4 ms·

That's the core issue though with ownership of NFTs. If a court says one thing, and the immutable ledger says something else, it's the immutable ledger that's w

That's the core issue though with ownership of NFTs. If a court says one thing, and the immutable ledger says something else, it's the immutable ledger that's wrong.

mwattsun 5y ago
Which confirms my suspicions that NFTs are not enforceable because they have no laws governing them, except by everyone agreeing to the rules of the game. What I don't know, but what I suspect, is that no one is getting arrested for not following the agreed upon rules.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  We can look to cryptocurrencies for precedent in how NFT ownership disputes will go. Courts have had no issue looking past meaningless technicalities about “immutable ledgers” and “key-based ownership” to adjudicate disputes about who actually owns cryptocurrencies, and have had no issue with reaching decisions that, for example, cryptocurrencies were stolen because they were transferred to a new address without the permission of the current owner.
judge2020 5y ago
Then perhaps it's a ledger of possession instead - a court can't alter reality and say "plaintiff is now in possession of item", however they can order the a defendant to give back stolen property.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  A ledger of possession is certainly a much better model than a ledger of ownership, but it still falls a bit short because frequently when dealing with more abstract kinds of property than a literal physical object, like intangible property (intellectual property, mineral rights), immovable property (land, water sources), or property in the actual possession of a custodial third party (money in a bank account, a company in the care of the board of directors), a court order can change possession, since there's less distinction between possession and ownership of these less concrete forms of property. So it's fair to say that a blockchain can serve as a ledger of possession of those things that are themselves on the blockchain, but not of any thing that is external to the blockchain.

That's the core issue though with ownership of NFTs. If a court says one thing, and the immutable ledger says something else, it's the immutable ledger that's wrong.

mwattsun 5y ago

Which confirms my suspicions that NFTs are not enforceable because they have no laws governing them, except by everyone agreeing to the rules of the game. What I don't know, but what I suspect, is that no one is getting arrested for not following the agreed upon rules.

dodobirdlord 5y ago
We can look to cryptocurrencies for precedent in how NFT ownership disputes will go. Courts have had no issue looking past meaningless technicalities about “immutable ledgers” and “key-based ownership” to adjudicate disputes about who actually owns cryptocurrencies, and have had no issue with reaching decisions that, for example, cryptocurrencies were stolen because they were transferred to a new address without the permission of the current owner.

judge2020 5y ago

Then perhaps it's a ledger of possession instead - a court can't alter reality and say "plaintiff is now in possession of item", however they can order the a defendant to give back stolen property.

dodobirdlord 5y ago
A ledger of possession is certainly a much better model than a ledger of ownership, but it still falls a bit short because frequently when dealing with more abstract kinds of property than a literal physical object, like intangible property (intellectual property, mineral rights), immovable property (land, water sources), or property in the actual possession of a custodial third party (money in a bank account, a company in the care of the board of directors), a court order can change possession, since there's less distinction between possession and ownership of these less concrete forms of property. So it's fair to say that a blockchain can serve as a ledger of possession of those things that are themselves on the blockchain, but not of any thing that is external to the blockchain.