Better tracking of ownership can be a good thing even when you do need another system for enforcement.
For example, a problem for many low-income people in the U.S. is that consumer loans get sold and resold, often with poor record-keeping, and its hard for the consumer and the courts to know whether a creditor claiming nonpayment actually has a right to be paid. This is described in detail by Matt Taibbi in his recent book The Divide.
> consumer loans get sold and resold, often with poor record-keeping, and its hard for the consumer and the courts to know whether a creditor claiming nonpayment actually has a right to be paid.
Well, a loan isn't a physical object so that example doesn't really apply to my comment, however, I still don't think it solves the underlying issue since the cause of the problem isn't a lack of reliable record keeping technology, it's "poor record keeping" which is a deliberate choice made by some businesses regardless of what technology is available.
Which is possible because we trust those businesses to keep proper records, instead of putting them on a public blockchain that doesn't require us to trust anyone.
Another example which is physical is real estate records in some third-world countries, where the central government wants to enforce property rights but bribes to the local register of deeds are effective at getting the records changed. (I read about this in an article in The Economist several years ago, so don't have a reference handy.)
> we trust those businesses to keep proper records, instead of putting them on a public blockchain that doesn't require us to trust anyone
Nothing really changes. You still have to trust that those private businesses will correctly use the record keeping technology. In a world with practical blockchain record keeping they would simply fail to use it or use it incorrectly.
Not if you use a contract that transfers ownership only with an on-chain payment. Even without that, you at least can't claim you lost the records, as these companies sometimes do.
Set it up legally so the loans in the system are only transferrable via on-chain payment, and teach the courts how to read those records, and it doesn't matter what the incentives are. The chain is the source of truth that way. If you're recorded as the owner on chain, you're the owner, full stop.
If you're going to setup an entire legal framework that forces businesses to use a particular record keeping system then the problem is already solved. You could legally force businesses to keep appropriate records or to participate in a centralized record keeping system operated by a trusted third party like a government or tribunal. You could also use a blockchain for this, but it doesn't offer much value.
They're already required to keep appropriate records. But the courts don't have money to go checking so they just trust companies to swear they have them, and the companies lie.
And sure, you could spend a bunch of money setting up a government database and employees to run it, but at some point it's easier to write a few lines of code and be done with it.
For example, a problem for many low-income people in the U.S. is that consumer loans get sold and resold, often with poor record-keeping, and its hard for the consumer and the courts to know whether a creditor claiming nonpayment actually has a right to be paid. This is described in detail by Matt Taibbi in his recent book The Divide.