[m3adow]

I don't see how that's a straw horse. It's even mentioned in the blog post as the "Enforcement problem".

Nobody can (or should) take NFTs for Real-Life goods seriously until this problem is solved for good.

I myself doubt it can be solved properly without a centralised authority which would contradict the whole "trustless" selling point. But I'd be glad to hear approaches how this and the Oracle problem could be solved in a trustless manner.

[PeterCorless]

There are serious projects using distributed ledger technology that are trying to solve for "this distributed ledger entry stands for this real-world container of goods" or "this particular pallet," or "this particular box on that pallet, or "this particular diamond in that box" or "this particular fish."

But the application-level definition of parsing and comprehending what an entry in a ledger stands for is not universal. These are proprietary, or at least, communally-held paradigms being set up independently by each ledger designer.

We're lacking universal grammars so that the logic of an item designed to operate on distributed ledger X would be recognized or honored if migrated to distributed ledger Y.

[xboxnolifes]

NFTs only assure ownership of the NFT data itself, not what the data may represents off of the chain or otherwise. The only people who think/claim that you now own a PNG or a lease by storing a link to one in a blockchain are idiots or people trying to sell things to idiots.

Assuring ownership of the data itself in a decentralized way has value outside of this current fake / grifted meme of owning a random PNG. It's tiring that a community that seemingly prides itself on technical understanding gets so hung up on an overused fake use case.

[meheleventyone]

Or even digital goods because you still need to know for any digital good which chain or chains has legitimate versions and really which those are versus any copies that are also on the chain(s).