8 ms·
> NFTs supposedly allow you to prove who owns something This is fundamentally wrong. NFTs allow you to show off who "owns"[0] something. [0] for some general
by dnautics 5y ago
> NFTs supposedly allow you to prove who owns something
This is fundamentally wrong.
NFTs allow you to show off who "owns"[0] something.
[0] for some generalized, possibly meaningless definition of "own". I say possibly meaningless, then again, what is property really, just a government-managed, non-fungible, token? Don't gaze too hard at the abyss, unless you are willing to let the abyss to gaze back.
- dnautics 5y agooh wait, I forgot my proudhon. Property is theft!
- lobocinza 5y agoNFTs are synthetic scarcity.
- dnautics 5y agoSo is money (or else it wouldn't work)
- newacct583 5y agoOnly in a specious sense. The point to money isn't "scarcity", the point to money is TRUST. You trust that $1 is going to be worth $1 tomorrow, and that it will be worth $1 to the shopkeeper and the bank and your family and everyone else. So anywhere you want to trade for something, you can do it in dollars. It's true that to provide that stability you have to control the supply, so money is "scarce". But only in the sense that the economy it represents is finite. NFTs don't provide that, therefore they aren't a good medium of exchange. They aren't "scarce" in the way that money is or has to be. They're also a Tulip bubble, but that's a different thing.
- dnautics 5y ago> It's true that to provide that stability you have to control the supply... Doesn't sound specious to me. The artificial scarcity is real, and has real consequences for real people. While trust is the primary property of money, scarcity-at-any-point-in-time is a fundamentally necessary (but not sufficient) to be a money. Do you have a different definition of specious?
- cslarson 5y agoProperty is social consensus. Blockchains offer a more convenient and useful way to record that social consensus.