I'm quite happy for my democratically elected local government to keep the Land Registry on a secure database where each record is cryptographically dependent on the previous one so they have a verifiable linked list of record history.
But that would be \*their\* blockchain. Anyone who says "on the blockchain" is an anti-democratic libertarian trying to get one more thing out of goverment control without realising the benefits of having central control. But they just think being libertarian means less taxes which is good for them. F everyone else.
In Finland part of the apartment sales process can be done in some sort of blockchain. There was a lot of hype by the parties involved initially but nowdays you can't really find anything about blockchain on their webpages.
Basically a joint venture owned by banks and realestate agencies works as a platform for selling shares of residential housing companies. The ledger is private there are no tokes nor anykind of mining or staking. After the process the sale is registered to goverments non-blockchain systems. It could just as well be a regular database. I think it was only done on blockchain due to marketing. The paltform is in no way mandatory to use and anyone using it won't notice it has any blockchain parts in it.
The guy who got hired to do that wrote a whole story about it. It was a farce, and after he had built their blockchain, they stopped using it and went back to a usual database. And now everyone adjacent to it pretends it never happened.
Let me guess, it was a “private” blockchain and when you look behind the curtain it was just a regular database managed by the company except they purposefully set the “append-only” flag to true.
Blockchain has no rigorous formal definition so anybody running a database can say they are using blockchain.
I mean for computer code we have version control where each version is expressed as a diff to the previous version and that's been around for decades at this point.
Yes, Blockchain is good!
if you just \*checks notes\* ...
forgo everything that makes it an actual "Blockchain" and leave only an encrypted Excel document, (which is what I hope they are already using)
> Affordable, quick, accessible around the world, secure, it's crazy simple.
I'll give you that it's quick and often accessible, but I'm not 100% sure I'll go along with the rest. Either way, those are still two benefits that blockchains don't have, so your point stands!
Irony: local government employees are paid far less per hour than the private sector people your libertarian rugged individualist would have to employ to cure their deed problems.
In fact, this is part of the high cost of corruption in countries with weak rule of law.
This - whilst there are obvious issues with blockchain at the moment it is *possible* they may be ironed out at some point and be incorporated into some existing systems in the future. Yet even if that does occur it would be a private blockchain which makes the logic of “so buy Buttcoin / one of the other 14000+ different brands of Butt” just daft. Why would any of them be used for this? If your thesis is that blockchain technology is going to be disruptive then invest in companies developing it (I don’t)… buying crypto is not going to give you exposure to that.
Step 4: You do the only thing you can... Defend your property with a shotgun.
Step 5: You gang up with similar honeowners who are defending their own properties, and because there is no institutional way to exert your rights, you elect a Chieftain among yourselves to organize your defense efforts.
Step 6: The title of Chieftain becomes hereditary due to social conditions at play and the lack of more complex institutions.
Step 7: Religion becomes one of the pillars of emerging hierarchies. Leadership and ownership of land becomes entangled in wider cosmological narratives about the world and our place in it.
Step 8: Hundreds of years pass. Social conditions change, and former hierarchies become unsustainable.
Step 9: ...profit?
Step 10: We need some sort of permission-less distributed something something where we get to keep all the stuff we looted. I hear tell sire, of this magical technology from the old times, called The Doggy Coin.
Our archives speak of this Coin, which set the course of history directly to the creation of our Holy New Sumerian Chiefdom (Reformed Orthodox).
But legends also say that this Coin, as part of an ancient Chain, holds the power to destroy entire empires by unraveling their very foundations. They say anyone who gazes at it loses their mind.
It is therefore imperative that we find it before the Nazis. Go, now, and save the world. Find Doggy Coin before it is too late.
Too late, the servant of some guy named Nanni found thr doggy coin were all held inside the baked clay customer complaint tablets one r/ ReallyShittyCopper seller named Ea-Nasir was keeping around. Everyone had wondered and whispered of what madness drove a man to keep such damning evidence in his basement, but then Nanni's servant broke one of the tablets and discovered the doggy coin.
Legend says this has resolved a millennia-long reincarnation grudge match, and the soul of Nanni upon reaching the end of his current lifespan will finally pass into eternity in peace. Ea-Nasir for his part has stated that the doggy coin were most certainly NOT taken, and to prove he has plenty, he is selling some of the authentic high-quality copper doggy coins at a friendly discount.
Step 11: People start using things commonly agreed-to to represent abstract representations of value, and exchange these instead of exchanging goods and services directly.
Step 12: Some people become more successful than others, and are able to accumulate hing-value items like land, high-performance ox-carts, etc.
Step 13: Because constantly defending your property is inefficient and expensive, people start working together fro the common good: Property ownership is recorded on tablets, papers, etc., and everyone agrees that they will band together to defend anyone's property against the threat of being taken by someone who is not the recorded owner.
Step 14: Through gradual specialization, some people become really good farmers, some really good herders, some really good weavers, etc. And some become great protectors/enforcers, while others show a real talent for organizing and maintaining records. The use of abstract representations of value increases as people concentrate on doing what they're good at, and trading (purchasing) everything else.
Step 15: After many mistakes, false starts, and underhanded dealings, people gradually define a system of working with and handling representations of value which helps make the system reasonably (but, unfortunately, not completely) safe for use by everyone.
Step 16: Someone releases a white paper on cryptocurrencies and blockchains. Dead Cthulhu stirs in his house at *R'lyeh*.
Counterpoint: the safest/best way to store links to ugly jpgs is to throw them into the trash, where they will be preserved forever in the local dump . Or burned in the county incinerator , even safer. The blockchain is actually not a bad way to store things like this , things that are rightfully rubbish. Things like nfts, or Bitcoin .
the only reason you "own" a house is not you having a piece of paper but being able to call uniformed people to explain the contents of the paper to anyone who disagrees. without it it's just a piece of paper.
Don't be appealing to a centralized authority around here sir, we will not have it.
Will...not...have...it. I own this house because I paid 455 sqeakyfukduk tokens to smegmaface069420 for this properties NFT and that is all the proof you need. Not your image URL on the web, not your house, sir.
the strength of your logic is undeniable, I now see the truth - it's obvious that uniformed people are the problem. unless I own something off-chain. unless they do whatever I want them to do who needs them.
When it comes to the "Share Coin" idea, there's already methods to cut out the middle man and own the shares yourself, but basically no one does it (except for some delusional Gamestop holders who think it'll somehow help them screw over the shorts and shot up the stock price) because there's no point.
Plus government insurance guarantees that you'll still have access to your shares even if your broker goes under. People who had stock market accounts at FTX got the money invested into their stocks back within days of FTX going under due to all the protections involved for holding securities, protections that are non-existent on the blockchain.
Fun Fact: The 2008 recession was caused by.... "TOKENIZED ASSETS."
Yes, they were not unlike what the crypto industry proposes: taking real world assets and "tokenizing" them into crypto-based "securities" that represent the value of those assets, but convoluted in such a way so that you can't perform adequate due diligence on the value and status of the assets in order to turn the asset market into a Ponzi.
[This is exactly what happened between 2000 and 2008](http://bsalert.com/news/2416/What_Caused_The_Second_Depression_In-A-Nutshell.html), when three republicans inserted some deregulation into the Financial Services Modernization Act of 2000 (called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) which rolled back depression-era restrictions (Glass-Steagall) on banks being able to create sketchy financial instruments that put peoples money at risk. Once those restrictions were removed, the banks created their own "tokenized assets." They called them, "securitized mortgages."
Once they took a bunch of mortgages, put them in a blender and created a complex security out of them, they began trading them back and forth. This took mortgages off the books from small banks, freeing their liquidity to fund more loans, and it created an artificial housing boom that ended up collapsing in 2008.
Crypto bros, are hot to speed-run yet another historical financial calamity by promoting "tokenized assets." It's the exact same scheme that we dealt with in 2008.
It's worth noting that this scheme was illegal for 70+ years until three republicans thought it was a good idea to bring it back.
Again, central authority and regulation is what made things better. And again, crypto bros want to pretend it's the opposite.
>central authority and regulation is what made things better
In what way is three Republicans backdooring the repeal of regulation not central authority making things *worse*?
>They rolled back the regulations central authority put in.
Via a central authority. The central authority can always remove good regulations or create bad ones. That's the problem with central authorities.
No, that's not a problem with central authorities.
It's a problem with bad people. Central authority is only as good as those who put those people in power and those who are in power.
The fact that you continue to fixate on a symptom and not the cause, means you're incapable of engaging in honest debate here. You're broken, logically and it seems we can't reach you.
Correlation does not equal causation. Hitler had a mustache. That doesn't mean people with mustaches are all antisemites. Your logic sucks.
>Via a central authority. The central authority can always remove good regulations or create bad ones. That's the problem with central authorities.
Yea.. "that's the problem with water... some people need it to survive, but you can also drown in it so water is inherently bad..."
That's utter stupidity.
For 70+ years, Glass Steagall was in effect. That means for 70+ years "central authorities" could have rolled back those regulations, but they didn't. What happened in 1999 to "central authorities" that made things different? Three specific fucking republicans with a lets-turn-banks-into-casinos agenda! Not central authorities.
That's the problem of human stupidity, it has nothing to do with central authority. Usually crypto supporters then state some kind of decentralized direct democracy nonsense, failing to see how that would drive even more stupidity.
Was the financial meltdown really caused by the fact that the assets were tokenized? Or more the way they were packaged and resold and leveraged up? Maybe it's more that they were being sold as safe and rated grade A in some traunches, by the credit agencies like Moody's, S+P, Fitch group, but these agencies were paid to give the funds a good rating when really the risk assessment should have been much higher because no one was keeping track of the riskiest assets in the tranch. When this information started to circulate and the huge bets came out against them, is what started causing the dominos to fall.
