Im trying to quantify if lost land is actually a problem or if it is FUD. Does anyone have any records or metrics about this? Any idea of how many times citizens have made claims of lost land?
This post is not intended to start a discussion on the ways to solve the problem, more-so to understand if it needs to be addressed at all.
Hey @MorrisMustang. I think yes - like a restaurant that wants to maximize the amount of seats they can fit in their dining room, I believe that Decentraland will benefit from having all land available for development. Lost land becomes voids where opportunity could live.
However, it seems that the process of how to address these issues is still being worked out. Have you seen this case here?
I cannot support any proposals to alter the land registry contract for claims of lost land. If you cannot sign a message with the keys that hold the NFT, then you do not own that wallet. Couldn’t be more definitive.
The projects white paper explained the scarcity of land and purchasers should understand how to deal with the risks that presents. Decentraland Land is not readily accessible from Coinbase, it takes effort and crypto knowledge to get to those transactions. Such a person should know how to store private keys or seed phrases securely and if not, they should slow down and learn. We cannot toss the cryptographic systems underlying Decentraland because someone claims to have made a mistake and can’t meet the burden of proof.
Also, Lost land means the land that is available is worth more, which isnt a bad thing for the rest of the landowners out there. I appreciate the argument that an empty world is less valuable, but I doubt Decentraland is empty due to lost land or we’d hear about this problem way more than we do today.
I hear you and understand where you are coming from, @MorrisMustang. It is the decentralized way to say let it be, as losing access to your wallet is an intrinsic part of the ecosystem. I believe that we are not in consensus on where the line is to be drawn between centralized and decentralized within DCL, as altering the land registry contract to resolve a claim of lost land would technically be a centralized operation (even with proper community and committee reviews, etc. presumably).
Allow me to present you with a hypothetical counter scenario where a user publishes profane/racist/globally offensive content on their land and then burns the NFT - would you agree that a move like that would subsequently lower the immediate surrounding land parcels within view of said obscenity? What mechanisms are there to prevent such behavior? Imagine that happening on a grand estate-level scale.
One more point is that the case I linked to in the aforementioned comment is large enough to be a significant loss for that area of the district and it is well-documented to present a case worth of discussion. It is a 2x9 island estate within the central city. Full disclosure, I worked on a design for the owner of that land and we have a project complete and ready to deploy. Yes, I have a small stake in the land so I am undeniably biased, but the project will only exist in alpha space unless situations like these have a clear path to resolution/dismissal.
This is a hard topic because decentralized implies people cannot centrally control assets.
I think if we were going to do a proposal like this it would need to be in the form of:
This would give an owner a way to protect themselves as long as they remain active.
Not saying this is a good idea, but the above would be the most fair way to implement.
Lost land is an interesting debate to me. You are on your own in discussing censorship as it relates to land ownership. I cannot support that. Again I will point to the white paper. Don’t buy something and get mad at the rules after the fact.
“This decentralized distribution system allows Decentraland to work without the need
of any centralized server infrastructure. This allows the world to exist as long as it has
users distributing content, shifting the cost of running the system to the same actors
that benefit from it. It also provides Decentraland with strong censorship-resistance,
eliminating the power of a central authority to change the rules or prevent users from
participating.”
Yes lost or abandoned land is one thing, censorship is not something we should be ok with.
With that said, I think a NSFW/Explicit or even banned content filters should be available, which would make those areas on your client appear as empty plots in a completely optional & togglable way.
This is probably going to be necessary for a wider audience and gives content control without effecting underlying assets.
Agreed. My intent wasn’t at all to make this a censorship discussion, but was an interesting case that popped up.
Back to lost land, DCL already has centralized components such as the wearables review and acceptance process. A minimum period of time without wallet activity as well as a sufficient lockup period before re-distributing the land as @DogeMaxi noted would help to mitigate any risks involved with lost land recovery. And this would all be after a DAO vote and DCL Foundation review, assuming.
Nonetheless, it’s a fascinating topic and deserves to be treaded on and addressed with caution.
I am curious to understand your concerns with land recovery — is it the possibility for censorship/fraud?
i think its FUD, peoples main reason is empty land but i think the biggest contributor to that is the land holders and speculators that only hold for gain in value.
I know someone who builds galleries on their plots with their art work and sell the land and 99% of them just leave it as is
I agree that lost land is FUD. And regardless, there is no way to prove ownership of land other than having the private keys and signing a message from the wallet. Anybody can point to a wallet with land that has been inactive and make up a story about how they own it but lost the keys.
Im happy to recognize Craig Wright as Satoshi…as soon as he signs a message from Satoshi’s wallet.