4 ms·
Because you couldn't prove ownership of the several hundred thousand dollar piece of art, which is the real point of this whole thing, conspicuous consumption,
by MathYouF 5y ago
Because you couldn't prove ownership of the several hundred thousand dollar piece of art, which is the real point of this whole thing, conspicuous consumption, because when poor people have found a way to make fakes of all your clothes and wear them, and influencers can post pics of their rented Lambourghinis that look like the ones you take with your you bought with cash, having a public digital wallet that proves your unique ownership of an expensive item is the new way to show off status in a way that can't be duplicated.
- Saptarishi 5y agoI think proof of ownership and non duplicability arguments apply strongly in the case of something like a Lamborghini( because obviously it has tremendous value) . But I dont really think a digital drawing warrants that sort of value because the non duplicity of something like that is far too subjective. An owner of that ape drawing may live under the impression that the painting is well and truly his, but its non duplicity can easily be questioned with a Ctrl+C Ctrl+V.
- Melkman 5y agoYou can duplicate the artwork but you can not duplicate the ownership. If anything, you using a copy of the artwork increases the value of the ownership by signalling it is an appreciated piece. Why would a digital drawing not be valuable when some paper drawing can be sold for millions like van Gogh's La Mousmé ?
- akban 5y agoI'm sure the participants in the 17th century Tulip mania bubble had explanations just as irrational as this. It's déjà vu all over again.