3 ms·

Present in court. The descendant as proxy isn’t a new concept. Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. You can't assert ownership vi

by kwdc 5y ago

Present in court. The descendant as proxy isn’t a new concept. Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. You can't assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? That would be admissable in court. The court orders new block chain transadtion/item. That new item refers to existing that presumably has all these details. Edit: added "transaction".

jjulius 5y ago
>Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. What sale? An artist I love offers a vinyl record for sale via NFT. Being a fan of the artist moreso than a proponent of blockchain technology, I purchase the record. An unknown number of years go by and I decide that I don’t really enjoy the record anymore. The record sits on my shelf collecting dust for years until a friend comes over and expresses interest in it. I casually tell them they can keep it and I move on with my life. That friend now, for all intents and purposes, owns the record that I bought. It belongs to them. >You can’t assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. But in my example, I don’t care about the blockchain. I’m more interested in the music, the blockchain is just a barrier to me obtaining it. My physical copy is far more important to me than an electronic record that says I bought it, so as long as the record makes it to my house after I purchase it, I’m happy. Unless there’s a law that stipulates that I absolutely MUST update the blockchain when I pass it on to my friend, I may just not care about it. Hell, I might even forget about it if that's one of the only blockchain transactions I've ever made. It'd be a damn shame if I forget my blockchain account credentials, too... >The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? Not always, no. Did you write out, and get notarized, something that says you gave your friend your used frying pan and let them keep it? If I bought that record and just told my friend, “Eh, sure, take it, it’s yours,” then typically we’re not going to generate a record of that transaction. >The court orders new block chain item. Ah, see, that’s where I misunderstood your first post. You used the word “asset” in reference to the artwork early on, and then said the court could “order the creation of a new asset”, when you actually meant, “order the creation of a new blockchain transaction”, correct?
- kwdc 5y ago
  Correct. But what is the point of even discussing this? I'm not actually allowed to disagree am I? I must agree with the groupthink. I'm at -1 so what is the point of further discussion? I didn't post anything inappropriate - I simply disagreed. This isn't a place to meet interesting minds. Its an echo chamber. Now I know.

by kwdc 5y ago

jjulius 5y ago

>Failing to update the blockchain means the sale didn't go through. What sale? An artist I love offers a vinyl record for sale via NFT. Being a fan of the artist moreso than a proponent of blockchain technology, I purchase the record. An unknown number of years go by and I decide that I don’t really enjoy the record anymore. The record sits on my shelf collecting dust for years until a friend comes over and expresses interest in it. I casually tell them they can keep it and I move on with my life. That friend now, for all intents and purposes, owns the record that I bought. It belongs to them. >You can’t assert ownership via a blockchain then believe failing to update the blockchain is acceptable. But in my example, I don’t care about the blockchain. I’m more interested in the music, the blockchain is just a barrier to me obtaining it. My physical copy is far more important to me than an electronic record that says I bought it, so as long as the record makes it to my house after I purchase it, I’m happy. Unless there’s a law that stipulates that I absolutely MUST update the blockchain when I pass it on to my friend, I may just not care about it. Hell, I might even forget about it if that's one of the only blockchain transactions I've ever made. It'd be a damn shame if I forget my blockchain account credentials, too... >The buyer has records of transfer, eg payment. Right? Not always, no. Did you write out, and get notarized, something that says you gave your friend your used frying pan and let them keep it? If I bought that record and just told my friend, “Eh, sure, take it, it’s yours,” then typically we’re not going to generate a record of that transaction. >The court orders new block chain item. Ah, see, that’s where I misunderstood your first post. You used the word “asset” in reference to the artwork early on, and then said the court could “order the creation of a new asset”, when you actually meant, “order the creation of a new blockchain transaction”, correct?

kwdc 5y ago
Correct. But what is the point of even discussing this? I'm not actually allowed to disagree am I? I must agree with the groupthink. I'm at -1 so what is the point of further discussion? I didn't post anything inappropriate - I simply disagreed. This isn't a place to meet interesting minds. Its an echo chamber. Now I know.