> If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. Great! We agree! People have been signing digital assets for thirty yea

> If Getty signs an asset saying chime bought it at 'getty.com', that's proof enough. Great! We agree! People have been signing digital assets for thirty years now, and it clearly works well. So why use the NFT? > Disney could absolutely start signing all of their media with NFT and every license holder would have X years to implement it properly. Or Disney could just start signing all their works _today_ without an NFT or blockchain of any type, using proven, decades-old, open source technology. --- The blockchain is amazing because it solves a very difficult problem - the consensus problem. Yes, blockchains are very expensive, but that's because they need to solve that hard problem. If you have a consensus problem, the blockchain is the only known solution to it. Signing assets is NOT a consensus problem, because the origin of the idea of ownership comes from the real world. When Disney signs their assets, it makes no difference what order they sign them in, or whether they sign them before or after someone else does. For example, suppose Disney decides to sign everything, and then someone else "signs" Mary Poppins before Disney gets to it. Nothing happens! This signature has no legal, moral, or practical value to anyone: Disney _legally_ owns Mary Poppins and will continue to do so. Or suppose a hacker breaks into the network and "signs" ownership of Poppins to Elon Musk. Again, this has no legal, moral or practical value. There is no hint of a consensus issue, and therefore the incredible cost of a blockchain is completely wasted here.