6 ms·

> it's simply a note useful to figure out who owns what within the framework of the community Owning an NFT does not mean you own the underlying asset.

mrtksn 5y ago
Define owning. Depending on your definition, it may mean or may not mean owning. In the NFT circles, the record on the chain indicating that you own something means you own something because ownership transfer will happen within the exact same framework. NFT is not a media to purchase rights of an artwork to print it t-shirts or something like that. These things happen within the legal framework of a jurisdiction that has legislated stuff like copyright. Blockchain is not a jurisdiction, it's simply a list record and those records are valid for those accepting the blockchain as the authoritative record.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  If you have to have some odd local definition of ownership you’ve already lost and know it! Compare it to physical art. If you buy physical art you take control of the object and can do what you like with it including keeping it locked up in a customs warehouse. If you buy a token you own the token not anything it points to. You can do what you like with the token but not what it points to. You own a link.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    The stuff you describe about physical art is only valid within a jurisdiction that has legislated ownership of physical items. You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse. You can be custodian of it if the legal framework allows for that, it still can be yours of someone takes ot from you physically. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible that despite you paid to own the physical art piece, you are still not allowed to take photos of it in purpose to reproduce the images of it. You may own it but maybe you can't break it down or take it away from its place. These are all constructs that societies had it differently and it's all matter of legal and political processes. There's no inartistic ownership, it is a social construct that happens within a community. The blockchain doesn't operate within the traditional legislations, ownership within a blockchain means people who use it accept the record as true. If it says that you own it, you own it(within the community of people who use blockchain).
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction. All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who don’t know you have a peculiar definition. This happens a lot in blockchain communities where ownership, trust, decentralisation and other terms end up being a lot more local in definition because the whole house of cards gets exposed if you actually look at things more neutrally. It’s a bit cult like in that respect and interestingly a lot of cults have odd ideas about ownership as well.
      - mrtksn 5y ago
        Yes, blockchain stuff don’t abide within the established definitions in the society. In fact, that’s the main value proposition of it. You own certain amount of coins or NFT not because the legal framework allows it but because the software that interprets the blockchain says so. it’s distributed nature makes it a societal construct within the society that uses that software. To own anything in the blockchain in the traditional sense, there needs to be a legislation for it and I’m not aware of any. The point is though, it doesn’t matter.
        meheleventyone 5y ago
        Actually the ownership of the coins and tokens does fit into established definitions. Hence why it slides into legal frameworks quite nicely and we see taxation, prosecutions and so on based on that ownership. It’s just the ownership of what the NFT points to doesn’t.
        mrtksn 5y ago
        No it doesn’t but it seems like will eventually, that’s why it’s a debated topic the last few years and varies from locality to locality. Legislators may eventually legislate the NFT too.
- newswasboring 5y ago
  I think ownership is about control. It can be direct, like owning a baseball card, or indirect, a legal contract with a company like Amazon to maintain servers. NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain. So the actual object for which we are trying to establish "ownership" can disappear against your wishes. It is not like owning a baseball card, more like owning a receipt of purchase.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    >NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain That's why you own the NFT, you trade the NFT, you transfer the NFT.
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      Yes that is not in question. What is in question is what is the utility of the NFT? From your answer it seems like its just to be an NFT. What good is that for? Maybe try to address my baseball card vs purchase receipt analogy to make me understand better.
      - mrtksn 5y ago
        In practical terms, the main utility is that you can trade it. That's what I've seen from people who buy and sell NFT. They do have some other rationalisations, which I don't buy(yet). One is, it establishes your identity in the virtual communities. For example, you can buy an NFT for 1 million dollars and be known to be the guy who bought that NFT for 1 million dollars and hangs with other people who also bought expensive NFTs. I don't know if this works, the person who made that explanation to me doesn't really engage in that kind of communities and could not provide me with an example where that happens(someone else mentioned Mike Tyson being involved with something called cool cats and supposedly, he was hanging out with other owners of that NFT class but I was not able to confirm this). She simply sniffs around, finds NFT's with a lot of hype, buys some and sells for profit.

