You miss the point. He's not trying to say Bitcoin is useless / has no utility. He's not saying the real world is messy.
He's saying that people are confused what "source of truth" means when it comes to blockchain.
Someone can steal the digital keys of ownership (crypto hashes) for a physical item like an art piece, but that doesn't mean the owner automatically changes to where the thief now owns the art piece, and it would be upheld legally in a court "because muh blockchain decentralized proof of truth SAYS so". That's dumb. The courts will hash it out, which is a centralized process producing a final record or report in a "Court database" which creates an authoritative, overriding source of truth as to the real ownership.
It doesn't matter if the entire blockchain world agrees that Thief_Hacker_X owns it. The court has the final say, and their decision is centralized in a court database.
You miss the point. He's not trying to say Bitcoin is useless / has no utility. He's not saying the real world is messy.
That’s exactly what he is saying. That the blockchain does not map 1:1 to the real world.
And you repeat that here
It doesn't matter if the entire blockchain world agrees that Thief_Hacker_X owns it. The court has the final say, and their decision is centralized in a court database.
And the implication is what? That the blockchain adds no value over a centralized database or court system because they are going to have the final say anyway.
Again, what he fails to realize is that you can take his exact same argument and apply it to the legal system, or centralized databases.
How are they an improvement upon just having a man go with his opinion on what should be done? Why formalize the process or result in a database or legal procedure if someone along the chain can potentially be corrupt and establish a different truth than what those systems would provide?
In other words, why bother trying to use objective methods to establish truth when a human can override them in the real world by force?
He is NOT saying Bitcoin is useless. He states in the first sentence that Bitcoin is full of potential use cases. Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
He's criticizing blockchain for it's touted ability to facilitate the Transfer of ownership of something. This is what happens in a supply chain, ownership of goods changes hands from the manufacturer to the shipper to the retailer.
There are people of the opinion that blockchain makes this transfer of ownership (of the goods) completely transparent and truthful. That is not the case.
In the article, he's talking about transferring a physical item (like art) by using a transaction on the blockchain. He gives an example why this doesn't offer truth of ownership. It offers truth of the transaction.
Blockchain enthusiasts would love the blockchain to be the source of truth for so many things but this is exactly where you run in silly problems as I described before (essentially the French state having to give up ownership of the Mona Lisa because the blockchain says so).
The mistake is in thinking blockchain is a "source of truth". You have to add context. What is it a source of truth for? Transaction validity.
He is NOT saying Bitcoin is useless. He states in the first sentence that Bitcoin is full of potential use cases. Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
No, he said "supposedly". If you read the article that he links to, it is actually a rebuttal of using Bitcoin to handle the problems of logistics. If you see where he wrote something to the contrary, please link it. As far as I can tell, he is saying Bitcoin does not solve any problems.
Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
Establishing ownership is the sole purpose of the blockchain.
There are people of the opinion that blockchain makes this transfer of ownership (of the goods) completely transparent and truthful. That is not the case.
In the article, he's talking about transferring a physical item (like art) by using a transaction on the blockchain. He gives an example why this doesn't offer truth of ownership. It offers truth of the transaction.
This is just playing word games. How does the court or a centralized database offer truth of ownership?
The mistake is in thinking blockchain is a "source of truth". You have to add context. What is it a source of truth for? Transaction validity.
And what is the purpose of validating transactions? Just to consume CPU cycles? No, it's to establish ownership.
Seems like you got it all figured out champ. We should delete this whole post, and ban that dumb author who hates Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin good, and author doesn't think good.
You miss the point. He's not trying to say Bitcoin is useless / has no utility. He's not saying the real world is messy.
He's saying that people are confused what "source of truth" means when it comes to blockchain.
Someone can steal the digital keys of ownership (crypto hashes) for a physical item like an art piece, but that doesn't mean the owner automatically changes to where the thief now owns the art piece, and it would be upheld legally in a court "because muh blockchain decentralized proof of truth SAYS so". That's dumb. The courts will hash it out, which is a centralized process producing a final record or report in a "Court database" which creates an authoritative, overriding source of truth as to the real ownership.
It doesn't matter if the entire blockchain world agrees that Thief_Hacker_X owns it. The court has the final say, and their decision is centralized in a court database.
That’s exactly what he is saying. That the blockchain does not map 1:1 to the real world.
And you repeat that here
And the implication is what? That the blockchain adds no value over a centralized database or court system because they are going to have the final say anyway.
Again, what he fails to realize is that you can take his exact same argument and apply it to the legal system, or centralized databases.
How are they an improvement upon just having a man go with his opinion on what should be done? Why formalize the process or result in a database or legal procedure if someone along the chain can potentially be corrupt and establish a different truth than what those systems would provide?
In other words, why bother trying to use objective methods to establish truth when a human can override them in the real world by force?
He is NOT saying Bitcoin is useless. He states in the first sentence that Bitcoin is full of potential use cases. Then he exercises some critical thinking to determine how "ownership" is likely not one of them.
He's criticizing blockchain for it's touted ability to facilitate the Transfer of ownership of something. This is what happens in a supply chain, ownership of goods changes hands from the manufacturer to the shipper to the retailer.
There are people of the opinion that blockchain makes this transfer of ownership (of the goods) completely transparent and truthful. That is not the case.
In the article, he's talking about transferring a physical item (like art) by using a transaction on the blockchain. He gives an example why this doesn't offer truth of ownership. It offers truth of the transaction.
The mistake is in thinking blockchain is a "source of truth". You have to add context. What is it a source of truth for? Transaction validity.
No, he said "supposedly". If you read the article that he links to, it is actually a rebuttal of using Bitcoin to handle the problems of logistics. If you see where he wrote something to the contrary, please link it. As far as I can tell, he is saying Bitcoin does not solve any problems.
Establishing ownership is the sole purpose of the blockchain.
This is just playing word games. How does the court or a centralized database offer truth of ownership?
And what is the purpose of validating transactions? Just to consume CPU cycles? No, it's to establish ownership.
Seems like you got it all figured out champ. We should delete this whole post, and ban that dumb author who hates Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin good, and author doesn't think good.