system. If this occurs, then the system was not designed well and should be abandoned for a new one.

Agreed, you want the nodes to be controlled by many different entities globally, but that should be a function of the technical implementation of the distributed system rather than having to identify a responsible party that is accountable for this objective. Privacy is crucial to ensure a distributed system continues to function; otherwise, orgs or individuals running nodes could be censored in mass by authorities or participants may stop using the system due to security concerns.

> 4. By design, distributed consensus protocols diffuse responsibility for a function among several difficult-to-identify parties. While this may be an effective way to prevent some kinds of centralization, it also means that making someone accountable for how the function is performed is difficult, and often impossible. While the protocol might use cryptographic techniques to assure correct operation, they may not capture all requirements, and may not be correctly used by the protocol designers.

Ummm, what? If something is decentralized, then that's kind of the point that you can't hold "someone accountable for how the function is performed". If you could hold someone accountable, then you would be able to censor the function at that point of control. This just seems like a criticism of decentralization as a whole.

Also, at the beginning of the Decentralization Techniques section they said...

> "Choosing the appropriate techniques for decentralization requires balancing the specific goals of the function against centralization risk, because completely precluding all forms of centralization through technical means is rarely achievable."

So is it that decentralization is impossible to achieve or that it's achievable, but undesirable? I feel like I'm being gaslighted by the IETF.

This is exactly what Chia (https://www.chia.net) has done by using hard drive storage space to hold the proofs. This allows the generic hardware of general purpose computers with hard drives to operate profitable and energy efficient full nodes on the network. Especially if these are existing machines people already own. Also, the computing infrastructure needed to farm (mine) the plot files (files holding the proofs) is minimal enough that it can be run from a Raspberry Pi.

Ummm, yes, that was my original point. What does "one or more of the most popular open source projects on GitHub" mean exactly? Do you need a certain number of github stars on your project? Are you listed on some "most popular github projects specific page"? or what?