Attaching value/deeds to the Blockchain

[zircon]

There is a lot of talk about Blockchain (and NOT Bitcoin), and about attaching deeds/proof of ownership to said Blockchain.

So a scenario, if for example a whole country or several countries agree to attach deeds to the blockchain, of say, properties in their country, what happens to the value of a Bitcoin, and why?

In my view the value is then attached to the Blockchain, and hence the value per Bitcoin (technically, excluding things like fundamental trading, news, hype etc) must go up proportionally to the amount of BTC in circulation, and the amount of value of said object/property described by the deed.

Do you agree with this?

Secondly, I would theorise that as deeds are attached, the value goes up per Bitcoin. Miners are incentivised at this stage to mine more as there is more return per Bitcoin. A side effect of this is that the network becomes more secure, as long as it stays decentralised.

So this works well while there is a reward for mining. What happens when the reward is trivial? I suppose then miners are rewarded purely by transaction fees. The value of a transaction would be established by the amount of competition in the mining market place. So I suppose there will be an equilibrium level where people are willing to pay a certain amount per transaction. If the transaction fee is too high, people will start transacting less, and miners will have to either put up their fees (resulting in even less transactions happening), or some people will have to get out of mining and the competition will lower slightly, and the price per transaction will reach an equilibrium.

It appears to be a push pull between people's....greed, for lack of a better word.

So far it works, and it works well. With mining reward going down, things will change and my question is, will it work? I think and hope so?

I am just jotting down random thoughts one leading to the other. Comments?

If the same thing was discussed in details I would appreciate a link to thread.

PS, don't forget to download your copy of CoinATMRadar (iOS/Android) for locating BTM's

[zircon]

No comments? Links to similar questions/answers?

[zircon]

I believe they are valid thoughts and questions.

Anyone else?

[killerjoegreece]

There is a lot of talk about Blockchain (and NOT Bitcoin), and about attaching deeds/proof of ownership to said Blockchain.

So a scenario, if for example a whole country or several countries agree to attach deeds to the blockchain, of say, properties in their country, what happens to the value of a Bitcoin, and why?

In my view the value is then attached to the Blockchain, and hence the value per Bitcoin (technically, excluding things like fundamental trading, news, hype etc) must go up proportionally to the amount of BTC in circulation, and the amount of value of said object/property described by the deed.

Do you agree with this?

Secondly, I would theorise that as deeds are attached, the value goes up per Bitcoin. Miners are incentivised at this stage to mine more as there is more return per Bitcoin. A side effect of this is that the network becomes more secure, as long as it stays decentralised.

So this works well while there is a reward for mining. What happens when the reward is trivial? I suppose then miners are rewarded purely by transaction fees. The value of a transaction would be established by the amount of competition in the mining market place. So I suppose there will be an equilibrium level where people are willing to pay a certain amount per transaction. If the transaction fee is too high, people will start transacting less, and miners will have to either put up their fees (resulting in even less transactions happening), or some people will have to get out of mining and the competition will lower slightly, and the price per transaction will reach an equilibrium.

It appears to be a push pull between people's....greed, for lack of a better word.

So far it works, and it works well. With mining reward going down, things will change and my question is, will it work? I think and hope so?

I am just jotting down random thoughts one leading to the other. Comments?

If the same thing was discussed in details I would appreciate a link to thread.

PS, don't forget to download your copy of CoinATMRadar (iOS/Android) for locating BTM's

these ideas are just great and should be implemented the sooner the better. also will's should be on the blockchain too.

[shorena]

-snip-

these ideas are just great and should be implemented the sooner the better. also will's should be on the blockchain too.

Why do you (both) think more data will lead to more value of the currency that is in direct competition to the same storage space? The available space on the bitcoin blockchain is currently limited to 1MB per 10 minutes (on average) and we already have a very unhealthy discussion how to fix this. Adding more fuel into this fire is not a good idea, in my opinion.

With all that being said, the bitcoin blockchain is used for data that has next to nothing to do with transactions, but I dont think its raising the value in any way nor do I think there is a reason do discuss whether it should happen or not. As long as bitcoin is uncensored it will be used for other data. The only question is how expensive it is.

[tommorisonwebdesign]

I don't think making any of those changes are going to help the value of Bitcoin much. There is already a lot of heated discussion about blocksize limits and this is only going to complicate things more.

[vleroybrown]

Why would attaching directly to the blockchain creating bloat even be necessary, as digitally signing documents is enough verification of authenticity.     

[maokoto]

The idea of using the blockchain for tracking other things does not seem too interesting to me.

I think that things should be designed with an end in mind from the beginning. It is one thing to create an alternate blockchain with additional features to accomodate those new inventions, and other to use the actual blockchain to do it.

[vleroybrown]

The idea of using the blockchain for tracking other things does not seem too interesting to me.

I think that things should be designed with an end in mind from the beginning. It is one thing to create an alternate blockchain with additional features to accomodate those new inventions, and other to use the actual blockchain to do it.

The reason the blockchain is the focus of bitcoin is the financial market and services interest in tracking things.  Tracking and verifying improvements done better on the blockchain is what the internet is headed to with the continued growth in blockchain strength.  The bloating aspect in ignorant implementation that creates to the BTC blockchain will reverse the decentralization value since internet infrastructure limits are reached faster to users and potential users.   

[manselr]

I envision a future where every country has their own sidechain and create their own national issued crypto currency their own rules, but ultimately everything being backed by Bitcoin which in return indeed the Bitcoin price goes up. I think if countries don't wan to use Bitcoin, they should use a sidechain, but not their own blockchain because it's just stupid to not use the Bitcoin blockchain.

[RGBKey]

While I'm not too fond of sidechains, I do think they add value to the coin, because they rely on bitcoin to operate.

[ashour]

I don't think making any of those changes are going to help the value of Bitcoin much. There is already a lot of heated discussion about blocksize limits and this is only going to complicate things more.

I agree, those changes won't affect the value of bitcoin at all. There are already several protocols who attach proof of ownership to the blockchains such  bitproof and factor etc.  and that didn't affect the bitcoin price at all.