4 ms·

> NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership) No they aren't, and least not until they're recognized

> NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership) No they aren't, and least not until they're recognized by law as such.

fredfoobar 6y ago
I'm not sure what a "usecase" has to do with laws, a usecase can exist outside of the law. Are you implying that laws should come before inventions/ideas?
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > a usecase can exist outside of the law So, let me get this straight: you have an NFT that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law does not recognize the NFT as the deed for the vehicle... if you don't see any problems with that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
  - fredfoobar 6y ago
    Let me reprharse this. You have a piece of paper that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law doesn't recognize the "paper" as the deed for the vehicle...(this during the time of clay tablets) Was that clear? or do you still have that bridge for sale?
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      You're missing the point. A deed is only as good as the legal framework that enforces it as a representation of ownership rights. The thing that matters is that framework, not the technology use to implement it. There are people who sell deeds to land on the moon (https://lunarland.com/ https://lunarland.com/), but they're worth little more than the paper they're printed on, because they have some of the same deficits in legal recognition that NFTs have. Those people have no more ability to will their certificates into having legal force than NFT advocates have. In short, an NFT is little more than a trading card (representing only itself) unless a court would side with the possessor of an NFT against competing claims for whatever property it's suppose to represent (e.g. transferring ownership of the property/rights to party A using traditional means AND transferring the NFT to party B). If the court picks party A, the NFT meant nothing.
      - fredfoobar 6y ago
        Oh god, why?? I made a point, which you missed and you're telling me that I missed your point? seriously? I'm just telling you that this technology is suitable for doing the job of a paper-title, but in a digital way. Is it that hard?
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      I don't get it. If the law doesn't recognize the paper as the deed for the vehicle, then that piece of paper is worthless.
theptip 6y ago
It is already possible to write legal contracts which say “whoever controls token with public key X, hereforth ‘Owner’” for many asset classes. I’m sure there are many asset classes where you can’t write such a contract but I don’t think your categorical rejection is correct.
quantified 6y ago
Right, analog of a purchase receipt is maybe a better way to put it.

> NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership) No they aren't, and least not until they're recognized by law as such.

fredfoobar 6y ago

I'm not sure what a "usecase" has to do with laws, a usecase can exist outside of the law. Are you implying that laws should come before inventions/ideas?

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> a usecase can exist outside of the law So, let me get this straight: you have an NFT that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law does not recognize the NFT as the deed for the vehicle... if you don't see any problems with that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
- fredfoobar 6y ago
  Let me reprharse this. You have a piece of paper that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law doesn't recognize the "paper" as the deed for the vehicle...(this during the time of clay tablets) Was that clear? or do you still have that bridge for sale?
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    You're missing the point. A deed is only as good as the legal framework that enforces it as a representation of ownership rights. The thing that matters is that framework, not the technology use to implement it. There are people who sell deeds to land on the moon (https://lunarland.com/ https://lunarland.com/), but they're worth little more than the paper they're printed on, because they have some of the same deficits in legal recognition that NFTs have. Those people have no more ability to will their certificates into having legal force than NFT advocates have. In short, an NFT is little more than a trading card (representing only itself) unless a court would side with the possessor of an NFT against competing claims for whatever property it's suppose to represent (e.g. transferring ownership of the property/rights to party A using traditional means AND transferring the NFT to party B). If the court picks party A, the NFT meant nothing.
    - fredfoobar 6y ago
      Oh god, why?? I made a point, which you missed and you're telling me that I missed your point? seriously? I'm just telling you that this technology is suitable for doing the job of a paper-title, but in a digital way. Is it that hard?
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    I don't get it. If the law doesn't recognize the paper as the deed for the vehicle, then that piece of paper is worthless.

theptip 6y ago

It is already possible to write legal contracts which say “whoever controls token with public key X, hereforth ‘Owner’” for many asset classes. I’m sure there are many asset classes where you can’t write such a contract but I don’t think your categorical rejection is correct.

quantified 6y ago

Right, analog of a purchase receipt is maybe a better way to put it.