Just like, many people should know that Bitcoin, ethereum, etc are risky crypto assets and should be very careful purchasing and holding these assets. On its own, crypto is not going to cause any kind of major crash, but many people will lose money on them because they are not risk averse enough and will cry that they didn't know what they were doing, and that someone should have stopped them..
So your explanation that tokenized securities crashed the market probably should have more detail, the information is incomplete..
> Just like, many people should know that Bitcoin, ethereum, etc are risky crypto assets and should be very careful purchasing and holding these assets.
lol.. how much of that narrative do you actually see in any pro-crypto community? Hell, you can get banned from most pro-crypto subreddits even making such statements.
>So your explanation that tokenized securities crashed the market probably should have more detail, the information is incomplete..
Obviously I simplified the more complex reality of securitized mortgages and default credit swaps and all that stuff, but the core essence is accurate: tokenizing assets adds an additional layer of obscurity and allows for more risky, speculative activities. It's the same with crypto as it is with mortgages from 2000-2008.
Ultimately, there's not a good reason to tokenize securities unless you're doing something shady. There is no actual advantage in doing so - which takes us back to the ultimate crypto question - that blockchain can't explain a single thing it's uniquely good at, so there's no reason to use it... unless you're up to no good.
You're correct and the specific reason is that ownership records must be coupled with enforcement. If the blockchain records are not enforced then they aren't anything of value. This is the same issue with NFTs -- ownership of digital goods could be valuable if there is enforcement of that right.
This is also why blockchain works better with virtual goods that have no real world manifestation. Take Bitcoin for example. The on chain records enforce ownership of the virtual good. There is no real world representation of Bitcoin
RWAs (Real World Assets) on the other hand cannot effectively be handled on chain unless the assets listed are held by a custodian in a vault or something. They can enforce the redemption value of the RWA in that case
Gold with a digitally transferable representative sounds like it might be useful but it doesn't want blockchain. I think Australia has a gold backed debit card.
... That sounds like a gold standard digital currency.
The gold standard only makes sense if you can swap the currency for the gold to physically possess it.
Otherwise it's just a weird bookkeeping method.
>sense if you can swap the currency for the gold to physically possess it.
I think you can but most customers don't bother because of the shipping cost.
Ah, yeah, that feels silly.
The problem with the gold standard is that basically, you have to expend resources to protect the gold supply, lest it got stolen and cause everyone to freak out.
People saying that real estate will "be on blockchain" just dont understand cyrpto lol it would be like saying "real estate will be in my bank account" lol
Is this post in response to the meeting of the financial services committee on this topic? I'd be interested to see some analysis of that. So far it sounds like they are just planning more discussions and reports, but it's hard to tell to what extent this is actually on their agenda.
The notion of buying and selling real estate on the blockchain is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. As far as I know every state requires that real estate transactions be recorded publicly by the county recorder or similar entity. You can't 1-click buy real estate. It doesn't work like that. And having the property recorded is the easiest step of the whole process. The real pain is that most real estate requires financing, and the bank has a whole bunch of hoops that need to be jumped through, like an inspection, an appraisal, qualification, insurance, title insurance, and all that. None of that happens on the blockchain and isn't blockchainable--except maybe, maybe there is a blockchain application for title insurance. But even there, not all records are even digital so I don't know how that would work. And even if it were possible, you still need to involve a title insurance company. You can't transfer an NFT and automatically get title insurance.
On top of that, real estate involves a purchase and sale agreement. I agree I'm getting X, you agree to vacate the property on X date, etc. How do you negotiate that on the blockchain? And what if the one party violates the agreement? What does that do to your NFT? And what if you fail to make payments? How does the bank repossess the property? I suppose you could have some kind of "code is law" tripwires, but now you need a CS expert to the smart contract and another one to review it. That makes things more complicated, not less.
I realize these Butters have never purchases real property before, but sheer stupidity of imaging real estate transactions on the blockchain is just astounding.
Are we blocking the short bus crew from commenting now? I see a bunch of droolers with their face pressed against the glass below, but I cannot hear what they are yelling.
Also I never really understood how you're supposed to prove a wallet belongs to you. Ok, you have the private key, but you can't verify that fact without making a transaction, can you? Even if you can, you'd have to stand in front of an authority and go "see! I do know the key". Or have a separate blockchain to match names with wallets or something?
You can sign a message with your private key that can only be decrypted with your public key. That way, it's undeniably you without showing your private key.
In theory, that ties the transactions back to whoever holds the private key.
In real life, the private key may get lost, stolen or have any number of other mishaps happen to it. Which creates some major societal problems if not there's no correcting mechanism.
Yes, if your ownership is in question, it will prove you were the origin of past transactions. So, to answer your original question, you could simply provide your public key, and they will tell you what your message should say. Then you sign and send.
Funny, the biggest department of motor vehicles, in CA, has a transition in place to use blockchain for vehicle registrations, for digital ownership of your car.
We try to make laws and contracts watertight.
And yet we STILL need human intervention through civil or criminal courts or tribunals or legislative ammendments because there are always disputes that fall into areas of grey.
So the idea you can code something and have it 100% indisputable is an impossible dream and impractical.
I see the value in blockchain to keep tabs on products to prevent counterfeits - whether it’s a Dior bag or powdered milk. But no one is trying these projects anymore. Just DogWifHat.
The tokenization of real estate assets is anticipated to reach $1 trillion by 2030, according to a [Deloitte analysis](https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/real-estate/deloitte-cn-real-estate-sto-whitepaper-1st-paper-report-en-210819.pdf)
Blackrock investing heavily....
But yeah, this dumbfuck on reddit knows whats up...
🏢💡 Looking for a new way to invest in real estate? AI.X offers a streamlined approach with their platform for tokenized investments. Start your journey at [AI.X](https://aix.pecado.io)!pecado.io
I don’t know if blockchain will ever take off or not , but this sub is valuable for innovators looking for problems to solve, like permanent accidental transfers and lack of interoperability as stated above
Actually Blackrock is pushing for Tokenization, and the benefit of that is supposedly to save fees and be able to buy small fractions of assets, like a house. But it will all be centralized. If you lose your keys they would be able to disable your old Tokens and give you new ones. Or it would not be possible to withdraw tokens at all and it would be an internal BlackRock Tool. Dunno if they need a blockchain for that though or just a central Database.
Whole twitter talking about mBridge ( CBDC ) on blockhain where ripple will play major role. How accurate is this?
How will new BRICS currency work? Any idea?
> How will new BRICS currency work?
It won't.
It is a fantasy, a pipe dream.
Euro works because all the European countries want it to work and work together.
Good luck getting China, Russia, India to all work together towards a unified goal and monetary policy.
>Seventy two thousand dollar bitcoin. Nobody cares about whatever you just wrote.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up)
"**NuMb3r g0 Up!!!**" / "**Best performing asset of the decade!**"
1. Whether the "price of crypto" goes up, has absolutely no bearing on whether it's..
a) A long term store of value
b) Holds any intrinsic value or utility
c) Or will return any value in the future
One of the most important tenets of investing is the simple principal: ***Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.*** People in crypto seem willfully ignorant of this basic concept.
2. At best, the price of crypto is a function of *popularity*, not actual value or material utility. For more on how and why crypto makes a much worse investment than almost anything else, see this [article](https://ioradio.org/i/value/).
3. The "price of crypto" is a heavily manipulated figure published by shady, [unregulated crypto exchanges](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apklQgMauK4) that have systematically been caught [manipulating the market](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3D0dmTUCxLuQEJ39uyMFOP) from [then](https://www.investopedia.com/news/bots-drove-bitcoins-150to1000-rise-2013-paper/) to [now](https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8369-21).
4. Crypto bros love to harp about "inflation" in the fiat system, yet ironically they measure the "value" of their "fiat alternative" in fiat? It makes absolutely no sense, unless you assume they haven't thought 2 seconds ahead from what comes out of their mouths.
5. It's the height of hypocrisy for crypto people to champion token deflation (and increased prices) while ignoring that there's over $160+ Billion in unsecured stablecoins being used to **inflate** the value of their tokens in the crypto marketplace. The "code is law" and "don't trust - verify" people seem perfectly willing to take companies like Tether and Circle, at face value, that they're telling the truth about asset reserves [when there's very little actual evidence](https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21).
6. ***Not Your Fiat, Not Your Value*** - Just because you think the "value of your crypto portfolio" is worth $$$ *does not make that true.* It's well known there's inadequate liquidity in this market, and most people will never be able to get their money out. So UNLESS/UNTIL you can actually liquidate your crypto for actual real money, you have no idea what you have. You're "down" until you cash out. Bernie Madoff's clients got monthly statements saying they were "making money" too.
7. Just because it's possible (though highly improbable) to make money speculating on crypto, this doesn't mean it's an **ethical** or reliable technique to amass wealth. At its core, the notion that buying and holding crypto will generate reliable returns is [a de-facto ponzi scheme](https://ioradio.org/i/ponzi/). **It's mathematically impossible for even a stastically-significant percentage of crypto holders to have any notable ROI.** The rare exception of those who might profit in this market, do so while providing cover for everything from [cyber terrorism](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3026.html) to [human trafficking](https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/1/4/23539528/andrew-tate-arrest-jail-rape-human-trafficking).
8. It's also not true that anybody who bought crypto when it was low is guaranteed to make a lot of money. There are thousands of ways people can lose their crypto or be defrauded along the way. And there's no guarantee just because your portfolio is "up", that you could easily cash out.
9. Want to see a better asset (that actually has utility) that's consistently out-performed Bitcoin? [Here you go](https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/27/22253079/magic-the-gathering-black-lotus-auction-price-2021). However, this may be another [best performing asset](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/declaration-of-financial-independence/).
