|
|
|
|
|
by m3ta
3351 days ago
|
|
Using a blockchain to enforce scarcity and authenticity of digital objects is a cool idea on paper but only actually becomes effective under one of two scenarios: 1. Everyone simply agrees and acts accordingly thereby giving the ledger value. See: US dollars. or, 2. There are real-world repercussions to violating the rules. This implies some form of hybrid blockchain/real-world-contract with trade via blockchain and enforcement via the real-world law. There are advantages to trading on a blockchain. To make the claim that a digital item (can be simply copied with a screenshot) is "rare" because it's one-of-a-kind on the blockchain only works if everyone agrees that ownership via blockchain is as important or more important than the pixels that make up the image. The definition of "works" in my previous statement is up for discussion, considering this idea is silly on its own merits, it might be working just fine as far as the creator intended. |
|
This is more apparent in a token like Huntercoin. HUC plays a role in a game that is played by following the Huntercoin protocol (ie, on the "blockchain" though I hate to use that term). One could trivially clone this project and build Froggercoin or whatever, but you would give up the real network effects from humans playing the Huntercoin game.
This could become a more interesting dynamic as people come up with bitcoin-like protocols that (a) do more interesting things aside from merely publish tx sets, and (b) are not protocols that could exist as federated services without a scarcity token.