3 ms·
That sounds like inventory management more than ownership which do obviously have overlap. But why would having something minted on purchase of say a Rolex be b
by bogota 5y ago
That sounds like inventory management more than ownership which do obviously have overlap. But why would having something minted on purchase of say a Rolex be bad? Then when you sell it you could transfer that to the new owner. Showing a chain all the way back to the original purchase. This still has the issue of someone who could come into ownership of a minted item without the object and then try and make a convincing fake but this at first glance sounds like a great way to reduce fakes in the market significantly.
- dragontamer 5y agoSituation #1: Lets say a thief steals the Rolex from X. It goes through the black market, and now Y claims to own that Rolex. Lets take situation #2. X realizes that Situation#1 is possible. So X sells his Rolex to Y but fails to disclose that its blockchain-tracked. Now Y has the Rolex (and is out of some money). Now X-claims that Y stole the Rolex from him. How does Blockchain differentiate from #1 (where the Rolex should be returned to X) and #2 (where the Rolex should be returned to Y) ? The only way to solve this issue is to ensure that Y transacts on the _same_ blockchain. Which... isn't the case at all for NFTs, Bitcoin, DOGE, and etc. etc. There are so many blockchains (and each NFT basically makes its own blockchain). It is very easy for X to transact on the wrong blockchain to fool Y right now. (or off-blockchain, by transacting in USD for example).