Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Because that trusted entity kinda sucks at these things. Also it'll mollify the people who don't wanna cede all control to the government

In your top level comment you said:

top> If we required that all debt be digitally signed in a central ledger, either nationally or by state, and then all payment transactions were also recorded there, it'd be a lot harder to fake this stuff

If we make it required, we've already ceded control to the government, since it is the government that would control enforcement of the requirement. Even if the government decides to use a block chain, they still have control because they get to pick which block chain is used, and they can change that choice at any time.

Also, who signs this digitally signed debt? If you mean that the debtor signs it, then I don't see why you even need a public record of the debt as far as validating debt collection attempts goes. All that needs to be public is the alleged debtor's public key.

> Some central database controlled by the government doesn't solve the issue that all databases have, which is that you need to have absolute trust in the people who admin that db, the beauty of blockchains is that trust is no longer needed, as long as the there are a reasonably diverse number of entities involved no single person can make unilateral changes.

That doesn't require a block chain. All it requires is that more than one entity keeps a copy of the database.




    >That doesn't require a block chain. All it requires is that more than one entity keeps a copy of the database.
And maybe we should give a few different people copies of the db and every 30 minutes or so they could sync up and add any transactions that happened in the meantime, and it would be best if they all used some sorta signature to ensure that all the transactions are legit...

    >If we make it required, we've already ceded control 
    >to the government, since it is the government that 
    >would control enforcement of the requirement. Even if
    >the government decides to use a block chain, they still 
    >have control because they get to pick which block chain
    >is used, and they can change that choice at any time.
We also cede control to the government by using USD but no one (serious) is suggesting that the government should also be everyone's bank. It's question of how much control to give up in exchange for what. I see real benefit in a central loan ledger that doesn't have a single point of failure.


> I see real benefit in a central loan ledger that doesn't have a single point of failure.

Sure, but you can get that with a conventional database replicated between several instances hosted by different entities (which do not have to be government entities).

Think about how records of loans would be used. All the use cases that are coming to mind for me don't involve any of the things that block chains do better than conventional replicated databases.

(I'm assuming that the records would be signed by the borrower, and would contain unique identifiers so that recording the same loan more than once would be detectable and could be ignored).

For example, block chains are good at dealing with double spending when they are used to track currency or commodity balances. But I don't see anything analogous to double spending for a loan existence tracking system, so that strength of block chains is not relevant.


I may not understand what you mean by double spending because this whole article appears to me to be about double spending: different lenders are claiming the same loan is owed to them even long after the original loan has been paid off. A central ledger that clearly tracks loans and repayments and is publicly accessible could be a solution to that problem.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: