3 ms·

There are some legitimate use cases for NFTs but art is not one of them. The best use case I can think of is a kind of DNS domain name system. The domain name

There are some legitimate use cases for NFTs but art is not one of them. The best use case I can think of is a kind of DNS domain name system. The domain name is an NFT; it's unique and it provides value as it can be integrated with various systems. The intrinsic value of crypto and NFT is in software integrations.

flir 5y ago
You could put DNS in a distributed database (a la blockchain), and there's a benefit there (although no more than insisting all DNS updates are signed, I think). I can't see what additional benefit NFT would offer over that?
- cryptica 5y ago
  Just a few points I could come up with off the top of my head: - Users could buy and trade domain names using cryptocurrency tokens within the same system without relying on centralized payment gateways. - No need to rely on a central authority like ICANN to decide who can control what gTLDs. - Could make way for entirely new security models for TLS certificates; no need to trust certificate authorities. Certificates could be signed using blockchain private keys associated with a specific domain. - The whole system would be self-contained and all domain purchases would be publicly auditable on-chain; every domain would be paid for using tokens which represent real value, thus preventing misappropriation and spam. - Different DNS blockchains could compete for relevance/adoption to be integrated with different browser makers; this would encourage decentralization in the browser space. - Easy path to monetization; imagine how much demand would be created for underlying tokens if each user paid tokens every time they wanted to change the IP address which a domain name points to. This kind of DAO would be profitable by design. You could earn profit just by holding the token.
  - benhurmarcel 5y ago
    Websites would also lose their domain if the admin loses the private key, or it gets stolen. There would be no authority to return control to the rightful owner. I don't think most web actors would be ready to accept that massive drawback.
    - cryptica 5y ago
      You can have multisignature wallets so that you only need signatures from 2/3 of members. It would be unlikely for many people to lose their keys.
anonyxyz 5y ago
This exists: ENS
stiltzkin 5y ago
There are already .crypto domains which work as NFT and just need to pay once as opposed to ENS or DNS domains. Seems the only downside is that it is controlled by a private company.

flir 5y ago

You could put DNS in a distributed database (a la blockchain), and there's a benefit there (although no more than insisting all DNS updates are signed, I think). I can't see what additional benefit NFT would offer over that?

cryptica 5y ago
Just a few points I could come up with off the top of my head: - Users could buy and trade domain names using cryptocurrency tokens within the same system without relying on centralized payment gateways. - No need to rely on a central authority like ICANN to decide who can control what gTLDs. - Could make way for entirely new security models for TLS certificates; no need to trust certificate authorities. Certificates could be signed using blockchain private keys associated with a specific domain. - The whole system would be self-contained and all domain purchases would be publicly auditable on-chain; every domain would be paid for using tokens which represent real value, thus preventing misappropriation and spam. - Different DNS blockchains could compete for relevance/adoption to be integrated with different browser makers; this would encourage decentralization in the browser space. - Easy path to monetization; imagine how much demand would be created for underlying tokens if each user paid tokens every time they wanted to change the IP address which a domain name points to. This kind of DAO would be profitable by design. You could earn profit just by holding the token.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  Websites would also lose their domain if the admin loses the private key, or it gets stolen. There would be no authority to return control to the rightful owner. I don't think most web actors would be ready to accept that massive drawback.
  - cryptica 5y ago
    You can have multisignature wallets so that you only need signatures from 2/3 of members. It would be unlikely for many people to lose their keys.

anonyxyz 5y ago

This exists: ENS

stiltzkin 5y ago

There are already .crypto domains which work as NFT and just need to pay once as opposed to ENS or DNS domains. Seems the only downside is that it is controlled by a private company.