[vaer-k]

It totally disagree. I think it is quite equivalent. The difference is that we don't have a centralized authority to recognize valid NFTs, as we do for deeds. But if we did have a central authority, like perhaps the artist responsible for the work protected by the NFT, and if the artist made it clear and public that only the NFTs she recognizes could be considered valid proof of ownership of her works, then indeed an NFT would function like a deed.

[endisneigh]

A common misunderstanding of NFTs is that they give you some level of legal rights. NFTs do not inherently give you rights. That's why a comparison with a deed is fundamentally flawed. A deed is a legal construct - inherently it gives you ownership. So even if it were sold, without the institutions notarizing the transaction it would not be a valid sale and could be easily reversed by the original owner.

I could sell an NFT to your comment trivially because it doesn't mean anything. You can think of it as the digital equivalent of me taking a screenshot of your comment and selling that - sure it doesn't give the purchaser rights to your comment, but that isn't what was for sale anyway.

[vaer-k]

I have no misunderstanding about this whatsoever, in fact. I understand that NFTs confer no rights, which is why I posited the idea of a necessary authority who can declare which NFTs are valid representations of ownership of their works. It is the pairing of NFT and authority which grant the possibility of ownership.

Many people immediately jump on the idea that NFTs cannot confer ownership, and thus are worthless as a concept, but they fail to recognize that it is only one half of ownership, just as a deed to a house is just a piece of paper (that anyone can photocopy) without an authority to recognize it.

[endisneigh]

again a deed is referring to a specific thing. a photocopied deed is not a deed anymore than a photocopied dollar bill is legit money. in other words a deed is already authorized by definition.

if you have an authority to confer rights then the NFT itself was unnecessary to begin with.

anyway, the original point I was trying to make is that situation you described (selling a deed to a house you don't own) doesn't make sense since by definition the own who does not own the deed can not sell it. if, somehow the sale did go through, the original owner could easily get it back. this situation is not possible with NFTs without a central authority, but with a central authority NFTs would not be necessary to begin with.

[vaer-k]

A deed does not refer to a specific thing. It only does so in daily life as a matter of convention. It is the authority of the banks or the government or whatever that gives your particular deed any weight at all. A deed, like a dollar bill, is a piece of paper with no value. Indeed, a photocopied dollar bill has no value whatsoever. It is only our collective agreement to pair value with officially recognized papers that grants those papers value.

The situation I described does make sense, because it's exactly what we are circling around here. Anyone can sell anything; it is merely a question of whether the sale will be recognized by the parties that matter. An NFT is necessary because it distributes the transfer and sale of things without a central intermediary. There is and always will be a required authority to recognize the value of a given NFT, however.

Note that these two ideas of central authority are not equivalent. In one hand, you have a centralized authority over trade; in the other, an authority over value. Note also that in the case of NFTs, there is no "one central authority who governs all value", but instead many authorities, i.e. the creators! The artist or creator of a given work is free to recognize the NFTs that grant ownership of their creations. It is they who have the power of authority.

[endisneigh]

> A deed does not refer to a specific thing. It only does so in daily life as a matter of convention. It is the authority of the banks or the government or whatever that gives your particular deed any weight at all. A deed, like a dollar bill, is a piece of paper with no value. Indeed, a photocopied dollar bill has no value whatsoever. It is only our collective agreement to pair value with officially recognized papers that grants those papers value.

What? A deed, per common law, is a legal instrument which affirms ownership of something. I'm not going to talk about value as that is independent of the purpose of a deed (you could have a deed to something that everyone agrees is worthless, but regardless you are the owner according to the government(s) in question)

Again, if you have a central authority an NFT is unnecessary and pointless to begin with. Nothing you've said really refutes that. All of the functionality of an NFT can be trivially replicated by a central authority, and indeed it already is.

> Anyone can sell anything

No, they can't. By your own logic, anyone can do anything. Surely you already see that is not true. We live in reality, and in reality others must recognize actions in order for them to be recognized as legitimate.

[kbelder]

I can sell an NFT to your house just as easily as I can to your comment, and it confers exactly the same amount of legal rights.

[endisneigh]

Yes, exactly. You get equal rights, that is to say, nothing. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? It's unclear.