[ahnick]

> It's not. NFTs are non-enforceable.

They are as non-enforceable as property deeds. (i.e. property deed enforce-ability relies on the government too)

> No they can't. I literally provided you with examples.

They absolutely can. If someone modifies the NFT on the blockchain you will see exactly when and by whom it was modified. This could be provided as evidence in court.

[illiarian]

> They are as non-enforceable as property deeds. (i.e. property deed enforce-ability relies on the government too)

Translation: government enforces property deeds. They are enfoceable.

NFTs are not

> If someone modifies the NFT on the blockchain

The question isn't about modifying the NFT is it. Go and re-read the cases I provided.

Edit: What amazes me about all the cryptobros is their inability to look beyond the simplest of the most simplest of the most trivial of cases. Probably because of their childlike belief in the magic of blockchain.

[ahnick]

> Translation: government enforces property deeds. They are enfoceable. > NFTs are not

How did property deeds come into existence? Was there a time before property deeds? The point is technology evolves and blockchains offer an alternative to record keeping that is an improvement over existing systems. If governments adopt them for tracking property ownership, then they will be just as enforceable as property deeds.

> The question isn't about modifying the NFT is it. Go and re-read the cases I provided.

The point is the on-chain historical record of transactions can be provided as evidence to a court. A blockchain will not prevent corruption and bribery from arising, but it does represent an unalterable record of transactions. Ultimately courts are the enforceability layer of the government, but that does not make blockchains useless for the purposes of property record keeping.

> Edit: What amazes me about all the cryptobros is their inability to look beyond the simplest of the most simplest of the most trivial of cases. Probably because of their childlike belief in the magic of blockchain.

This seems like your inner bias coming out. There is certainly no shortage of grift in the crypto space. Nevertheless, the technology is real and there are people with PhDs in CompSci and vast amounts of distributed network experience working in the space. I'd invite you to try and look at the technology objectively, because there are some really exciting and cool things happening in the space.

[illiarian]

> The point is technology evolves and blockchains offer an alternative to record keeping that is an improvement over existing systems.

You've yet to show it's an improvement.

> Ultimately courts are the enforceability layer of the government, but that does not make blockchains useless for the purposes of property record keeping.

Of course it does. For example, immutability of the record makes everything but the most trivial of cases very complex or impossible:

- every single case in the linked comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27212564 is made worse by the blockchain

- death, incapacitation, loss of access to wallet/private keys and many more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27217681

> This seems like your inner bias coming out.

No. This is the result of many, many such discussions where crypto absolutists fail to imagine any but the most trivial of cases (and even those work only barely, with a bunch of constraints and reliance on existing centralised mechanisms). And for anything outside of those trivial examples they invent more and more bizarre constructs that make the whole thing collapse under its own weight.

> I'd invite you to try and look at the technology objectively,

I have

> because there are some really exciting and cool things happening in the space.

We've heard this magic mantra being repeated ad nauseam for the past 10 years. There's still nothing exciting or cool coming out of this cesspool.