Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#41

Post by a_t48 »

SamBam wrote: post #6
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You tell them to f off? Its like asking what happens when you're handed a bill that is clearly counterfeit

That doesn't answer the question, because the point of the two halves is that they are independently recording the contract. If we use a split stick to record how much money you owe me, and I simply add more marks to mine, to pretend you owe me more, it's obvious that I'm cheating. But if I simply split a brand-new stick and add marks on it, then our sticks won't match up at all. How will a court know which is the or…

Let's say we cut notches perpedicular to where the split will be, and then split through the notches. If you cut more notches in your side of the wood, it will be obvious that you've done so - the two sides will fit together perfectly in shape and in grain, but one side will have extra notches. It's not like I could have filled in the notches on my piece.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#42

Post by runiq »

torstenvl wrote: post #4
rudyfink wrote: post #2

As a related aside, split pieces of wood--so the holder could check and see the pieces matched up--were also used as an anti-fraud device ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick ). Apparently, these pieces of wood are were we get the term "stock." In case you ever wondered why the word for an ownership share is the same word as "stick, trunk, block of wood, or post" (Germanic / Dutch / Old English), this is appar…

So these non-fungible blocks that proved you had a stake... could you maybe trace back the transaction history for a piece of property using some kind of chain of these blocks?

The first image in OP's Wikipedia link depicts something I would definitely describe as "blockchain": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick#/media/File:SAM_PC...

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#43

Post by tgv »

What this tells me is that there is so much detail in history that we just can't get from surviving written records. In this case, the use of sheepskin was common practice, understood or at least practiced by many, with only a rare, relatively obscure reference to it. And now there is an educated guess, based on a highly skewed sample.

Mind you, the article's title is not warranted even by its own findings. It states that another possibly more important reason was cost and availability.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#44

Post by DrScump »

rudyfink wrote: post #2

As a related aside, split pieces of wood--so the holder could check and see the pieces matched up--were also used as an anti-fraud device ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick ). Apparently, these pieces of wood are were we get the term "stock." In case you ever wondered why the word for an ownership share is the same word as "stick, trunk, block of wood, or post" (Germanic / Dutch / Old English), this is appar…

  the stocks caught on fire
Guy Fawkes likes this.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#45

Post by prox »

rudyfink wrote: post #8
chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood - what do you do if the tally sticks don’t match? You just know there’s a dispute but it doesn’t resolve the dispute does it? So what next?

From what I can tell (this is not my field), at least as concerns the English state, the tally stick was divided into the "stock," which was kept by the state, and the "foil," which went with the individual. This video shows a number of examples of stocks (apparently few foils survive) and how they recorded debts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rxAYSXJ41Y . It explains that they were used to record money that was d…

Another old process (ancient?) a teacher of mine once mentioned is that of always having three witnesses to any official transaction (usually one being a Notary to record) and two other people present.

Having three people present is a way to protect against he said/she said.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#46

Post by kgwgk »

Spivak wrote: post #18
pushrax wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could split wood more than 2 ways, then register one of the pieces. Or a system of splitting multiple pieces of wood, leaving some for registration. No idea if this is what anyone has done. Signing makes sense.

But if you have a system where you can register the stick then why do you need the stick? Just register the contract with this, apparently trusted, 3rd party.

The third party and the registered stick slice aren't required to add marks to the outstanding sticks.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#47

Post by chrisseaton »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #5
chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood - what do you do if the tally sticks don’t match? You just know there’s a dispute but it doesn’t resolve the dispute does it? So what next?

You tell them to f off? Its like asking what happens when you're handed a bill that is clearly counterfeit

> Its like asking what happens when you're handed a bill that is clearly counterfeit

Presumably they would say that your stick is the one that is clearly counterfeit.

So how do you resolve that?

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#48

Post by samatman »

prox wrote: post #45
rudyfink wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can tell (this is not my field), at least as concerns the English state, the tally stick was divided into the "stock," which was kept by the state, and the "foil," which went with the individual. This video shows a number of examples of stocks (apparently few foils survive) and how they recorded debts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rxAYSXJ41Y . It explains that they were used to record money that was d…

Another old process (ancient?) a teacher of mine once mentioned is that of always having three witnesses to any official transaction (usually one being a Notary to record) and two other people present. Having three people present is a way to protect against he said/she said.

Three people is the minimum viable democracy: the smallest number for which a majority is possible.

This principle is used all over robust engineering, from Raft to best-of-three sensors.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#49

Post by krisoft »

hristov wrote: post #23
chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood - what do you do if the tally sticks don’t match? You just know there’s a dispute but it doesn’t resolve the dispute does it? So what next?

My understanding is that these were used as what we currently refer to as treasuries. I.e., debt that the government owes to an investor. So, if you want to lend the government some money, you get half a piece of wood with some notches indicating how much you lent. Then when it is time to collect you go to the government show them your piece of wood and if it matches you get your money plus whatever interest. So if t…

So it is in the best interest of the government to get a rasp and file some of of their side of the block. Nothing will match and thus they don’t have to pay.

Re: Lawyers used sheepskin as anti-fraud device for hundreds of years

#50

Post by Cthulhu_ »

airstrike wrote: post #7
torstenvl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So these non-fungible blocks that proved you had a stake... could you maybe trace back the transaction history for a piece of property using some kind of chain of these blocks?

Yes, but then things evolved into more sophisticated and less cumbersome methods of ensuring authenticity.

Sophistication and uncumbersomeness (?) are not necessarily good things.
Post reply on HN