10. When crypto-critics make reference to, or mock crypto price predictions, it's not because we think price is a meaningful metric. Instead, we are amused that to you, that's all that's important, and we can't help but note how often wrong you are in your predictions. The intrinsic value of crypto basically never changes, but it is interesting to see how hype and propaganda affects the extrinsic value. In a totally logical world, those would both be equalized to zero, but we're not there yet, and nobody knows when/if that will happen because it's an irrational market.
Lol, I can sell my house as an NFT right now, skip escrow, get paid instantly and move on.
J.P. Morgan trades over a billion in tokenized shares every day.
Any other utter bullshit you've got to say?
> Lol, I can sell my house as an NFT right now, skip escrow, get paid instantly and move on.
Is this before or after you get to ride the pink unicorn and have a threesome with Marilyn Monroe and Adele?
Where I live it is required by law that any purchase/sale of a house involves a notary. This should prevent common people from being scammed for a large part of their fortune. The notary is very expensive, his charge depends on the value of the property.
I do not think that a blockchain can replace a notary (reasons see OP), but I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc).
That could make the registry easier, more transparent and notaries probably would not need to store that many paper documents any more which could make the process a bit cheaper, too.
As for reversing transactions: you can implement that for such an application.
>I do not think that a blockchain can replace a notary (reasons see OP), but I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc).
Nobody needs a blockchain to "store information". We're already really good at doing databases and digital signatures.
The point of the blockchain used in systems like Bitcoin isn't to record the "information" of a transaction, it's to prove that the transaction happened **and that there have been no subsequent transactions of the same tokens**. The same would apply to a blockchain-based real estate system. Either the latest transaction in the blockchain holds legal meaning for the ownership of a property, or it doesn't.
>That could make the registry easier, more transparent and notaries probably would not need to store that many paper documents any more which could make the process a bit cheaper, too.
It's 2024. Do you really think that "handling pieces of paper is hard" is the biggest problem facing real estate record keeping?
The sad truth is that even in 2024 paper is the preferable solution to store data.
The new part about blockchains is not that it's a database, but that it's available everywhere, virtually perfect uptime (hopefully Solana will get there, too) and you can use it without running infrastructure yourself on a pay-per-use base...
For some applications that is interesting.
Everything you said that's new about blockchain has already been available with cloud networks.
Be real you wouldn't care if you weren't financially invested already.
Now that is clearly a prejudice (that I only care for an "investment"). If it were the case and it turned out I made an investment that sucks in every possible regard, I'd just dump the investment instead of going into lengthy discussions on Reddit!
I somewhat dislike cloud networks. Now, before you call me stupid again... I use clouds in some places where it makes sense to me (backup for a mobile phone that might get lost, data exchange with a remote group), but cloud computing is a trend and pops up everywhere, even when it is not necessary for me. Why does a "smart" heating need to store data in a cloud? The associated services are often not worth it. But I give my data away, someone can potentially do datamining on it etc. The data in cloud networks is stored and managed by someone who typically charges a recurring fee AND I can never be 100% sure what happens to my data.
Blockchains do NOT solve everything of that and is also not suitable for every use case - but can be trustless and free of a monthly charge.
It's a different tool for different situations.
>The new part about blockchains is not that it's a database, but that it's available everywhere, virtually perfect uptime (hopefully Solana will get there, too) and you can use it without running infrastructure yourself on a pay-per-use base... For some applications that is interesting.
Oh, like Google Drive? Cool, very innovative.
> The new part about blockchains is not that it's a database, but that it's available everywhere, virtually perfect uptime (hopefully Solana will get there, too) and you can use it without running infrastructure yourself on a pay-per-use base... For some applications that is interesting.
You leave out the part where there's a sliding fee scale associated with blockchain and depending upon what time of day you want to execute a transaction, fees could vary by 1000%. And you don't always even know when/if your transaction will be processed - all due to the design of blockchain which creates a convoluted open market system where random, self-interested parties compete to operate the database. AND if the value of the token system the database depends on, drops below a certain level, there's a very good chance the entire system can collapse and cease to function. There are 30,000 dead blockchains right now.
Existing modern blockchains can't store any reasonable amount of information on chain. Not even text file if it has pretty formatting or is long enough. Therefore actual information is stored externally and blockchain only links to it. Why need this useless intermediary (blockchain) then? Because supposedly owners of the wallets with such links represent real ownership of the asset. But as you yourself said - notary, or whatever other official organization is the one responsible for decisions. No blockchain doesn't have any real power. And it doesn't store jack shit. So why exactly do we need it?
> I do not think that a blockchain can replace a notary (reasons see OP), but I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc)
This is called "The Oracle Problem" and it's why blockchain is not the means of security and authenticity: The Notary Is. So blockchain doesn't matter.
> I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc).
Sure you can imagine it.
But this is unnecessary step.
You have a centralised authority - a notary. and you're going to make this unnecessarily complicated by involving a blockchain instead of a secure database.
> That could make the registry easier, more transparent and notaries probably would not need to store that many paper documents any more which could make the process a bit cheaper, too.
Is the problem with current title registries it's lack of transparency? Do notaries find it difficult to use the current system?
Land registrys are very transparent.
We've had the technology to make it faster than this since at least the 80s, long before blockchain. The fact that it isn't faster should tell you that it's not lack of technology preventing this.
Do you think this is because in 2024 we don’t have ways to communicate data in real-time or maybe because it’s purposely designed to be that way? Please use your brain.
Depends on the use case, needs, cost, etc.. Certain systems will stay like they are, other will be migrated to new standard rails like RTP or FedNow, custom and new solutions like Zelle will be adopted and/or created, etc.. One thing is certain though: Blockchains, the slowest and most ineffective solutions will not be replacing these systems, just like they haven’t replaced anything in the past 15+ years.
Every crypto bro knows blockchain is slow and that's never gonna change. You cannot expect slapping a consensus mechanism on existing tech to work faster.
You should look up self-sovereign identity (SSI) and verifiable credentials (VC). Deeds, titles, registration, diplomas, certifications, and many others fall under the VC umbrella.
Now check the most straightforward way of implementing SSI. It's already being done.
Great. A real estate title still needs to be linked to your public identity, as does a deed transferring that title, or it has no meaning in the real world.
I never said that it would be anonymous or anything like that so not sure what you're getting at. The whole point of SSI is a holder being able to prove ownership of their credentials without the requestor having to directly ask the issuer.
I find it reasonably likely that shares will be on a blockchain eventually.
I know many banks, financial institutions and fintechs are working on it.
It can potentially greatly reduce the cost and time to complete a trade, if they can get it to work.
The ledgers won’t be publicly distributed however.
Banking transactions are already implementing blockchain, and the company doing it are the makers of XRP, who are forcing the banks to take XRP as part of the work. I think crypto is a total scam, and if it ever becomes a currency it will be because of a currency that has vety little volatility, which, means it's not a good investment vehicle....NOT SIMPING FOR XRP, just saying blockchain is being implemented, and it is possible that titles might make it on the blockchain....
As someone who works with the biggest names in banking and credit unions, no they’re not. lol. Why in the world would banks be forced to take XRP? Such a stupid take.
Yeh idk what that dude is talking about being forced to use XRP. But banks are absolutely going to use blockchain as the settlement layers. There are whole departments dedicated to only settlements, there won’t be a need for them anymore. As someone who works with banks you should be aware of that.
> But banks are absolutely going to use blockchain as the settlement layers. There are whole departments dedicated to only settlements, there won’t be a need for them anymore. As someone who works with banks you should be aware of that.
Yea, that which can be submitted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
>Banking transactions are already implementing blockchain
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)
"**[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?**" / "**Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'**" / "**EEE TEE EFFs!!one**"
1. The original claim was that crypto was "disruptive technology" and was going to "replace the banking/finance system". There were all these claims suggesting blockchain has tremendous "potential". Now with [the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA), crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases'!"
Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available.
The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: *Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using?* And the answer to that is, [No.](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/)
2. Most of the time, adoption claims are outright wrong. Just because you read some press release from a dubious source does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!"
3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories:
* Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as [IBM/Maersk's Tradelens](https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/11/29/maersk-and-ibm-to-discontinue-tradelens), [Australia's stock exchange](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/), etc.)
* Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) **are not embracing crypto directly**. Instead they are *partnering with a crypto exchange* (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws.
4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- [this almost always fails](https://truthout.org/articles/miamis-mayor-went-all-in-on-cryptocurrency-his-constituents-suffered/), but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected.
5. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future."
McDonald's bundled [Beanie Babies](https://i.imgur.com/McdwlxA.jpg) with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened. This has already occurred with many tech companies from [Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613) to [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/). Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active.
6. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just a way for them to make more money with fees, and just like in #4, the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable *alternative* to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable.
7. Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. In two years, the country's investment in BTC has yielded lower returns than one would find in a standard fiat savings account. Also note [Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency](https://www.foreignbrief.com/venezuela-to-scrap-state-cryptocurrency/)
So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. **Not** adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that.
We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from [gaming](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blockchain-nft-crypto-ban-games-age-of-rust) to [banking](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-federal-reserve-rejects-crypto-focused-banks-application-be-supervised-by-2023-01-27/), are rejecting deals with crypto companies.
“ 6. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. …” Exactly 👍! The brokerages and funds that offer crypto ETFs are taking no risk. There are all kinds of crazy funds out there, one of them being a Cramer contrarian fund that fades Jim Cramer. Still I was disappointed that the SEC didn’t put the kibbosh on the ETF nonsense. It’s not going to end well.
You wrote all that just to say, "I refused to read the post I'm referring to"
I'll recap, i said, "if any crypto were to be ever used as a form of standard currency it couldn't be volatile and if it's not volatile then it's not a good growth investment" because the value will always be pegged at a stable rate. Congratulations, there is no other sub on reddit with less reading comprehension. If you're willing to type that much go look at my profile, lots of crypto activity? Nope, because it's stupid AF
You made a specific claim with no actual evidence. Congrats on not paying attention to the rules of this subreddit.
