Actually, as an immutable datastore, the blockchain is the perfect place to store ownership certificates. That's literally what crypto-currency is, a long auditable log of ownership certificates (unless you're complicating things with segwit).
You're addressing the technical problems without addressing the people problems.
Blockchain is as immutable as it's distributed. When a company (corporate structure) is running it, they will probably own all of the nodes.
A much more simple and legally strong solution would be to keep everything in a graph and hold backup copies in escrow.
I think that currency is one of the few applications that's inherently distributed enough to allow the blockchain application to work. It also requires large amounts of individuals controlling resources.
Plus, in this case, the value is not in the token of ownership, but in the actual ownership. Bitcoin and other currencies, the token IS the value. With a ledger of property ownership, the value is in the ownership of the property, not the ownership of the listed token.
Meaning, people wont be incentivized to use blockchain if a centralized database by the state that records ownership exists.
My point, btw, is not that "blockchain is bad". It's that "other things are usually better". Usually, being a key word.
You misunderstand, I meant a public blockchain. People have been using the bitcoin and ethereum blockchain to store proof of existence for ages now, see stamp.io
You could create an ethereum based registry fairly simply where people paid to be included. I'm definitely addressing both technical and people problems here.
Apart from that, I'm sorry, the practicalities of crypto-currency have been debated ad nauseum and I don't feel like arguing them today. :(
