Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by dingaling on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @10:26AM
(#17809876)
In the UK the banks and property agencies are moving away from title deeds in a process called 'dematerialisation'
My deeds, dating back to 1949, no longer exist. They were shredded by Nationwide. I have a certified copy but they are considered of academic interest and 'proof of ownership' is now recorded by a database row. Which is terrifying, as a simple clerical error or a system failure could ruin so many lives.
Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by liveoneggs on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @02:02PM
(#17812118)
in the US banks managed to steal houses by just making claim on them because they have overwhelming authority.
Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by bena on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @10:54AM
(#17810113)
I mean, before a simple fire could have ruined those same lives. Also, paper isn't proof against clerical errors.
Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by chii on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @09:21PM
(#17815435)
Paper, if recognised legally means you have the responsibility to hold and present it as proof. You could keep the paper in a safety deposit. You can make certified copies.
If proof is electronic, you have no recourse if computer error causes a dispute, since you do not hold any proof yourself to present as evidence!
Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by eagsalazar2 on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @11:26AM
(#17810424)
There is a lot of blockchain over-hype, but this actually does seem like a pretty good use case.
Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by DiffEq on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @11:35AM
(#17810512)
...or just user the mechanism of a digital signature. No need for a block chain if implemented correctly.
Re:A million-dollar brownstone that no one owned
by eagsalazar2 on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @11:56AM
(#17810721)
Digital + govt agencies... high likelihood of screw ups. I still think blockchain makes sense here. Distributed verifiable record that doesn't depend on any single entity to do things right or be honest. That is a perfect fit for bc.
In the USA and most developed countries, we already do have a "proof of a chain of ownership". And, we've had it for hundreds of years. For example, the title deeds and transfer of title documents saved at the county courthouse.
The issue is whether the so-called "proof" is : authentic or forged, and/or conflicting with other prior claims. (E.g, is the title transfer document faked? Are the signatures from the real owners? Was the previous person who transferred the title the actual rightful owner?)
Ultimately, "proof" of ownership is a social consensus that sorts out the claims and converges on agreement of who owns what. (I made a previous comment about this.[1])
You might notice that "proof" is recursive: if we "prove" that the "proof" was valid, how do we know that proof is valid? Well, things like "title insurance" and/or a court case with a judge/jury to render a final judgement is the process to break that infinite cycle of "proof of proofs".
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14553867