20 ms·

Art NFT is dumb in my opinion. However, I'd love NFTs to prove ownership of car titles or real estate. Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled

Art NFT is dumb in my opinion. However, I'd love NFTs to prove ownership of car titles or real estate. Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled assets would be with NFTs.

sputknick 6y ago
I think you nailed it. NFTs could be useful for a lot of boring applications. What if your software license was an NFT that you verified every time you opened it. Or maybe a book you bought on Amazon for the kindle. That way you could sell these digital assets you own.
- tantalor 6y ago
  How does verification work? How do you prohibit duplication? If you need a central server for verification then blockchain is pointless.
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    I have thought about this quite a lot. NFT for software license would only work for applications that work with the blockchain. Something like a blockchain client where the user needs to authenticate to interact with the blockchain. Without authentication the application is useless. With authentication their account/wallet would have a license key and software use authorized. For other types of software, without authenticating to the blockchain, there is no way to verify that the user is the owner of the license.
    - tantalor 6y ago
      But how do you check the user with the token is the actual owner? Do you need to add a transaction to the ledger for each use/verification?
      - tastyfreeze 6y ago
        If they are authenticated to their ledger account then simple possession of the token in the account is sufficient verification. The use case I considered was a client for trading on XRPL. For an application like this they are going to be signing transactions to interact with the ledger. If they are able to sign and own a license token in their ledger account then they are the valid user.
ska 6y ago
> Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled assets would be with NFTs. How is that going to fit in with tax assessment and ownership transparency legislation without making things complicated enough you haven't gained anything?
tim333 6y ago
When someone hacks your computer and transfers the NFT of your house that's going to be an interesting one.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  crypto lovers really don't understand that there is value to existing real-world "archaic" systems
  - rattlesnakedave 6y ago
    you can build replicas of archaic systems on top of crypto based systems for better UX, while still maintaining the possibility of self custody for those that desire it. The inverse is not true.
    - sparkie 6y ago
      This is just adding unwanted complexity to an otherwise simple problem. The purpose of a distributed cryptographic ledger is that no authority may commit to it without the required cryptographic private keys. If you have some party who can commit to the ledger arbitrarily, or who has a skeleton key, then you don't need the distributed ledger - you just need a centralized ledger with replication (far more efficient). Any situation where ownership is enforced by a central party is a poor fit for this technology. You either want the cryptographic keys to secure the property, or you want the humans in charge to secure the property through a legal system. There is no sensible marriage between these systems. A system controlled by humans undermines cryptographic security, and a system controlled by cryptography obsoletes human control. Therefore, the only thing worth owning w.r.t a digital ledger is the digital token itself. As a proxy for anything else, a digital token cannot assert right of ownership.
  - scotu 6y ago
    they might understand, but they also want to profit as much as possible on it ;) anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rather than old/archaic/obsolete. for example when I talk about the reason why election processes should not be "computerized"/networked it's because you want a slow system, it's a feature. The slow system gives you a slow result (but in an acceptable time), but it also avoids fast/at scale fraud. I think slow while still holding slightly negative connotation is not as negative as archaic and other option (slow food is good)
whateveracct 6y ago
The legal red tape of real estate ownership is a feature not a bug
- delaaxe 6y ago
  I don't think anyone wants to get rid of the legal stuff. Just digitize it in a way where we get rid of outrageous notary fees and other middlemen. Those shouldn't probably be bearer tokens as theft/loss is a big deal
miracle2k 6y ago
It's actually the other way around. The government needs a court to be able to force the transfer of deeds, so essentially control over the ownership of those NFTs. At this point, there is little reason to use a blockchain. Art NFTs are digitally native. Like Bitcoin, the blockchain entry is the thing you own. That is why they are seeing the success that they are.

Art NFT is dumb in my opinion. However, I'd love NFTs to prove ownership of car titles or real estate. Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled assets would be with NFTs.

sputknick 6y ago

I think you nailed it. NFTs could be useful for a lot of boring applications. What if your software license was an NFT that you verified every time you opened it. Or maybe a book you bought on Amazon for the kindle. That way you could sell these digital assets you own.

tantalor 6y ago
How does verification work? How do you prohibit duplication? If you need a central server for verification then blockchain is pointless.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  I have thought about this quite a lot. NFT for software license would only work for applications that work with the blockchain. Something like a blockchain client where the user needs to authenticate to interact with the blockchain. Without authentication the application is useless. With authentication their account/wallet would have a license key and software use authorized. For other types of software, without authenticating to the blockchain, there is no way to verify that the user is the owner of the license.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    But how do you check the user with the token is the actual owner? Do you need to add a transaction to the ledger for each use/verification?
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      If they are authenticated to their ledger account then simple possession of the token in the account is sufficient verification. The use case I considered was a client for trading on XRPL. For an application like this they are going to be signing transactions to interact with the ledger. If they are able to sign and own a license token in their ledger account then they are the valid user.

ska 6y ago

> Think of how much easier transfer of ownership of titled assets would be with NFTs. How is that going to fit in with tax assessment and ownership transparency legislation without making things complicated enough you haven't gained anything?

tim333 6y ago

When someone hacks your computer and transfers the NFT of your house that's going to be an interesting one.

whateveracct 6y ago
crypto lovers really don't understand that there is value to existing real-world "archaic" systems
- rattlesnakedave 6y ago
  you can build replicas of archaic systems on top of crypto based systems for better UX, while still maintaining the possibility of self custody for those that desire it. The inverse is not true.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    This is just adding unwanted complexity to an otherwise simple problem. The purpose of a distributed cryptographic ledger is that no authority may commit to it without the required cryptographic private keys. If you have some party who can commit to the ledger arbitrarily, or who has a skeleton key, then you don't need the distributed ledger - you just need a centralized ledger with replication (far more efficient). Any situation where ownership is enforced by a central party is a poor fit for this technology. You either want the cryptographic keys to secure the property, or you want the humans in charge to secure the property through a legal system. There is no sensible marriage between these systems. A system controlled by humans undermines cryptographic security, and a system controlled by cryptography obsoletes human control. Therefore, the only thing worth owning w.r.t a digital ledger is the digital token itself. As a proxy for anything else, a digital token cannot assert right of ownership.
- scotu 6y ago
  they might understand, but they also want to profit as much as possible on it ;) anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rather than old/archaic/obsolete. for example when I talk about the reason why election processes should not be "computerized"/networked it's because you want a slow system, it's a feature. The slow system gives you a slow result (but in an acceptable time), but it also avoids fast/at scale fraud. I think slow while still holding slightly negative connotation is not as negative as archaic and other option (slow food is good)

whateveracct 6y ago

The legal red tape of real estate ownership is a feature not a bug

delaaxe 6y ago
I don't think anyone wants to get rid of the legal stuff. Just digitize it in a way where we get rid of outrageous notary fees and other middlemen. Those shouldn't probably be bearer tokens as theft/loss is a big deal

miracle2k 6y ago

It's actually the other way around. The government needs a court to be able to force the transfer of deeds, so essentially control over the ownership of those NFTs. At this point, there is little reason to use a blockchain. Art NFTs are digitally native. Like Bitcoin, the blockchain entry is the thing you own. That is why they are seeing the success that they are.