4 ms·
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
by 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.