[arduinomancer]

I think the reason it doesn’t make sense is that when you buy art IRL you actually own the original which can’t be duplicated.

This is not true of a JPEG. I can perfectly duplicate it.

Now where it might make sense is if everyone views the asset through an authoritative “viewer”.

For example cryptokitties website.

In that case it somewhat makes sense.

As an analogy if I create a private World of Warcraft server and give my character a billion gold, no one cares.

But if they see my character on the official server (the official “viewer”) has a billion gold then its impressive.

[dbspin]

Except that there's a huge market for 'official' numbered prints. Often the sales of print editions by an artist can rival or exceed the value of an original painted piece. These prints are more more authentic than any other print of the same piece. Their value derived from scarcity, provenance and association with the original creator. All of these are present in an NFT.

[crazygringo]

Can you provide an example of a print being valued more than the original painted piece?

That defies all logic unless the print isn't just a print -- e.g. it's in a million dollar gold frame or was previously owned by the Pope or something.

[seibelj]

Parent poster means the sum of all prints. If there is 1 original and 1000 high quality prints, the prints may exceed sales of original in totality.

[crazygringo]

Oh, thanks. It can be read either way -- that way could actually be plausible in certain cases.

[westondeboer]

This is a fabrication. Original art will always be more expensive than a numbered edition.

[jtsiskin]

“sales of print additions” = total sum of all print sales

[sneak]

At that point if you have a single authoritative site, you can just use postgres to store the who-owns-what and skip the added complexity and risk of a blockchain.