> This could be something... There could be many things... You could have the nodes... you could let... could in theory be designed
See how many hypotheticals and "could be"s you're piling on top of blockchain just to make it barely handle the simplest of cases?
Moreover, none of these require a blockchain, and can be implemented better, and more efficiently with literally anything else.
Even more moreover, your entire premise of "nothing can be done without Ahmed's private key" immediately breaks for any of these:
- death, or other incapacitation. Even loss of access to the wallet
- power of attorney
- co-ownership
- time-limited ownership
- court orders requiring change of ownership
> It's only once you distributed things and let the network define rules of operations that it can become beneficial in my opinion.
So far, the "benefit" is: let's have blockchain for the sake of the magical words, and build a tower of babel on top of it to barely manage even the simplest of cases.
It just depends if you need a higher level of trust or not.
You can implement all that on a central network, or a single machine. But if you have it running over a decentralized network there's more certainty that validation rules and data won't be tempered with.
I'm not arguing to build everything with blockchain. I know very much how business can be swayed by buzzwords, but those also shouldn't take away or detract from the potential of a technology.
In this case, the ideal network in my opinion would be that you've got some global blockchain network that can record arbitrary data and run contracts attached to the data where it could scale and not be power hungry.
If we had that, then you could start to record things like land ownership, and attach contracts to them that dictates the rules for transfer of ownership, time-limited ownership, death, loss of key, etc.
Unlike a paper contract signed in handwriting, this contract is signed with people's private keys, and the rules aren't enforced manually but automatically. And you can trust in the data and the enforcement of the rules because you can have trust in the network to do so.
> It just depends if you need a higher level of trust or not.
I need trust. And blockchain doesn't provide it.
> It just depends if you need a higher level of trust or not.
And yet, all you can come up with is "a bit of a stupid example obviously". The moment I propose to you actual real-world problems, your entire argument breaks down into piles of "could be"s and lots and lots of words how blockchain magically solves everything.
> you've got some global blockchain network that can record arbitrary data and run contracts attached to the data
Why?
> then you could start to record things like land ownership
- Ahmed pays local authority to record him as an owner. Where's your solution for that?
- Ahmed is an atual rightful owner, but then Mohammed pays local authority to register him as the rightful owner instead. Where's your solution for that?
> this contract is signed with people's private keys
- Mohammad is now registered as the owner. 5 years later, after a prolonged court battle, Zahra proves that the original record is incorrect, and the court rules that the property is now Zahra's. Mohammad doesn't give up his private keys. Where's your solution for that?
> dictates the rules for transfer of ownership, time-limited ownership, death, loss of key, etc.
Ah, yes. Instead of contracts written in plain language, we now have a complex programmable system written in an esotheric language that requires programmatic access and integration to dozens, if not hundreds of other such systems. And all these contracts are guaranteed to be correct, foolproof, without omissions, and to 100% correctly represent the interests of the parties that sign the contract. Because blockchain.
> Unlike a paper contract signed in handwriting, this contract is signed with people's private keys and the rules aren't enforced manually but automatically.
Ah, yes. When a person dies, they automatically register their death from beyond the grave. Or when a person sells property, this is automatically entered into the system through the celestial sphere. Court orders are automatically applied to ownership simply because blockchain.
> And you can trust in the data and the enforcement of the rules because you can have trust in the network to do so.
Ah yes. The rules are enforced because some numbers in a highy ineffecient, slow distributed append-only log say something.
See how many hypotheticals and "could be"s you're piling on top of blockchain just to make it barely handle the simplest of cases?
Moreover, none of these require a blockchain, and can be implemented better, and more efficiently with literally anything else.
Even more moreover, your entire premise of "nothing can be done without Ahmed's private key" immediately breaks for any of these:
- death, or other incapacitation. Even loss of access to the wallet
- power of attorney
- co-ownership
- time-limited ownership
- court orders requiring change of ownership
> It's only once you distributed things and let the network define rules of operations that it can become beneficial in my opinion.
So far, the "benefit" is: let's have blockchain for the sake of the magical words, and build a tower of babel on top of it to barely manage even the simplest of cases.