3 ms·

No, an NFT is not a pair but a tuple. The third part of the tuple is the third party who issued the NFT. In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge, the NFTs I expect t

by gfodor 5y ago

No, an NFT is not a pair but a tuple. The third part of the tuple is the third party who issued the NFT. In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge, the NFTs I expect that would confer social status in the metaverse regarding the bridge would be ones issued by the City of New York or perhaps the descendants of the original architects. This will probably actually happen in some form but it will be a while. If you’re talking about a specific work of art depicting the bridge, the only NFT of value is the one sanctioned by the original artist. That NFT is scarce. Too many people do not understand what an NFT represents and what it’s short and longer term expected conferred benefits are, and are hung up on trying to create analogies to existing forms of ownership like physical property rights or copyright.

zepto 5y ago
It’s reasonable to assert that NFT’s are about conferring social status in the metaverse. I.e. they are in-game currency. People are ‘hung up’ on analogies to physical ownership, because proponents of NFT’s keep claiming they are like deeds of ownership, which is what the linked article strongly asserted before it was amended. If NFT advocates stopped calling it ownership, I don’t think anyone would be hung up about it.
- gfodor 5y ago
  I agree a lot is lost in the noise due to presumption about what the other side means when they’re using “ownership.”
  - zepto 5y ago
    This isn’t correct. People outside the ‘community’ are using a long established meaning. People within the community are using a meaning that has essentially none of the attributes of the conventional definition while claiming that the meaning is the same. This isn’t a question of two sides disagreeing over meanings. It’s a question of a deceptive use of a very well established pre-existing term.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      No, there are already a variety of uses of the term ownership. For example, copyright ownership, license ownership, or physical ownership. There isn’t a single definition, and the definitions of ownership have always been contextual and evolve based on things like norms and technological changes. The ownership of NFTs is the ability to assert you control the keys of a wallet pointing to a tuple that pairs, for example, a URL to a smart contract. Both of these elements in the tuple then confer certain things by proxy: the URL a proxy to the work, and the smart contract a proxy to an authority. Once that linkage is accepted by a third party, then it serves as a form of semantic ownership with contextual benefits (there are several contemporary realized and theoretical future ones.)
      - zepto 5y ago
        > There isn’t a single definition True but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a commonality to the meaning. We don’t use the term ‘ownership’ to refer to preparing food, or driving a car for example. And as I have pointed out. The lie is not that people don’t own NFTs. They do. The lie is that NFTs confer ownership of the media that point to. > Once that linkage is accepted by a third party, then it serves as a form of semantic ownership with contextual benefits Only in the sense that owning a movie ticket provides benefits at a particular theater. You can also keep the ticket stub as a memento or sell it if you like. NFTs are no different.

by gfodor 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

It’s reasonable to assert that NFT’s are about conferring social status in the metaverse. I.e. they are in-game currency. People are ‘hung up’ on analogies to physical ownership, because proponents of NFT’s keep claiming they are like deeds of ownership, which is what the linked article strongly asserted before it was amended. If NFT advocates stopped calling it ownership, I don’t think anyone would be hung up about it.

gfodor 5y ago
I agree a lot is lost in the noise due to presumption about what the other side means when they’re using “ownership.”
- zepto 5y ago
  This isn’t correct. People outside the ‘community’ are using a long established meaning. People within the community are using a meaning that has essentially none of the attributes of the conventional definition while claiming that the meaning is the same. This isn’t a question of two sides disagreeing over meanings. It’s a question of a deceptive use of a very well established pre-existing term.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    No, there are already a variety of uses of the term ownership. For example, copyright ownership, license ownership, or physical ownership. There isn’t a single definition, and the definitions of ownership have always been contextual and evolve based on things like norms and technological changes. The ownership of NFTs is the ability to assert you control the keys of a wallet pointing to a tuple that pairs, for example, a URL to a smart contract. Both of these elements in the tuple then confer certain things by proxy: the URL a proxy to the work, and the smart contract a proxy to an authority. Once that linkage is accepted by a third party, then it serves as a form of semantic ownership with contextual benefits (there are several contemporary realized and theoretical future ones.)
    - zepto 5y ago
      > There isn’t a single definition True but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a commonality to the meaning. We don’t use the term ‘ownership’ to refer to preparing food, or driving a car for example. And as I have pointed out. The lie is not that people don’t own NFTs. They do. The lie is that NFTs confer ownership of the media that point to. > Once that linkage is accepted by a third party, then it serves as a form of semantic ownership with contextual benefits Only in the sense that owning a movie ticket provides benefits at a particular theater. You can also keep the ticket stub as a memento or sell it if you like. NFTs are no different.