[lasagnaphil]

Proof of authenticity, whether being digital or not, doesn't mean anything until

1) the culture of the general people around you support it, or

2) there is an entity with political power (such as the state) that forcefully protects that authenticity through law/police/the military/etc (for example, intellectual property supported by law enforcement).

But firstly I think NFTs are totally antitheical to the current culture of the Internet era, where it is given without question that data can be freely copied and shared (regardless of the countless efforts by DRM technologies), and virality and mass transmission is regarded as an important communal cultural value. Who cares if someone "owns" the Nyan Cat meme, when you can freely Google it and view it on your smartphone, and can also save it to your hard drive if you want to preserve it? And I really don't think state power is really supportive of general crypto right now, so number two is off from the start. The problem I have with NFTs (and cryptocurrenties in general) isn't about the technology, it's more about the culture surrounding it.

(Also, think the blockchain is permanent, because it's supported by "math"? If the infrastructure surrounding Ethereum vanishes, your piece of NFT is essentially gone. And Ethereum's consuming a hell of a lot of energy and infrastructure to maintain, and you might start to think backing it up in a few hard drives is the easier and saner option...)

[woleium]

Who cares who owns the Mona Lisa, when I can see it online better than I can in real life (infrared imagery, x-ray scan)

As soon as "real" art collectors start buying them (already hapenening) then they will mutually invest in protecting their investment, no need for government when civil courts can preside.

[lasagnaphil]

First of all, civil courts are supported by the civil law, and that law is supported by the government. One example of a civil law is copyright enforcement, which is often enforced by the Supreme Court.

And also, when actual powerful entities (whether that be governments/corporations/etc) start to involve in protecting NFT investments using the law, is there any benefit of "crypto" being used to protect the value of the asset anymore? Isn't it just private property with extra steps?

I really don't think the Mona Lisa comparison doesn't fit with the current conversation with NFTs, since NFTs deal with digital assets, and trying to convert an analog artwork like Mona Lisa to fit into NFTs would already demolish its authentic value as an amalgamation of detailed, non-reproducible paint strokes (which I think is the authentic value you're emphasizing about).

[a1369209993]

> Who cares who owns the Mona Lisa, when I can see it online better than I can in real life (infrared imagery, x-ray scan)

Exactly. The only things canonical-physical artworks are good for are conspicuous consumption/bragging rights and money laundering(/other money-laundering-adjactent activities).

[cam0]

And the bragging typically manifests by hanging the physical work on the walls of your home(s) so your guests can view it and be impressed as if they're at a museum or gallery. I'm wondering how the bragging rights for NFTs will manifest... 25 OLED screens decorating my walls with jpegs?