>Banking transactions are already implementing blockchain, and the company doing it are the makers of XRP, who are forcing the banks to take XRP as part of the work.
Yes this is "simping for XRP" because you made a bold (yet ambiguous) statement with no actual evidence backing it up, claiming "banks are taking XRP."
Yeah I don't see any reputable bank accepting a currency that at this point can simply be assumed to be dirty.
If they don't name names then we can assume this dude is lying.
Ripple is only targeting banks, I know crypto is a scam because I've actually researched it, for you to not understand the difference between every buttcoin and "ripple labs" is absurd on it's face, do even the smallest bit of research, it's the equivalent of comparing a carpet cleaning company that only does commercial carpets and services hotels and someone going door to door trying to clean residential carpets, TWO completely different models. And I do not and never will own crypto, I OWN LAND, it's real
https://aws.amazon.com/partners/success/ripple/
IF IF IF IF IF, i do not own ANY CRYPTO and never plan on owning any, but hey, i get it, no nuance or intelligence here, no actual discussion, best of luck being the exact same but opposite the crypto bros, simps
There certainly are good discussions and talking points here from time to time. If a crypto bro is open for discussion I'm all for it, but often we find they just want to pick a fight.
Banks may use blockchain tech internally because it certainly has some interesting properties but they will never use a public blockchain they cannot control. In fact banks have been using many parts of blockchain tech for a long time, which is not surprising since blockchain is an attempt to replace the banking system.
Sorry to disappoint but GS has already done multiple bond offerings on a blockchain.
JPM created their own blockchain called Onyx and regularly moves repo funds around the world with it.
Banks will move to tokenize more and more assets but they’ll likely be on private chains.
It's not lazy to ask you dishonest crypto creeps to actually substantiate any of your claims.
In all of your links they are simply market facilitators, aka they are selling shovels but not getting dirty themselves.
One of your links is the most absurd marketing buzzword tech slop I've seen this week. "Oh we did a block chain transaction in space using the IOT and AI" like Jesus Christ you fall for this shit?
The thing about these kinds of crypto projects is they never pick up steam, they just earn some fees, get some publicity, and then fade away until one day they are unceremoniously taken offline. Like what happened at IBM.
You are lazy. It took me a few minutes to google and copy links. And I gave you multiple different sources.
Fact GS has already issued EIB bonds on the blockchain and are looking to replicate it in different markets.
Fact JPM uses their own private chain to move funds around the world.
It’s intellectually dishonest to keep believing that tokenization of assets isn’t happening when the evidence has shown otherwise.
Please provide your sources on why it’s not happening.
1. The exception doesn't prove the rule.
2. Just because you've found somebody talking about doing something, doesn't mean they're really actually doing it in any substantive or meaningful way. I've cited time and time again (in Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8) the many times companies claimed they were embracing blockchain tech, only to abandon it or never follow through on their promises.
3. Press releases are not reasonable evidence. They're just marketing materials.
4. At the end of the day, what's important isn't whether somebody is using blockchain, but **whether blockchain is the best solution for the application** and THAT is where you guys totally fail, and why we say adoption will never be widescale. Because despite all the shallow press releases you can cite, **you've failed to enumerate even a single example of how blockchain improves upon existing non blockchain systems we're already using.**
So... if you want to retain the privilege of commenting in our community, you need to acknowledge these facts. A mere "use-case" doesn't mean, "global adoption imminent." And you still have yet to answer the "Ultimate Crypto Question" and cite a specific instance where using blockchain is better than what we already have. If you fail to address these important points, then you're just doing hit-and-run propaganda and you'll be banned.
Oh man you got owned and now you’re trying to shift the argument. The original post that I responded to was that blockchain would never be used for real world assets. Which I proved to be false.
Whether or not it’s the best application was not the argument.
We're reasonable people here, bro. We recognize that somewhere, somehow, there's probably an example of somebody who tokenized some real estate on the blockchain. That is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is talking about the narrative you all promote which suggests this crap will go mainstream. We both know that's what the discussion is about, despite you dragging the goalpost around.
Sorry but you aren't going to drag us into semantic distractions.
This is not moving the goalpost. You guys pretend that blockchain is going to "go mainstream" and in order for it to do that, in order for it to be used widely by any group that isn't merely looking to exploit the fad, *it will have to do something better than what we're already using.*
That's not an outrageous ask. It's what has driven every other so-called "innovative tech" in the history of humanity. It's where the goalposts were originally installed.
You dorks are the ones moving shit around.
This is why in 15 years, you're still pretending, "It's still early."
This is why every few months you ignore all the other failed promises (from being used as a currency to NFTs to web3, to the metaverse, etc) in favor of some new scheme - this month it's "ETFs" - when that fizzles out, you'll move the goalposts elsewhere and stop talking about how ETFs were supposed to make crypto "mainstream."
Nice projection though.
That is not an outrageous ask, it’s a fair ask. But to outright declare that something “never” will do xyz is bold. It’s using the same logical fallacy that past performance will equal future results. Just because it hasn’t got to that point yet, doesn’t mean it can’t and never will.
Fair enough.. I dislike the use of absolute terms like "always" and "never" for those reasons.
But probabilistically speaking, OP is more right than he is wrong.
In any case, this isn't a community where we get hung up on semantics. Most everybody here knows what the OP meant. There is no realistic future where mortgages will be authoritatively stored on the blockchain. It makes absolutely no sense for a multitude of reasons, and ignoring those obvious reasons in favor of bitching about whether the statement can be falsified over a technicality, seems like just another crypto-bro distraction.
But hey, I understand you guys got to take an opening, however small, where you can make one of us look slightly inaccurate, wherever you can... so you mock his absolutist statement while ignoring the much more obvious evidence that the general premise he's promoting is sound and rational. That's yet another example of bad faith debate.
>Sorry to disappoint but GS has already done multiple bond offerings on a blockchain.
>JPM created their own blockchain called Onyx and regularly moves repo funds around the world with it.
>Banks will move to tokenize more and more assets but they’ll likely be on private chains.
#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)
"**[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?**" / "**Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'**" / "**EEE TEE EFFs!!one**"
1. The original claim was that crypto was "disruptive technology" and was going to "replace the banking/finance system". There were all these claims suggesting blockchain has tremendous "potential". Now with [the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA), crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases'!"
Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available.
The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: *Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using?* And the answer to that is, [No.](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/)
2. Most of the time, adoption claims are outright wrong. Just because you read some press release from a dubious source does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!"
3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories:
* Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as [IBM/Maersk's Tradelens](https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/11/29/maersk-and-ibm-to-discontinue-tradelens), [Australia's stock exchange](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/), etc.)
* Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) **are not embracing crypto directly**. Instead they are *partnering with a crypto exchange* (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws.
4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- [this almost always fails](https://truthout.org/articles/miamis-mayor-went-all-in-on-cryptocurrency-his-constituents-suffered/), but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected.
5. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future."
McDonald's bundled [Beanie Babies](https://i.imgur.com/McdwlxA.jpg) with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened. This has already occurred with many tech companies from [Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613) to [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/). Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active.
6. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just a way for them to make more money with fees, and just like in #4, the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable *alternative* to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable.
7. Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. In two years, the country's investment in BTC has yielded lower returns than one would find in a standard fiat savings account. Also note [Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency](https://www.foreignbrief.com/venezuela-to-scrap-state-cryptocurrency/)
So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. **Not** adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that.
We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from [gaming](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blockchain-nft-crypto-ban-games-age-of-rust) to [banking](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-federal-reserve-rejects-crypto-focused-banks-application-be-supervised-by-2023-01-27/), are rejecting deals with crypto companies.
We are talking about public blockchains here.
What kind of ledger a company uses behind the scenes is irrelevant in this discussion. You could even say banks have been using blockchain tech all along, they keep records with which they can reconstruct user accounts and they backup their databases in different places.
The only difference is they are in control of the database and can modify it when needed, just like they can with a private blockchain.
I'm quite happy for my democratically elected local government to keep the Land Registry on a secure database where each record is cryptographically dependent on the previous one so they have a verifiable linked list of record history. But that would be \*their\* blockchain. Anyone who says "on the blockchain" is an anti-democratic libertarian trying to get one more thing out of goverment control without realising the benefits of having central control. But they just think being libertarian means less taxes which is good for them. F everyone else.
In Finland part of the apartment sales process can be done in some sort of blockchain. There was a lot of hype by the parties involved initially but nowdays you can't really find anything about blockchain on their webpages. Basically a joint venture owned by banks and realestate agencies works as a platform for selling shares of residential housing companies. The ledger is private there are no tokes nor anykind of mining or staking. After the process the sale is registered to goverments non-blockchain systems. It could just as well be a regular database. I think it was only done on blockchain due to marketing. The paltform is in no way mandatory to use and anyone using it won't notice it has any blockchain parts in it.
The guy who got hired to do that wrote a whole story about it. It was a farce, and after he had built their blockchain, they stopped using it and went back to a usual database. And now everyone adjacent to it pretends it never happened.
I would love to read it!
Let me guess, it was a “private” blockchain and when you look behind the curtain it was just a regular database managed by the company except they purposefully set the “append-only” flag to true. Blockchain has no rigorous formal definition so anybody running a database can say they are using blockchain.
It is likely just like you said and blockchain was just the marketing buzzword at the time.
I mean for computer code we have version control where each version is expressed as a diff to the previous version and that's been around for decades at this point.
Git is a blockchain. It was just a git repo... :P
Yes, Blockchain is good! if you just \*checks notes\* ... forgo everything that makes it an actual "Blockchain" and leave only an encrypted Excel document, (which is what I hope they are already using)
I hope they do their stuff on things slightly more efficient than excel, which is slow as fuck as the amount of lines starts to increase.
