> "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is th

> "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if something has not been done yet, you should think why that is. And if it turns out that someone could have already done it with existing technology, one should really consider why is that. Yes, maybe it's one of your reasons, or maybe is that it isn't worth it, or that there are implementation issues that are independent of the storage technology, or whatever. It's a basic step before evaluating any solution and it is missing constantly in crypto discussions. And the worst thing is that, when we point out that there are other issues apart from crypto/nocrypto, the only response we get is "but it could work" and "don't be defeatist". That basic question could be applied to your avatar example. A game developer could implement a similar system where the only allowed avatars are the "official" ones, and you need to buy them. You don't need NFTs for that, and yet you don't see it a lot. I think PlayStation had only official avatars, but they discontinued them in the latest PS5. Could it be that it isn't a feature users want? That the development costs are greater than the possible profits?