[ForgotMyPwOops]

My understanding is that this is not correct, it conflates all NFT transactions without nuance, if one buys intellectual property via NFT and can prove it (which is ostensibly NFT's raison d'etre) then I see no reason why they couldn't exercise their rights to it (i.e. sue for copyright infringement, ect)

[folli]

So you need to fallback to centralized government to sue for copyright? How bourgoise.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Maybe I misunderstand your point but intellectual property can only exist under a legal system, this seems like a shallow 'gotcha'

[heyitsguay]

No, it's a thorough gotcha for a shallow topic to which money has given the illusion of depth. If you need a centralized entity to enforce the rights associated with a decentralized system, the decentralized system is unnecessary. We've long had solutions for the purchase of digital assets on any platform you choose, with ownership and usage rights enforced by the state.

[choward]

Exactly. This is my problem with all these things people claim blockchain technology will solve. People think it's magically going to solve all the problems created by the government. They think it's a work around to fix corruption.

No matter how hard you blockchain you're still under the law of the government. You still have to pay taxes in your country's currency. Your "decentralized" blockchain still relies on centralization. Your internet infrastructure is centralized and ran usually by the government. The power grid you depend on is centralized.

My point is your blockchain technology still relies on the government. China even outlawed Bitcoin mining. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIX POLITICAL PROBLEMS WITH BLOCKCHAIN.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

There is one political problem that is solved by Bitcoin, in fact it is why it was created. That is the problem of Central Banks debasing the monetary supply.

They knew that when it was created that States would crush it like they had crushed other attempt. With Bitcoin, they could not. I don't think its safe to say its under the law. The law is to the side. Bitcoin exists in a numerical and computation universe that cares not for the laws of man.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

> People think it's magically going to solve all the problems created by the government

No one other than extremists (which exist in all groups) believe this, using this as a reason to hate NFTs makes you appear unreasonable and not grounded in reality

[choward]

> No one other than extremists (which exist in all groups) believe this

This is the main argument I hear. Tell me then, how else is it useful?

> using this as a reason to hate NFTs makes you appear unreasonable and not grounded in reality

It's a perfectly valid reason to hate NFTs among so many others. Instead of since centralized authority such as a government keeping track of who owns something it's a "decentralized" blockchain.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Your implicit claim is that NFTs offer nothing more than decentralization which is not true, as it's basis is a public tamper resistant ledger that is difficult to censor. How many systems like this exist already? How many are easier to use than NFTs? How many of your prospective customers are likely to know about or want to use this alternate system versus NFTs?

To claim it has no benefits other than decentralization seems odd to me

Edit: I can't respond past this point as I'm being throttled

[paddlepop]

The only novel benefit, as you say, is "decentralized trust". The blockchain portion of the NFT in most cases is simple a pointer to the asset and the owner, with the actual asset being off-chain managed by a single entity that can do whatever they please with it. Why does the ownership need to be decentralized if ultimately, the asset is mutable?

[jrek]

What problem is solved via a public tamper resistant ledger outside of the hypothetical? I routinely make purchases outside of a public tamper resistant ledger without issue.

I’d argue that what you’ve stated is just the mechanism by which decentralisation is achieved (you haven’t identified any additional benefits).

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Oh, there is nuance.

Still, legally speaking, who is exactly enforcing it? Opensea? MPAA? I get that is going to be a fun question to answer since you can technically sue for anything ( but its not a guarantee that a judge will throw it out if he/she sees something sufficiently in the 'wasting my time' category ).

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Can the NFT be cryptographically verified to be authentic? If so then it should be as good as any other proof of purchase

[qayxc]

> Can the NFT be cryptographically verified to be authentic?

No. Authenticity of the data is not part of the concept.

What would that even mean in the context of non-physical contracts? You can buy an experience as an NFT (i.e. dinner with a C-list celeb) and the NFT serves as nothing more than a receipt saying you purchased that experience. Doesn't have to be unique (several people could by the same), doesn't include any specific metadata relating to the buyer.

What kind of "cryptographic authenticity" would even apply in such case?

It gets worse with digital assets if all you get is an IPFS URI. The actual data can be removed or altered at any point without the NFT itself being affected in way. Unless the asset itself is stored in the blockchain (which is practically impossible for anything beyond thumbnail-sized images) there's nothing to validate on the BC besides the token itself.