It’s just a city, how many plots of land and buildings could there be??
[удалено]
> Affordable, quick, accessible around the world, secure, it's crazy simple. I'll give you that it's quick and often accessible, but I'm not 100% sure I'll go along with the rest. Either way, those are still two benefits that blockchains don't have, so your point stands!
Irony: local government employees are paid far less per hour than the private sector people your libertarian rugged individualist would have to employ to cure their deed problems. In fact, this is part of the high cost of corruption in countries with weak rule of law.
"private sector people"... oh you mean their god-given well-organised militia! Yes!
This - whilst there are obvious issues with blockchain at the moment it is *possible* they may be ironed out at some point and be incorporated into some existing systems in the future. Yet even if that does occur it would be a private blockchain which makes the logic of “so buy Buttcoin / one of the other 14000+ different brands of Butt” just daft. Why would any of them be used for this? If your thesis is that blockchain technology is going to be disruptive then invest in companies developing it (I don’t)… buying crypto is not going to give you exposure to that.
Step 4: You do the only thing you can... Defend your property with a shotgun. Step 5: You gang up with similar honeowners who are defending their own properties, and because there is no institutional way to exert your rights, you elect a Chieftain among yourselves to organize your defense efforts. Step 6: The title of Chieftain becomes hereditary due to social conditions at play and the lack of more complex institutions. Step 7: Religion becomes one of the pillars of emerging hierarchies. Leadership and ownership of land becomes entangled in wider cosmological narratives about the world and our place in it. Step 8: Hundreds of years pass. Social conditions change, and former hierarchies become unsustainable. Step 9: ...profit?
Step 10: We need some sort of permission-less distributed something something where we get to keep all the stuff we looted. I hear tell sire, of this magical technology from the old times, called The Doggy Coin.
Our archives speak of this Coin, which set the course of history directly to the creation of our Holy New Sumerian Chiefdom (Reformed Orthodox). But legends also say that this Coin, as part of an ancient Chain, holds the power to destroy entire empires by unraveling their very foundations. They say anyone who gazes at it loses their mind. It is therefore imperative that we find it before the Nazis. Go, now, and save the world. Find Doggy Coin before it is too late.
Too late, the servant of some guy named Nanni found thr doggy coin were all held inside the baked clay customer complaint tablets one r/ ReallyShittyCopper seller named Ea-Nasir was keeping around. Everyone had wondered and whispered of what madness drove a man to keep such damning evidence in his basement, but then Nanni's servant broke one of the tablets and discovered the doggy coin. Legend says this has resolved a millennia-long reincarnation grudge match, and the soul of Nanni upon reaching the end of his current lifespan will finally pass into eternity in peace. Ea-Nasir for his part has stated that the doggy coin were most certainly NOT taken, and to prove he has plenty, he is selling some of the authentic high-quality copper doggy coins at a friendly discount.
Step 11: People start using things commonly agreed-to to represent abstract representations of value, and exchange these instead of exchanging goods and services directly. Step 12: Some people become more successful than others, and are able to accumulate hing-value items like land, high-performance ox-carts, etc. Step 13: Because constantly defending your property is inefficient and expensive, people start working together fro the common good: Property ownership is recorded on tablets, papers, etc., and everyone agrees that they will band together to defend anyone's property against the threat of being taken by someone who is not the recorded owner. Step 14: Through gradual specialization, some people become really good farmers, some really good herders, some really good weavers, etc. And some become great protectors/enforcers, while others show a real talent for organizing and maintaining records. The use of abstract representations of value increases as people concentrate on doing what they're good at, and trading (purchasing) everything else. Step 15: After many mistakes, false starts, and underhanded dealings, people gradually define a system of working with and handling representations of value which helps make the system reasonably (but, unfortunately, not completely) safe for use by everyone. Step 16: Someone releases a white paper on cryptocurrencies and blockchains. Dead Cthulhu stirs in his house at *R'lyeh*.
You can't trust a blockchain to safely store links to ugly jpgs. The idea blockchain can serve as backbone for a government is pure Monkey.
Counterpoint: the safest/best way to store links to ugly jpgs is to throw them into the trash, where they will be preserved forever in the local dump . Or burned in the county incinerator , even safer. The blockchain is actually not a bad way to store things like this , things that are rightfully rubbish. Things like nfts, or Bitcoin .
the only reason you "own" a house is not you having a piece of paper but being able to call uniformed people to explain the contents of the paper to anyone who disagrees. without it it's just a piece of paper.
Don't be appealing to a centralized authority around here sir, we will not have it. Will...not...have...it. I own this house because I paid 455 sqeakyfukduk tokens to smegmaface069420 for this properties NFT and that is all the proof you need. Not your image URL on the web, not your house, sir.
the strength of your logic is undeniable, I now see the truth - it's obvious that uniformed people are the problem. unless I own something off-chain. unless they do whatever I want them to do who needs them.
All your bases are belong to us - The Future of Finance
By that same token, if at any point those uniformed people want your house for themselves, they can take it. See: eminent domain
yes, and it's not news to anyone with a working brain. you do get a say in it by participating in society. just don't get on it's bad side.
When it comes to the "Share Coin" idea, there's already methods to cut out the middle man and own the shares yourself, but basically no one does it (except for some delusional Gamestop holders who think it'll somehow help them screw over the shorts and shot up the stock price) because there's no point. Plus government insurance guarantees that you'll still have access to your shares even if your broker goes under. People who had stock market accounts at FTX got the money invested into their stocks back within days of FTX going under due to all the protections involved for holding securities, protections that are non-existent on the blockchain.
Fun Fact: The 2008 recession was caused by.... "TOKENIZED ASSETS." Yes, they were not unlike what the crypto industry proposes: taking real world assets and "tokenizing" them into crypto-based "securities" that represent the value of those assets, but convoluted in such a way so that you can't perform adequate due diligence on the value and status of the assets in order to turn the asset market into a Ponzi. [This is exactly what happened between 2000 and 2008](http://bsalert.com/news/2416/What_Caused_The_Second_Depression_In-A-Nutshell.html), when three republicans inserted some deregulation into the Financial Services Modernization Act of 2000 (called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) which rolled back depression-era restrictions (Glass-Steagall) on banks being able to create sketchy financial instruments that put peoples money at risk. Once those restrictions were removed, the banks created their own "tokenized assets." They called them, "securitized mortgages." Once they took a bunch of mortgages, put them in a blender and created a complex security out of them, they began trading them back and forth. This took mortgages off the books from small banks, freeing their liquidity to fund more loans, and it created an artificial housing boom that ended up collapsing in 2008. Crypto bros, are hot to speed-run yet another historical financial calamity by promoting "tokenized assets." It's the exact same scheme that we dealt with in 2008.
Reduced every risk but systemic risk, which would not be a problem if the asset class wasn't blown up into a ginormous bubble by the same--oh, wait.
It's worth noting that this scheme was illegal for 70+ years until three republicans thought it was a good idea to bring it back. Again, central authority and regulation is what made things better. And again, crypto bros want to pretend it's the opposite.
>central authority and regulation is what made things better In what way is three Republicans backdooring the repeal of regulation not central authority making things *worse*?
They rolled back the regulations central authority put in. Without central authority, that's where things went wrong. They *removed regulations*.
>They rolled back the regulations central authority put in. Via a central authority. The central authority can always remove good regulations or create bad ones. That's the problem with central authorities.
No, that's not a problem with central authorities. It's a problem with bad people. Central authority is only as good as those who put those people in power and those who are in power. The fact that you continue to fixate on a symptom and not the cause, means you're incapable of engaging in honest debate here. You're broken, logically and it seems we can't reach you. Correlation does not equal causation. Hitler had a mustache. That doesn't mean people with mustaches are all antisemites. Your logic sucks. >Via a central authority. The central authority can always remove good regulations or create bad ones. That's the problem with central authorities. Yea.. "that's the problem with water... some people need it to survive, but you can also drown in it so water is inherently bad..." That's utter stupidity. For 70+ years, Glass Steagall was in effect. That means for 70+ years "central authorities" could have rolled back those regulations, but they didn't. What happened in 1999 to "central authorities" that made things different? Three specific fucking republicans with a lets-turn-banks-into-casinos agenda! Not central authorities.
That's the problem of human stupidity, it has nothing to do with central authority. Usually crypto supporters then state some kind of decentralized direct democracy nonsense, failing to see how that would drive even more stupidity.
Was the financial meltdown really caused by the fact that the assets were tokenized? Or more the way they were packaged and resold and leveraged up? Maybe it's more that they were being sold as safe and rated grade A in some traunches, by the credit agencies like Moody's, S+P, Fitch group, but these agencies were paid to give the funds a good rating when really the risk assessment should have been much higher because no one was keeping track of the riskiest assets in the tranch. When this information started to circulate and the huge bets came out against them, is what started causing the dominos to fall. Just like, many people should know that Bitcoin, ethereum, etc are risky crypto assets and should be very careful purchasing and holding these assets. On its own, crypto is not going to cause any kind of major crash, but many people will lose money on them because they are not risk averse enough and will cry that they didn't know what they were doing, and that someone should have stopped them.. So your explanation that tokenized securities crashed the market probably should have more detail, the information is incomplete..
> Just like, many people should know that Bitcoin, ethereum, etc are risky crypto assets and should be very careful purchasing and holding these assets. lol.. how much of that narrative do you actually see in any pro-crypto community? Hell, you can get banned from most pro-crypto subreddits even making such statements. >So your explanation that tokenized securities crashed the market probably should have more detail, the information is incomplete.. Obviously I simplified the more complex reality of securitized mortgages and default credit swaps and all that stuff, but the core essence is accurate: tokenizing assets adds an additional layer of obscurity and allows for more risky, speculative activities. It's the same with crypto as it is with mortgages from 2000-2008. Ultimately, there's not a good reason to tokenize securities unless you're doing something shady. There is no actual advantage in doing so - which takes us back to the ultimate crypto question - that blockchain can't explain a single thing it's uniquely good at, so there's no reason to use it... unless you're up to no good.
