“governmemts are thinking of putting assets and laws on Blockchain”
Two things: this statement is so vague it borders on meaningless. What assets? Who will put it in there? The president? Why would a government do that? Is it free to do or is there budget? Etc.
Secondly, even if we could surmount the vagueness that plagues not just this idea but all blockchain ideas, the Herculean effort required to move governments which can barely move themselves seems like it would delay the whole thing by decades.
It all starts with how vague the ideas are. It really requires simply staring at the ceiling and figuring out precisely what you mean when you talk about blockchain ideas.
The vagueness of Blockchain reminds me of the same “Cloud” vagueness. CEOs and CIOs read these articles about how great “Cloud” is and how everything is moving to “Cloud” and they turn around and declare things like “I want Cloud” and “We need to work on Cloud!” and “Invest in Cloud”. Just parroting what they read in HBR or what some IBM consultant told them. Then a whole bunch of money is spent on “Cloud” with often not much to show for it at the end, besides a bunch of opportunistic Cloud providers getting rich.
Rinse and repeat for Big Data, ML, AI, Bockchain, and whatever the next fad will be.
The value proposition of the cloud was that it saves time and sometimes money because of usage pricing. The only advantage of blockchain is that it's supposedly more secure against tampering.
Yes, businesses try out different things and some things stick and some don't. This doesn't even have anything to do with technology. Businesses use computers because some idiot in a suit read an article.
Many companies are making a lot of money from implementing or integrating "Cloud", "Big Data" and "ML". They're not fad technologies. Blockchain hasn't done anything yet so should not be lumped in with them.
assets like everything from real estate records to money to corporate stocks to car ownership to birth certificates.
What you call vagueness I call short sightedness and failing to see the big picture. It has been done before with all major breakthroughs since the applications are not immediately obvious to everyone.
There are a large number of people who... believe there was a conspiracy to produce a falsified birth certificate for the previous president of the United States. If it were on a system where the original record could be viewed in a transparent forgery resistant way then that wouldn't have been an issue. Maybe.
what do you mean? you are too focused on SV "solve a problem mantra" you keep repeating it.you can think of tamperproof, speed, transparent, public keywords.
you want private land ownership records? private tax records? private stock ownership records? you hate it so much your reasoning becomes blurry man. think a bit
Several states in the US are accepting tax payments in bitcoin. Additionally ever out of counties in the US which are putting real estate transactions on a block chain
> Several states in the US are accepting tax payments in bitcoin.
Citation needed. The Arizona senate barely passed one such bill, but it would still need to pass the House and the governor. Arizona's government is known to do silly things in a vain attempt to be tech relevant.
Two things: this statement is so vague it borders on meaningless. What assets? Who will put it in there? The president? Why would a government do that? Is it free to do or is there budget? Etc.
Secondly, even if we could surmount the vagueness that plagues not just this idea but all blockchain ideas, the Herculean effort required to move governments which can barely move themselves seems like it would delay the whole thing by decades.
It all starts with how vague the ideas are. It really requires simply staring at the ceiling and figuring out precisely what you mean when you talk about blockchain ideas.