[albertgoeswoof]

Ignore the speculation on NFTs as a “single owner” of a piece of digital art for now, like most high art, it’s BS.

Just think about the things you buy online, be it movies, artwork, music, in app upgrades etc. Today we trust each individual app developer to honour the purchase agreement, eg. if the Amazon disappears or changes their license agreement, all your purchases are gone.

Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.

This is a huge net win for end users.

[Hamuko]

>Tomorrow we might be able to purchase a license to the asset, registered on a public blockchain, and use that to prove ownership within an application. You could actually own some of things you currently “buy” online.

How? Why does it matter that it's on some blockchain?

[albertgoeswoof]

It could be on a normal database/server, but then all parties would have to agree on who controls that, and it would be difficult for new developers to join.

We’d need some kind of way to trust a public database among untrusted participants- which is what a blockchain basically does.

[Hamuko]

This still doesn't explain how this actually proves anything, improves anything or makes the offered Amazon scenario a thing of the past.

[meribold]

That sounds like DRM. Wouldn't less DRM be a bigger win for end users?