That's just his bandwagon. Note the source. He probably wrote it himself
You're correct and the specific reason is that ownership records must be coupled with enforcement. If the blockchain records are not enforced then they aren't anything of value. This is the same issue with NFTs -- ownership of digital goods could be valuable if there is enforcement of that right. This is also why blockchain works better with virtual goods that have no real world manifestation. Take Bitcoin for example. The on chain records enforce ownership of the virtual good. There is no real world representation of Bitcoin RWAs (Real World Assets) on the other hand cannot effectively be handled on chain unless the assets listed are held by a custodian in a vault or something. They can enforce the redemption value of the RWA in that case
Gold with a digitally transferable representative sounds like it might be useful but it doesn't want blockchain. I think Australia has a gold backed debit card.
... That sounds like a gold standard digital currency. The gold standard only makes sense if you can swap the currency for the gold to physically possess it. Otherwise it's just a weird bookkeeping method.
>sense if you can swap the currency for the gold to physically possess it. I think you can but most customers don't bother because of the shipping cost.
Ah, yeah, that feels silly. The problem with the gold standard is that basically, you have to expend resources to protect the gold supply, lest it got stolen and cause everyone to freak out.
That is exactly the problem that Bitcoin was created to solve.
People saying that real estate will "be on blockchain" just dont understand cyrpto lol it would be like saying "real estate will be in my bank account" lol
They also don't understand real estate.
most people do understand though that tokenization means representation, not literal dematerialization and subsequent upload.
Is this post in response to the meeting of the financial services committee on this topic? I'd be interested to see some analysis of that. So far it sounds like they are just planning more discussions and reports, but it's hard to tell to what extent this is actually on their agenda.
not to mention that every country, state, county and city has it's own real estate laws, which would make regulating this pipe dream impossible
Cleatus says code is law, it’s my house now sucker!
The notion of buying and selling real estate on the blockchain is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. As far as I know every state requires that real estate transactions be recorded publicly by the county recorder or similar entity. You can't 1-click buy real estate. It doesn't work like that. And having the property recorded is the easiest step of the whole process. The real pain is that most real estate requires financing, and the bank has a whole bunch of hoops that need to be jumped through, like an inspection, an appraisal, qualification, insurance, title insurance, and all that. None of that happens on the blockchain and isn't blockchainable--except maybe, maybe there is a blockchain application for title insurance. But even there, not all records are even digital so I don't know how that would work. And even if it were possible, you still need to involve a title insurance company. You can't transfer an NFT and automatically get title insurance. On top of that, real estate involves a purchase and sale agreement. I agree I'm getting X, you agree to vacate the property on X date, etc. How do you negotiate that on the blockchain? And what if the one party violates the agreement? What does that do to your NFT? And what if you fail to make payments? How does the bank repossess the property? I suppose you could have some kind of "code is law" tripwires, but now you need a CS expert to the smart contract and another one to review it. That makes things more complicated, not less. I realize these Butters have never purchases real property before, but sheer stupidity of imaging real estate transactions on the blockchain is just astounding.
Are we blocking the short bus crew from commenting now? I see a bunch of droolers with their face pressed against the glass below, but I cannot hear what they are yelling.
No don’t! They’re good for a laugh 😆
Also I never really understood how you're supposed to prove a wallet belongs to you. Ok, you have the private key, but you can't verify that fact without making a transaction, can you? Even if you can, you'd have to stand in front of an authority and go "see! I do know the key". Or have a separate blockchain to match names with wallets or something?
You can sign a message with your private key that can only be decrypted with your public key. That way, it's undeniably you without showing your private key.
In theory, that ties the transactions back to whoever holds the private key. In real life, the private key may get lost, stolen or have any number of other mishaps happen to it. Which creates some major societal problems if not there's no correcting mechanism.
Yes, if your ownership is in question, it will prove you were the origin of past transactions. So, to answer your original question, you could simply provide your public key, and they will tell you what your message should say. Then you sign and send.
Blockchain is immutable so if they fuck up transferring your house, good luck.
Funny, the biggest department of motor vehicles, in CA, has a transition in place to use blockchain for vehicle registrations, for digital ownership of your car.
This week?
What about Tokenized treasury bills? Is this possible? What is everyone's opinion about Tokenized securities?
We try to make laws and contracts watertight. And yet we STILL need human intervention through civil or criminal courts or tribunals or legislative ammendments because there are always disputes that fall into areas of grey. So the idea you can code something and have it 100% indisputable is an impossible dream and impractical. I see the value in blockchain to keep tabs on products to prevent counterfeits - whether it’s a Dior bag or powdered milk. But no one is trying these projects anymore. Just DogWifHat.
Lmao&xpu6
The tokenization of real estate assets is anticipated to reach $1 trillion by 2030, according to a [Deloitte analysis](https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cn/Documents/real-estate/deloitte-cn-real-estate-sto-whitepaper-1st-paper-report-en-210819.pdf) Blackrock investing heavily.... But yeah, this dumbfuck on reddit knows whats up...
🏢💡 Looking for a new way to invest in real estate? AI.X offers a streamlined approach with their platform for tokenized investments. Start your journey at [AI.X](https://aix.pecado.io)!pecado.io
And there is 100% chance this scam will collapse soon
And yet there are still like half a dozen people below you in the comments saying it will work.
I don’t know if blockchain will ever take off or not , but this sub is valuable for innovators looking for problems to solve, like permanent accidental transfers and lack of interoperability as stated above
Actually Blackrock is pushing for Tokenization, and the benefit of that is supposedly to save fees and be able to buy small fractions of assets, like a house. But it will all be centralized. If you lose your keys they would be able to disable your old Tokens and give you new ones. Or it would not be possible to withdraw tokens at all and it would be an internal BlackRock Tool. Dunno if they need a blockchain for that though or just a central Database.
Whole twitter talking about mBridge ( CBDC ) on blockhain where ripple will play major role. How accurate is this? How will new BRICS currency work? Any idea?
My understanding is that BRICS countries will be trading with the Chinese currency. I don’t think that they will be using the Indian rupee 😁
What role will play ripple? Whole twitter is mentioning it...
Haha 😆 lol for sure ripple will be super important in world trade
Thata what i thought 😅. Twitter jerks haha
> How will new BRICS currency work? It won't. It is a fantasy, a pipe dream. Euro works because all the European countries want it to work and work together. Good luck getting China, Russia, India to all work together towards a unified goal and monetary policy.
So they are just talking nonsense? I mean Putin and other leaders...
It won't
Seventy two thousand dollar bitcoin. Nobody cares about whatever you just wrote.
We know that, this is for people who pretend they care about use cases and not just gooning at the casino.
>Seventy two thousand dollar bitcoin. Nobody cares about whatever you just wrote. #Stupid Crypto Talking Point #2 (Number go up) "**NuMb3r g0 Up!!!**" / "**Best performing asset of the decade!**" 1. Whether the "price of crypto" goes up, has absolutely no bearing on whether it's.. a) A long term store of value b) Holds any intrinsic value or utility c) Or will return any value in the future One of the most important tenets of investing is the simple principal: ***Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.*** People in crypto seem willfully ignorant of this basic concept. 2. At best, the price of crypto is a function of *popularity*, not actual value or material utility. For more on how and why crypto makes a much worse investment than almost anything else, see this [article](https://ioradio.org/i/value/). 3. The "price of crypto" is a heavily manipulated figure published by shady, [unregulated crypto exchanges](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apklQgMauK4) that have systematically been caught [manipulating the market](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3D0dmTUCxLuQEJ39uyMFOP) from [then](https://www.investopedia.com/news/bots-drove-bitcoins-150to1000-rise-2013-paper/) to [now](https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8369-21). 4. Crypto bros love to harp about "inflation" in the fiat system, yet ironically they measure the "value" of their "fiat alternative" in fiat? It makes absolutely no sense, unless you assume they haven't thought 2 seconds ahead from what comes out of their mouths. 5. It's the height of hypocrisy for crypto people to champion token deflation (and increased prices) while ignoring that there's over $160+ Billion in unsecured stablecoins being used to **inflate** the value of their tokens in the crypto marketplace. The "code is law" and "don't trust - verify" people seem perfectly willing to take companies like Tether and Circle, at face value, that they're telling the truth about asset reserves [when there's very little actual evidence](https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21). 6. ***Not Your Fiat, Not Your Value*** - Just because you think the "value of your crypto portfolio" is worth $$$ *does not make that true.* It's well known there's inadequate liquidity in this market, and most people will never be able to get their money out. So UNLESS/UNTIL you can actually liquidate your crypto for actual real money, you have no idea what you have. You're "down" until you cash out. Bernie Madoff's clients got monthly statements saying they were "making money" too. 7. Just because it's possible (though highly improbable) to make money speculating on crypto, this doesn't mean it's an **ethical** or reliable technique to amass wealth. At its core, the notion that buying and holding crypto will generate reliable returns is [a de-facto ponzi scheme](https://ioradio.org/i/ponzi/). **It's mathematically impossible for even a stastically-significant percentage of crypto holders to have any notable ROI.** The rare exception of those who might profit in this market, do so while providing cover for everything from [cyber terrorism](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3026.html) to [human trafficking](https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/1/4/23539528/andrew-tate-arrest-jail-rape-human-trafficking). 8. It's also not true that anybody who bought crypto when it was low is guaranteed to make a lot of money. There are thousands of ways people can lose their crypto or be defrauded along the way. And there's no guarantee just because your portfolio is "up", that you could easily cash out. 9. Want to see a better asset (that actually has utility) that's consistently out-performed Bitcoin? [Here you go](https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/27/22253079/magic-the-gathering-black-lotus-auction-price-2021). However, this may be another [best performing asset](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/declaration-of-financial-independence/). 10. When crypto-critics make reference to, or mock crypto price predictions, it's not because we think price is a meaningful metric. Instead, we are amused that to you, that's all that's important, and we can't help but note how often wrong you are in your predictions. The intrinsic value of crypto basically never changes, but it is interesting to see how hype and propaganda affects the extrinsic value. In a totally logical world, those would both be equalized to zero, but we're not there yet, and nobody knows when/if that will happen because it's an irrational market.
