4 ms·

Well with the small difference that this social consensus is backed by countries, laws, regulation and law enforcement, etc. This is the same kind of libertaria

Well with the small difference that this social consensus is backed by countries, laws, regulation and law enforcement, etc. This is the same kind of libertarian argument as that money is only a construct and virtual without any real value.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago
What are you talking about? Do you not think ownership of a digital asset is enforceable in our current legal system?
- top_sigrid 5y ago
  I am talking about the point you make. You stated that the current state of ownership is based on social consensus and I added that this consensus you are talking about actually means countries, law etc. But to your new point: Even if it might be enforceable (which would completely undermine the point of having an NFT on a blockchain in the first place as you would rely on the same current system you try to replace anyways), the very much nature of having ownership stored in an NFT would mean that this ownership in many scenarios could of course not be enforced by the legal system. If you get your private key stolen you have lost that ownership and there is no way to restore it. So to your question: no it would not be enforcable.
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    This isn’t a new point. We form social consensus and agree that data on the blockchain means something. The meaning can then be enforced in courts. If you are saying that if my digital assets are stolen, and I can identify the thief, I have no legal recourse that’s just laughable. There are plenty of judges that disagree with you. Further, there are more benefits to using a blockchain than proof of ownership. You can tokenize your new non fungible assets, transfer them permissionlessly, use them as bearer credentials, etc. Not trying to be offensive here, but you and others in this thread are thinking way too small about the potential usecases of NFTs. They are more than just pictures of apes.
    - fabian2k 5y ago
      So how are you getting your stolen NFT back if the court decide it was actually stolen? The court cannot change the blockchain and reverse the transaction.
      - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
        How do you get any property back if you can identify the thief and get a judgment against them in a court of law? They sign a tx and give it back or you get compensated in another manner.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - top_sigrid 5y ago
      If anything is laughable here - without trying to be offensive - it is your misunderstanding of the implications of these "potential usecases" and their real world practicability. A court could not change the state of the blockchain, which exacly is the point of a decentral blockchain. One minute this is the reason blockchains will allegedly change the world, but the next minute when confronted with real world implications of this whole idea, this exact fact suddenly is not existent.
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      How do you prove to the judge that you didn't sign the tx that transferred the NFT to the thief's wallet? (Assuming the thief makes that claim, which they'd be stupid not to.)

rattlesnakedave 5y ago

What are you talking about? Do you not think ownership of a digital asset is enforceable in our current legal system?

top_sigrid 5y ago
I am talking about the point you make. You stated that the current state of ownership is based on social consensus and I added that this consensus you are talking about actually means countries, law etc. But to your new point: Even if it might be enforceable (which would completely undermine the point of having an NFT on a blockchain in the first place as you would rely on the same current system you try to replace anyways), the very much nature of having ownership stored in an NFT would mean that this ownership in many scenarios could of course not be enforced by the legal system. If you get your private key stolen you have lost that ownership and there is no way to restore it. So to your question: no it would not be enforcable.
- rattlesnakedave 5y ago
  This isn’t a new point. We form social consensus and agree that data on the blockchain means something. The meaning can then be enforced in courts. If you are saying that if my digital assets are stolen, and I can identify the thief, I have no legal recourse that’s just laughable. There are plenty of judges that disagree with you. Further, there are more benefits to using a blockchain than proof of ownership. You can tokenize your new non fungible assets, transfer them permissionlessly, use them as bearer credentials, etc. Not trying to be offensive here, but you and others in this thread are thinking way too small about the potential usecases of NFTs. They are more than just pictures of apes.
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    So how are you getting your stolen NFT back if the court decide it was actually stolen? The court cannot change the blockchain and reverse the transaction.
    - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
      How do you get any property back if you can identify the thief and get a judgment against them in a court of law? They sign a tx and give it back or you get compensated in another manner.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - top_sigrid 5y ago
    If anything is laughable here - without trying to be offensive - it is your misunderstanding of the implications of these "potential usecases" and their real world practicability. A court could not change the state of the blockchain, which exacly is the point of a decentral blockchain. One minute this is the reason blockchains will allegedly change the world, but the next minute when confronted with real world implications of this whole idea, this exact fact suddenly is not existent.
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    How do you prove to the judge that you didn't sign the tx that transferred the NFT to the thief's wallet? (Assuming the thief makes that claim, which they'd be stupid not to.)