3 ms·
The problem of how to associate a NFT with a physical object is a different one from the transfer/spending problem. I think that is the "minting" problem. An
by kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
The problem of how to associate a NFT with a physical object is a different one from the transfer/spending problem.
I think that is the "minting" problem.
An artist simply signing stuff does not even prove that a physical object corresponding to the token exists.
I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government).
Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies right now, so I have to leave it at that.
The reason why a "government signature on the deed" would achieve the same thing is because we trust on the government to keep a proper ledger. And the government asks for a lot of money for a transfer.
- root_axis 5y ago> I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government). A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago"A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain." Only because the government keeps track of who owns what in a centralized database. Typically they also ask for pretty high transferal fees.