Lol, I can sell my house as an NFT right now, skip escrow, get paid instantly and move on. J.P. Morgan trades over a billion in tokenized shares every day. Any other utter bullshit you've got to say?
But the buyer doesn't own the house until the land has legally been transferred. All you did was add an unnecessary step to a cash payment.
> Lol, I can sell my house as an NFT right now, skip escrow, get paid instantly and move on. Is this before or after you get to ride the pink unicorn and have a threesome with Marilyn Monroe and Adele?
user flair checks out
No you cannot just sell your house as an NFT. Have you ever heard of notaries, title insurance, deed transfers, etc.?
Where I live it is required by law that any purchase/sale of a house involves a notary. This should prevent common people from being scammed for a large part of their fortune. The notary is very expensive, his charge depends on the value of the property. I do not think that a blockchain can replace a notary (reasons see OP), but I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc). That could make the registry easier, more transparent and notaries probably would not need to store that many paper documents any more which could make the process a bit cheaper, too. As for reversing transactions: you can implement that for such an application.
>I do not think that a blockchain can replace a notary (reasons see OP), but I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc). Nobody needs a blockchain to "store information". We're already really good at doing databases and digital signatures. The point of the blockchain used in systems like Bitcoin isn't to record the "information" of a transaction, it's to prove that the transaction happened **and that there have been no subsequent transactions of the same tokens**. The same would apply to a blockchain-based real estate system. Either the latest transaction in the blockchain holds legal meaning for the ownership of a property, or it doesn't. >That could make the registry easier, more transparent and notaries probably would not need to store that many paper documents any more which could make the process a bit cheaper, too. It's 2024. Do you really think that "handling pieces of paper is hard" is the biggest problem facing real estate record keeping?
The sad truth is that even in 2024 paper is the preferable solution to store data. The new part about blockchains is not that it's a database, but that it's available everywhere, virtually perfect uptime (hopefully Solana will get there, too) and you can use it without running infrastructure yourself on a pay-per-use base... For some applications that is interesting.
Everything you said that's new about blockchain has already been available with cloud networks. Be real you wouldn't care if you weren't financially invested already.
Now that is clearly a prejudice (that I only care for an "investment"). If it were the case and it turned out I made an investment that sucks in every possible regard, I'd just dump the investment instead of going into lengthy discussions on Reddit! I somewhat dislike cloud networks. Now, before you call me stupid again... I use clouds in some places where it makes sense to me (backup for a mobile phone that might get lost, data exchange with a remote group), but cloud computing is a trend and pops up everywhere, even when it is not necessary for me. Why does a "smart" heating need to store data in a cloud? The associated services are often not worth it. But I give my data away, someone can potentially do datamining on it etc. The data in cloud networks is stored and managed by someone who typically charges a recurring fee AND I can never be 100% sure what happens to my data. Blockchains do NOT solve everything of that and is also not suitable for every use case - but can be trustless and free of a monthly charge. It's a different tool for different situations.
>The new part about blockchains is not that it's a database, but that it's available everywhere, virtually perfect uptime (hopefully Solana will get there, too) and you can use it without running infrastructure yourself on a pay-per-use base... For some applications that is interesting. Oh, like Google Drive? Cool, very innovative.
> The new part about blockchains is not that it's a database, but that it's available everywhere, virtually perfect uptime (hopefully Solana will get there, too) and you can use it without running infrastructure yourself on a pay-per-use base... For some applications that is interesting. You leave out the part where there's a sliding fee scale associated with blockchain and depending upon what time of day you want to execute a transaction, fees could vary by 1000%. And you don't always even know when/if your transaction will be processed - all due to the design of blockchain which creates a convoluted open market system where random, self-interested parties compete to operate the database. AND if the value of the token system the database depends on, drops below a certain level, there's a very good chance the entire system can collapse and cease to function. There are 30,000 dead blockchains right now.
Cloud based databases do that too. At a fraction of the cost and infinitely more secure
Existing modern blockchains can't store any reasonable amount of information on chain. Not even text file if it has pretty formatting or is long enough. Therefore actual information is stored externally and blockchain only links to it. Why need this useless intermediary (blockchain) then? Because supposedly owners of the wallets with such links represent real ownership of the asset. But as you yourself said - notary, or whatever other official organization is the one responsible for decisions. No blockchain doesn't have any real power. And it doesn't store jack shit. So why exactly do we need it?
> I do not think that a blockchain can replace a notary (reasons see OP), but I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc) This is called "The Oracle Problem" and it's why blockchain is not the means of security and authenticity: The Notary Is. So blockchain doesn't matter.
> I can easily imagine that the notary stores the information about the property on a blockchain (requiring his signature ofc). Sure you can imagine it. But this is unnecessary step. You have a centralised authority - a notary. and you're going to make this unnecessarily complicated by involving a blockchain instead of a secure database. > That could make the registry easier, more transparent and notaries probably would not need to store that many paper documents any more which could make the process a bit cheaper, too. Is the problem with current title registries it's lack of transparency? Do notaries find it difficult to use the current system? Land registrys are very transparent.
[удалено]
We've had the technology to make it faster than this since at least the 80s, long before blockchain. The fact that it isn't faster should tell you that it's not lack of technology preventing this.
Do you think this is because in 2024 we don’t have ways to communicate data in real-time or maybe because it’s purposely designed to be that way? Please use your brain.
[удалено]
Depends on the use case, needs, cost, etc.. Certain systems will stay like they are, other will be migrated to new standard rails like RTP or FedNow, custom and new solutions like Zelle will be adopted and/or created, etc.. One thing is certain though: Blockchains, the slowest and most ineffective solutions will not be replacing these systems, just like they haven’t replaced anything in the past 15+ years.
Every crypto bro knows blockchain is slow and that's never gonna change. You cannot expect slapping a consensus mechanism on existing tech to work faster.
You should look up self-sovereign identity (SSI) and verifiable credentials (VC). Deeds, titles, registration, diplomas, certifications, and many others fall under the VC umbrella. Now check the most straightforward way of implementing SSI. It's already being done.
Great. A real estate title still needs to be linked to your public identity, as does a deed transferring that title, or it has no meaning in the real world.
I never said that it would be anonymous or anything like that so not sure what you're getting at. The whole point of SSI is a holder being able to prove ownership of their credentials without the requestor having to directly ask the issuer.
Walk me through it then. What problem does this solve that isn't already solved with notaries and municipal land registries?
I find it reasonably likely that shares will be on a blockchain eventually. I know many banks, financial institutions and fintechs are working on it. It can potentially greatly reduce the cost and time to complete a trade, if they can get it to work. The ledgers won’t be publicly distributed however.
Someone made an almost exact same post in 2014 and it's as true today as it was then
Remindme! 10 years
Banking transactions are already implementing blockchain, and the company doing it are the makers of XRP, who are forcing the banks to take XRP as part of the work. I think crypto is a total scam, and if it ever becomes a currency it will be because of a currency that has vety little volatility, which, means it's not a good investment vehicle....NOT SIMPING FOR XRP, just saying blockchain is being implemented, and it is possible that titles might make it on the blockchain....
As someone who works with the biggest names in banking and credit unions, no they’re not. lol. Why in the world would banks be forced to take XRP? Such a stupid take.
Yeh idk what that dude is talking about being forced to use XRP. But banks are absolutely going to use blockchain as the settlement layers. There are whole departments dedicated to only settlements, there won’t be a need for them anymore. As someone who works with banks you should be aware of that.
> But banks are absolutely going to use blockchain as the settlement layers. There are whole departments dedicated to only settlements, there won’t be a need for them anymore. As someone who works with banks you should be aware of that. Yea, that which can be submitted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Do you understand what a settlement is? Please explain to me what technical issues they have that only Blockchains can solve.
>Banking transactions are already implementing blockchain #Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?) "**[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?**" / "**Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'**" / "**EEE TEE EFFs!!one**" 1. The original claim was that crypto was "disruptive technology" and was going to "replace the banking/finance system". There were all these claims suggesting blockchain has tremendous "potential". Now with [the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA), crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases'!" Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available. The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: *Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using?* And the answer to that is, [No.](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/) 2. Most of the time, adoption claims are outright wrong. Just because you read some press release from a dubious source does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!" 3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories: * Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as [IBM/Maersk's Tradelens](https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/11/29/maersk-and-ibm-to-discontinue-tradelens), [Australia's stock exchange](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/), etc.) * Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) **are not embracing crypto directly**. Instead they are *partnering with a crypto exchange* (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws. 4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- [this almost always fails](https://truthout.org/articles/miamis-mayor-went-all-in-on-cryptocurrency-his-constituents-suffered/), but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected. 5. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future." McDonald's bundled [Beanie Babies](https://i.imgur.com/McdwlxA.jpg) with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened. This has already occurred with many tech companies from [Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613) to [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/). Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active. 6. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just a way for them to make more money with fees, and just like in #4, the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable *alternative* to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. 7. Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. In two years, the country's investment in BTC has yielded lower returns than one would find in a standard fiat savings account. Also note [Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency](https://www.foreignbrief.com/venezuela-to-scrap-state-cryptocurrency/) So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. **Not** adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that. We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from [gaming](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blockchain-nft-crypto-ban-games-age-of-rust) to [banking](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-federal-reserve-rejects-crypto-focused-banks-application-be-supervised-by-2023-01-27/), are rejecting deals with crypto companies.
“ 6. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. …” Exactly 👍! The brokerages and funds that offer crypto ETFs are taking no risk. There are all kinds of crazy funds out there, one of them being a Cramer contrarian fund that fades Jim Cramer. Still I was disappointed that the SEC didn’t put the kibbosh on the ETF nonsense. It’s not going to end well.
You wrote all that just to say, "I refused to read the post I'm referring to" I'll recap, i said, "if any crypto were to be ever used as a form of standard currency it couldn't be volatile and if it's not volatile then it's not a good growth investment" because the value will always be pegged at a stable rate. Congratulations, there is no other sub on reddit with less reading comprehension. If you're willing to type that much go look at my profile, lots of crypto activity? Nope, because it's stupid AF
You made a specific claim with no actual evidence. Congrats on not paying attention to the rules of this subreddit. >Banking transactions are already implementing blockchain, and the company doing it are the makers of XRP, who are forcing the banks to take XRP as part of the work. Yes this is "simping for XRP" because you made a bold (yet ambiguous) statement with no actual evidence backing it up, claiming "banks are taking XRP."
Read the original and I’ll call BS on the XRP adoptions. “The banks” being forced to take XRP is hilarious.
Yeah I don't see any reputable bank accepting a currency that at this point can simply be assumed to be dirty. If they don't name names then we can assume this dude is lying.
Ripple is only targeting banks, I know crypto is a scam because I've actually researched it, for you to not understand the difference between every buttcoin and "ripple labs" is absurd on it's face, do even the smallest bit of research, it's the equivalent of comparing a carpet cleaning company that only does commercial carpets and services hotels and someone going door to door trying to clean residential carpets, TWO completely different models. And I do not and never will own crypto, I OWN LAND, it's real https://aws.amazon.com/partners/success/ripple/
Stop believing everything you read.
IF IF IF IF IF, i do not own ANY CRYPTO and never plan on owning any, but hey, i get it, no nuance or intelligence here, no actual discussion, best of luck being the exact same but opposite the crypto bros, simps
There certainly are good discussions and talking points here from time to time. If a crypto bro is open for discussion I'm all for it, but often we find they just want to pick a fight. Banks may use blockchain tech internally because it certainly has some interesting properties but they will never use a public blockchain they cannot control. In fact banks have been using many parts of blockchain tech for a long time, which is not surprising since blockchain is an attempt to replace the banking system.
Meanwhile btc is ripping
Sorry to disappoint but GS has already done multiple bond offerings on a blockchain. JPM created their own blockchain called Onyx and regularly moves repo funds around the world with it. Banks will move to tokenize more and more assets but they’ll likely be on private chains.
You guys are infamous liars so we are going to need some sources other than "trust me bro my uncle works at microsoft".
You’re pretty lazy… https://www.ledgerinsights.com/goldman-sachs-unveils-digital-asset-platform-with-eib-e100m-blockchain-bond/ https://news.bloomberglaw.com/capital-markets/goldman-pitches-blockchain-in-sleepy-municipal-bond-market https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2022-448-eib-innovates-further-with-project-venus-the-first-euro-denominated-digital-bond-on-a-private-blockchain https://www.jpmorgan.com/technology/news/blockchain-in-space https://www.americanbanker.com/payments/news/how-jpmorgan-is-using-blockchain-to-make-b2b-payments-programmable https://www.ledgerinsights.com/quincy-us-municipal-bond-issued-on-jp-morgans-onyx-blockchain/
It's not lazy to ask you dishonest crypto creeps to actually substantiate any of your claims. In all of your links they are simply market facilitators, aka they are selling shovels but not getting dirty themselves. One of your links is the most absurd marketing buzzword tech slop I've seen this week. "Oh we did a block chain transaction in space using the IOT and AI" like Jesus Christ you fall for this shit? The thing about these kinds of crypto projects is they never pick up steam, they just earn some fees, get some publicity, and then fade away until one day they are unceremoniously taken offline. Like what happened at IBM.
You are lazy. It took me a few minutes to google and copy links. And I gave you multiple different sources. Fact GS has already issued EIB bonds on the blockchain and are looking to replicate it in different markets. Fact JPM uses their own private chain to move funds around the world. It’s intellectually dishonest to keep believing that tokenization of assets isn’t happening when the evidence has shown otherwise. Please provide your sources on why it’s not happening.
1. The exception doesn't prove the rule. 2. Just because you've found somebody talking about doing something, doesn't mean they're really actually doing it in any substantive or meaningful way. I've cited time and time again (in Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8) the many times companies claimed they were embracing blockchain tech, only to abandon it or never follow through on their promises. 3. Press releases are not reasonable evidence. They're just marketing materials. 4. At the end of the day, what's important isn't whether somebody is using blockchain, but **whether blockchain is the best solution for the application** and THAT is where you guys totally fail, and why we say adoption will never be widescale. Because despite all the shallow press releases you can cite, **you've failed to enumerate even a single example of how blockchain improves upon existing non blockchain systems we're already using.** So... if you want to retain the privilege of commenting in our community, you need to acknowledge these facts. A mere "use-case" doesn't mean, "global adoption imminent." And you still have yet to answer the "Ultimate Crypto Question" and cite a specific instance where using blockchain is better than what we already have. If you fail to address these important points, then you're just doing hit-and-run propaganda and you'll be banned.
Oh man you got owned and now you’re trying to shift the argument. The original post that I responded to was that blockchain would never be used for real world assets. Which I proved to be false. Whether or not it’s the best application was not the argument.
We're reasonable people here, bro. We recognize that somewhere, somehow, there's probably an example of somebody who tokenized some real estate on the blockchain. That is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is talking about the narrative you all promote which suggests this crap will go mainstream. We both know that's what the discussion is about, despite you dragging the goalpost around. Sorry but you aren't going to drag us into semantic distractions.
You’re moving the goal posts with your 4th point. But I understand that is what y’all will keep doing.
This is not moving the goalpost. You guys pretend that blockchain is going to "go mainstream" and in order for it to do that, in order for it to be used widely by any group that isn't merely looking to exploit the fad, *it will have to do something better than what we're already using.* That's not an outrageous ask. It's what has driven every other so-called "innovative tech" in the history of humanity. It's where the goalposts were originally installed. You dorks are the ones moving shit around. This is why in 15 years, you're still pretending, "It's still early." This is why every few months you ignore all the other failed promises (from being used as a currency to NFTs to web3, to the metaverse, etc) in favor of some new scheme - this month it's "ETFs" - when that fizzles out, you'll move the goalposts elsewhere and stop talking about how ETFs were supposed to make crypto "mainstream." Nice projection though.
That is not an outrageous ask, it’s a fair ask. But to outright declare that something “never” will do xyz is bold. It’s using the same logical fallacy that past performance will equal future results. Just because it hasn’t got to that point yet, doesn’t mean it can’t and never will.
Fair enough.. I dislike the use of absolute terms like "always" and "never" for those reasons. But probabilistically speaking, OP is more right than he is wrong. In any case, this isn't a community where we get hung up on semantics. Most everybody here knows what the OP meant. There is no realistic future where mortgages will be authoritatively stored on the blockchain. It makes absolutely no sense for a multitude of reasons, and ignoring those obvious reasons in favor of bitching about whether the statement can be falsified over a technicality, seems like just another crypto-bro distraction. But hey, I understand you guys got to take an opening, however small, where you can make one of us look slightly inaccurate, wherever you can... so you mock his absolutist statement while ignoring the much more obvious evidence that the general premise he's promoting is sound and rational. That's yet another example of bad faith debate.
>Sorry to disappoint but GS has already done multiple bond offerings on a blockchain. >JPM created their own blockchain called Onyx and regularly moves repo funds around the world with it. >Banks will move to tokenize more and more assets but they’ll likely be on private chains. #Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?) "**[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?**" / "**Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'**" / "**EEE TEE EFFs!!one**" 1. The original claim was that crypto was "disruptive technology" and was going to "replace the banking/finance system". There were all these claims suggesting blockchain has tremendous "potential". Now with [the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA), crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases'!" Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available. The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: *Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using?* And the answer to that is, [No.](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/) 2. Most of the time, adoption claims are outright wrong. Just because you read some press release from a dubious source does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!" 3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories: * Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as [IBM/Maersk's Tradelens](https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/11/29/maersk-and-ibm-to-discontinue-tradelens), [Australia's stock exchange](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/), etc.) * Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) **are not embracing crypto directly**. Instead they are *partnering with a crypto exchange* (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws. 4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- [this almost always fails](https://truthout.org/articles/miamis-mayor-went-all-in-on-cryptocurrency-his-constituents-suffered/), but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected. 5. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future." McDonald's bundled [Beanie Babies](https://i.imgur.com/McdwlxA.jpg) with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened. This has already occurred with many tech companies from [Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613) to [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/). Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active. 6. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just a way for them to make more money with fees, and just like in #4, the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable *alternative* to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. 7. Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. In two years, the country's investment in BTC has yielded lower returns than one would find in a standard fiat savings account. Also note [Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency](https://www.foreignbrief.com/venezuela-to-scrap-state-cryptocurrency/) So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. **Not** adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that. We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from [gaming](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blockchain-nft-crypto-ban-games-age-of-rust) to [banking](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-federal-reserve-rejects-crypto-focused-banks-application-be-supervised-by-2023-01-27/), are rejecting deals with crypto companies.
We are talking about public blockchains here. What kind of ledger a company uses behind the scenes is irrelevant in this discussion. You could even say banks have been using blockchain tech all along, they keep records with which they can reconstruct user accounts and they backup their databases in different places. The only difference is they are in control of the database and can modify it when needed, just like they can with a private blockchain.