5 ms·

NFTs are fine to tokenize things that are valuable because they are limited, say, like property deeds. You own the token, you own the deed, and it's possible to

NFTs are fine to tokenize things that are valuable because they are limited, say, like property deeds. You own the token, you own the deed, and it's possible to establish an one-to-one relationship. Attaching a token to something that's inherently reproducible such as digital art yet with granting no means to actually enforce copyright is pretty much lunacy and it's just muddying the waters further when it comes to cryptocurrency.

beaconstudios 6y ago
Imagine getting evicted from your house because your realtor accidentally used = instead of == for comparison in the smart contract. The strength of smart contracts are also their greatest weakness - they're code, so any bug in the code is a de facto rule of the contract.
- diab0lic 6y ago
  Yeah there are all kinds of edge cases when a digital token represents ownership of a physical object that just aren't accounted for. What if I get foreclosed on but smash the hard drive containing the key out of spite. Who owns the house now? The chain says me, the law (central authority) says the bank and under the rules we live by today the central authority is correct. What now?
ska 6y ago
> say, like property deeds. The problem with this line of thought is that the Venn diagram of cases where there is a potential natural fit for NFT and the cases where there is both a need for them and likelyhood of adoption may well have an empty intersection. Property deeds are a good example. They can't practically replace the current system without radically rethinking that system, and it's unclear that the stakeholders would find any compelling reason to consider that. Do you have a compelling example?
- frongpik 6y ago
  e.g. a secret bank account that can be accessed by presenting a token. It's like a transferrable password: once it's given to someone, the previous owner forgets it.
  - ska 6y ago
    That seems to have the same problem as property deeds. Unless the compelling example is something like "tax evasion" it isn't obvious why this is particularly useful or desirable, so we're right back where we started.
_jjkk 6y ago
A deed? You mean, a legal document which is enforced through a centralized power i.e. government.... What advantage is gained by tying it one-to-one with an NFT or storing it on a blockchain at all?
- capableweb 6y ago
  For one, if I want to sell/give something to someone, I just transfer the NFT representing the agreement. Imagine if you could transfer car ownership without having to deal with the government or anything else? Just a transaction away. If the seller/buyer also uses cryptocurrency, you could safely write a contract that swaps the funds for the NFT without any risk of either parties running away with both of them (funds and NFT).
  - _jjkk 6y ago
    Sure, it makes sense from an "imagine a world where..." perspective. Sounds convenient. I'm looking at it from a "why would any government on Earth choose to use a 'decentralized' blockchain as a source of truth to keep track of property deeds in their jurisdictions" perspective.
  - whateveracct 6y ago
    > Imagine if you could transfer car ownership without having to deal with the government or anything else? Just a transaction away. uh you still have to register with the government, for good reason. and that's not going away.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      Well, imagine the car maker when creating the car creates a NFT. At that point it's registered and government can read all the details from there. When it reaches the reseller, it changes hands from the manufacturer to the dealer. Once the dealer sells it, it reaches the owner. At that point, government can still see all the details, transfers and more by just doing queries, instead of relying on people filling out forms. Or am I missing what you mean?
  - 6y ago

beaconstudios 6y ago

Imagine getting evicted from your house because your realtor accidentally used = instead of == for comparison in the smart contract. The strength of smart contracts are also their greatest weakness - they're code, so any bug in the code is a de facto rule of the contract.

diab0lic 6y ago
Yeah there are all kinds of edge cases when a digital token represents ownership of a physical object that just aren't accounted for. What if I get foreclosed on but smash the hard drive containing the key out of spite. Who owns the house now? The chain says me, the law (central authority) says the bank and under the rules we live by today the central authority is correct. What now?

ska 6y ago

> say, like property deeds. The problem with this line of thought is that the Venn diagram of cases where there is a potential natural fit for NFT and the cases where there is both a need for them and likelyhood of adoption may well have an empty intersection. Property deeds are a good example. They can't practically replace the current system without radically rethinking that system, and it's unclear that the stakeholders would find any compelling reason to consider that. Do you have a compelling example?

frongpik 6y ago
e.g. a secret bank account that can be accessed by presenting a token. It's like a transferrable password: once it's given to someone, the previous owner forgets it.
- ska 6y ago
  That seems to have the same problem as property deeds. Unless the compelling example is something like "tax evasion" it isn't obvious why this is particularly useful or desirable, so we're right back where we started.

_jjkk 6y ago

A deed? You mean, a legal document which is enforced through a centralized power i.e. government.... What advantage is gained by tying it one-to-one with an NFT or storing it on a blockchain at all?

capableweb 6y ago
For one, if I want to sell/give something to someone, I just transfer the NFT representing the agreement. Imagine if you could transfer car ownership without having to deal with the government or anything else? Just a transaction away. If the seller/buyer also uses cryptocurrency, you could safely write a contract that swaps the funds for the NFT without any risk of either parties running away with both of them (funds and NFT).
- _jjkk 6y ago
  Sure, it makes sense from an "imagine a world where..." perspective. Sounds convenient. I'm looking at it from a "why would any government on Earth choose to use a 'decentralized' blockchain as a source of truth to keep track of property deeds in their jurisdictions" perspective.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  > Imagine if you could transfer car ownership without having to deal with the government or anything else? Just a transaction away. uh you still have to register with the government, for good reason. and that's not going away.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Well, imagine the car maker when creating the car creates a NFT. At that point it's registered and government can read all the details from there. When it reaches the reseller, it changes hands from the manufacturer to the dealer. Once the dealer sells it, it reaches the owner. At that point, government can still see all the details, transfers and more by just doing queries, instead of relying on people filling out forms. Or am I missing what you mean?
- 6y ago