[joosters]

It’s now listed in the blockchain and universally recognized by the world that you are the rightful owner of the work.

No it’s not. Anyone could have put an artwork on the blockchain, even if it’s not theirs. Just because Alice uploaded an artwork doesn’t prove rule out the possibility that Bob was the creator.

Blockchains cannot link to the physical world while keeping their properties of ‘proofs’, yet so many projects seem to ignore this inconvenient fact.

[miracle2k]

This is not attempting to prove something previously unknown, or resolve an active uncertainty of authorship. But if an artist claims ownership over a work/token, and collective history remembers and validates that claim, then you can prove that you own that token.

[joosters]

If something is already known and collectively validated by history, then you don’t need a blockchain to prove anything.

Conversely, it is the previously unknown things that would most need some confirmation of authorship, yet here the blockchain concept fails again!

[miracle2k]

We need it to prove ownership (of digital things), not authorship.

[molsongolden]

Lots of work happening now on decentralized oracles to solve this problem.

[joosters]

I guess that’s an admission that this current blockchain concept is flawed as it stands, right? I’ve yet to see any truly decentralised oracle either...

[nigerian-craft]

> I’ve yet to see any truly decentralised oracle

These are relatively common in theory and practice.

- uniswap v2 oracles: https://uniswap.org/docs/v2/core-concepts/oracles/

- chainlink: https://docs.chain.link/docs/using-chainlink-reference-contr...

- schelling point oracles: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/03/28/schellingcoin-a-minimal...