Blockchain for Asset Ownership

It's not a single fucking source of truth since you need an oracle to go between the blockchain and the actual legal authorities to register ownership. You just have an entry in a ledger that says "X owns Y" with zero legal backing. I can take your money and give you a receipt but that doesn't mean anything if I don't have the authority to sell the thing.

It is though. You cant ensure ownership if there is no third party the point that of the blockchain is that it solves that issue by turning the entire network into the notarius. Public/private key cryptography does not solve that.

Why can't block chain represent ownership of a real world asset? Obviously there would have to be an accompying legal document

I really don't get how people can believe a single second that this kind of projects can make any sense. What is the purpose of a blockchain for this? You cannot get rid of a central authority, because the transmission of land or really anything that exists outside of the blockchain you're planning to use cannot be transferred by simply writing something on the said blockchain. That only works for crypto-tokens because writing a transaction on their blockchain is performative (t

Blockchain is RECORD of ownership. It is a database with the stipulation it isn't so easy to mess up.Nothing I wrote even asserts the legal system has no power.I'm not an evangelist for blockchain but even I can see a benefit.

No, it can't be used for "proof of ownership" at all. Crypto only barely works because it lives inside blockchain completely. Anything external to the blockchain (which is practically everything) can't be verified using blockchain. Only using some centralized and opaque/corrupt additions to the blockchain some rights can be maybe transferred (but not enforced even then), but at that point blockchain is useless can be safely removed if data is stored centrally.

Blockchain provides a public ledger to trace the linage of transactions. It doesn't enforce ownership. The legal system enforces the ownership. Blockchain just makes the court's job easier. With blockchain, we can know that Mona Lisa is illegally transferred to the corrupted official, and know who that is.

Nothing. There is no reason not to fork it. There are papers on using blockchains to pass on titles and ownership of physical goods.It's just one market, that happens to currently be worth over $200,000,000 though.

Blockchains don't really work for ownership of non-digital assets.I think they can and will be incredibly useful for digital trade, but too many people are trying to make rigid secure digital systems represent the squishy nondeterminism of analog law. Fundamentally, you can't keep an accurate ledger, because there is no interface for proving ownership of physical items.

I mean, the use case is (generally) providing a verifiable transaction chain. We have complex processes in place for doing this IRL right now for assets such as real estate deeds, vehicle titles, etc. Obviously, these all work because we collectively agree on the system in place. Blockchain would provide an alternative process for this. With tokenization, it would be possible to have multiple stakeholder ownership for a real asset.