5 ms·

Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership ov

by imgabe 5y ago

Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership over particular tokens on that blockchain. Those are valuable so long as there are enough people that agree they are valuable and are willing to exchange other goods and services for them. Oh yeah, kind of like fiat money.

tomp 5y ago
Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.
- imgabe 5y ago
  The JPEG is incidental. What you own is the token. You don't need the legal system to enforce your ownership of it because it is essentially impossible for anyone else to assert ownership of it without your private keys. But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
  - tomp 5y ago
    Owning the token representing a claim on a JPEG is equivalent to owning the token representing a claim on moon land. In 1995 most of the uses of the internet were stupid. Eventually, they became useful. Hopefully the same happens with crypto
    - imgabe 5y ago
      Is it really equivalent? Are you sure you can't think of any differences between a JPEG and a piece of land?
Dylan16807 5y ago
What do you mean "except"? Within the moon share ecosystem, moon shares have the exact same kind of authority. Value's always worth what someone will pay, sure. But blockchain authority isn't more special than any other database. It has some fancy properties, but they don't affect the authority.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Authority on the blockchain is validated by a bunch of different actors, none who trust each other but reaches consensus anyways. Authority within the moon share ecosystem is validated only by the people who own the company.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    That might matter in a niche case where the ownership of my moon share database entry is in dispute. (And each system has positives and negatives, blockchains aren't a strict upgrade.) But the potential authority over the actual moon is the same under both systems.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      Ownership only ever matters when there's a dispute. If you go build a house on a piece of land, and nobody ever comes along and disputes whether you own that land, does it matter whether you do or not? I mean, we even built into our laws that if you do that and nobody disputes it for long enough, then you get to officially own the land.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Ownership only ever matters when there's a dispute. Right. And a blockchain only solves a tiny percentage of ownership issues. It solves those issues with powerful mathematical certainty, and if you could live inside a blockchain your problems would be solved*, but don't confuse that sliver with the full set of real-world ownership issues that exist with or without a blockchain being involved. * if there are no bugs or hacks

by imgabe 5y ago

tomp 5y ago

Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.

imgabe 5y ago
The JPEG is incidental. What you own is the token. You don't need the legal system to enforce your ownership of it because it is essentially impossible for anyone else to assert ownership of it without your private keys. But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
- tomp 5y ago
  Owning the token representing a claim on a JPEG is equivalent to owning the token representing a claim on moon land. In 1995 most of the uses of the internet were stupid. Eventually, they became useful. Hopefully the same happens with crypto
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Is it really equivalent? Are you sure you can't think of any differences between a JPEG and a piece of land?

Dylan16807 5y ago

What do you mean "except"? Within the moon share ecosystem, moon shares have the exact same kind of authority. Value's always worth what someone will pay, sure. But blockchain authority isn't more special than any other database. It has some fancy properties, but they don't affect the authority.

capableweb 5y ago
Authority on the blockchain is validated by a bunch of different actors, none who trust each other but reaches consensus anyways. Authority within the moon share ecosystem is validated only by the people who own the company.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  That might matter in a niche case where the ownership of my moon share database entry is in dispute. (And each system has positives and negatives, blockchains aren't a strict upgrade.) But the potential authority over the actual moon is the same under both systems.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Ownership only ever matters when there's a dispute. If you go build a house on a piece of land, and nobody ever comes along and disputes whether you own that land, does it matter whether you do or not? I mean, we even built into our laws that if you do that and nobody disputes it for long enough, then you get to officially own the land.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Ownership only ever matters when there's a dispute. Right. And a blockchain only solves a tiny percentage of ownership issues. It solves those issues with powerful mathematical certainty, and if you could live inside a blockchain your problems would be solved*, but don't confuse that sliver with the full set of real-world ownership issues that exist with or without a blockchain being involved. * if there are no bugs or hacks