mrtksn 5y ago

Define owning. Depending on your definition, it may mean or may not mean owning. In the NFT circles, the record on the chain indicating that you own something means you own something because ownership transfer will happen within the exact same framework. NFT is not a media to purchase rights of an artwork to print it t-shirts or something like that. These things happen within the legal framework of a jurisdiction that has legislated stuff like copyright. Blockchain is not a jurisdiction, it's simply a list record and those records are valid for those accepting the blockchain as the authoritative record.

meheleventyone 5y ago
If you have to have some odd local definition of ownership you’ve already lost and know it! Compare it to physical art. If you buy physical art you take control of the object and can do what you like with it including keeping it locked up in a customs warehouse. If you buy a token you own the token not anything it points to. You can do what you like with the token but not what it points to. You own a link.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  The stuff you describe about physical art is only valid within a jurisdiction that has legislated ownership of physical items. You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse. You can be custodian of it if the legal framework allows for that, it still can be yours of someone takes ot from you physically. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible that despite you paid to own the physical art piece, you are still not allowed to take photos of it in purpose to reproduce the images of it. You may own it but maybe you can't break it down or take it away from its place. These are all constructs that societies had it differently and it's all matter of legal and political processes. There's no inartistic ownership, it is a social construct that happens within a community. The blockchain doesn't operate within the traditional legislations, ownership within a blockchain means people who use it accept the record as true. If it says that you own it, you own it(within the community of people who use blockchain).
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction. All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who don’t know you have a peculiar definition. This happens a lot in blockchain communities where ownership, trust, decentralisation and other terms end up being a lot more local in definition because the whole house of cards gets exposed if you actually look at things more neutrally. It’s a bit cult like in that respect and interestingly a lot of cults have odd ideas about ownership as well.
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      Yes, blockchain stuff don’t abide within the established definitions in the society. In fact, that’s the main value proposition of it. You own certain amount of coins or NFT not because the legal framework allows it but because the software that interprets the blockchain says so. it’s distributed nature makes it a societal construct within the society that uses that software. To own anything in the blockchain in the traditional sense, there needs to be a legislation for it and I’m not aware of any. The point is though, it doesn’t matter.
      - meheleventyone 5y ago
        Actually the ownership of the coins and tokens does fit into established definitions. Hence why it slides into legal frameworks quite nicely and we see taxation, prosecutions and so on based on that ownership. It’s just the ownership of what the NFT points to doesn’t.
        mrtksn 5y ago
        No it doesn’t but it seems like will eventually, that’s why it’s a debated topic the last few years and varies from locality to locality. Legislators may eventually legislate the NFT too.
newswasboring 5y ago
I think ownership is about control. It can be direct, like owning a baseball card, or indirect, a legal contract with a company like Amazon to maintain servers. NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain. So the actual object for which we are trying to establish "ownership" can disappear against your wishes. It is not like owning a baseball card, more like owning a receipt of purchase.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  >NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain That's why you own the NFT, you trade the NFT, you transfer the NFT.
  - newswasboring 5y ago
    Yes that is not in question. What is in question is what is the utility of the NFT? From your answer it seems like its just to be an NFT. What good is that for? Maybe try to address my baseball card vs purchase receipt analogy to make me understand better.
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      In practical terms, the main utility is that you can trade it. That's what I've seen from people who buy and sell NFT. They do have some other rationalisations, which I don't buy(yet). One is, it establishes your identity in the virtual communities. For example, you can buy an NFT for 1 million dollars and be known to be the guy who bought that NFT for 1 million dollars and hangs with other people who also bought expensive NFTs. I don't know if this works, the person who made that explanation to me doesn't really engage in that kind of communities and could not provide me with an example where that happens(someone else mentioned Mike Tyson being involved with something called cool cats and supposedly, he was hanging out with other owners of that NFT class but I was not able to confirm this). She simply sniffs around, finds NFT's with a lot of hype, buys some and sells for profit.