If I had to guess, the reason would be , that due to the nature of the transaction, and the multiple actors involved, that, from a legal standpoint, they prefer the immutability and distributed nature of a blockchain rather than a leaky old centralised system, which could potentially be gamed with more ease. Not to mention, that there would also be a greater potential for interoperability going forward.
Who's going to be paying to secure this blockchain?Exactly. It amazes me that there are so many people out there (and even here) who still don't get it.
Short answer, the same people that currently pay to run and access the UK land registry. Which is the government, and those that use the services pay for services.
[...]
The problem with this, is that most of the people you mentioned answer to (or are legally bound to comply with) a central authority, i.e., the government. So, if the government someday decides to reverse a transaction (Patriot Act-style, for example), they can instruct/force all the nodes to do so, which defies the main purpose of a blockchain, i.e. immutability. For a blockchain to offer true immutability and decentralization, the nodes must belong to independent entities that do not answer to a central authority, and hence cannot easily collude to achieve a specific goal, that may be against the common good.
Bitcoin is the first and only blockchain that has achieved true immutability and decentralization, as proven by its performance for the entire 13 years of its existence, where no entity, however powerful, has ever been able to reverse or invalidate a single transaction.
Using a blockchain while having a 51% attack advantage on said blockchain, is a contradiction in terms...
Sure thats a fair point...
I was just answering the "who pays" aspect, and before that the "why" aspect, and as I think I have shown the who and why and how are actually, upon looking , quite obvious.
Re the decentralisation, yes a system with only 12 node operators, in theory if they are all obliged to the government would not be censorship resistant.
Sure, the government could steal everyone's property in theory ( I do suppose they could now with the old leaky bloated 6000-7000 staff and quarter billion of offices etc) model.
As for the node aspect, guess it remains to be seen,
exactly who gets to run a node, remember the idea is that they are
storing legal documents, and so, if there is copy of the immutable transaction, later retrievable in court, by even one "independent node operator" (maybe the courts themselves?) , then that is what is important. I believe they are looking at 12
initial "partners" to run nodes, so hardly super decentralised at all, admittedly, but how it evolves and what safeguards are put into place, I do not know.
Not everything is trying to be , or is Bitcoin, and I am note sure we want it to be?
I mean, sure further down the line maybe "bitcoin fixes this" , but right now, would we want 30 odd million land registry records (just for England and wales, imagine globally) stored on the BTC chain ? and given the amendments/requests/new records that would be required, would it be economically feasible, given the idea is to reduce costs........perhaps or perhaps one day it would? , I would not be against it at all... longest oldest chain etc.. but perhaps that would just be a waste.