4 ms·

The only use case that is unambiguously present and difficult to achieve by other means is having access to cryptographic proof of point-in-time association wit

The only use case that is unambiguously present and difficult to achieve by other means is having access to cryptographic proof of point-in-time association with piece of data. The Bored Ape Yacht Club is an example of this -- you "own" an ape. What that means is that you have the ability to access a restricted section of the website, that only ape owners can access. This membership is transferable without the consent or interaction with the issuer. HOWEVER -- this membership is not irrevocable. The hash that you "own" is listed on their website as a substring of the concatenated hashes of all apes, which is in turn hashed to make a master hash. That hash can be changed at any time, as can the associated access to the restricted area. New apes can be issued that grant access; old apes can have their access revoked at will. If you sell your ape to the Supreme Leader of Iran, then the government can force the BAYC to revoke the ape, and they can reissue another one to replace it. I can make my own website that accepts only apes with mustaches into my site's private area. So really the only thing you get is that the tokens can be traded on third party services.

bombcar 5y ago
The real use case of NFT is that you could have a token that you can trade. We'll call the token a "coin" (and since it's digital, a "bit"coin) and you can trade it with other people.
- andrewla 5y ago
  I get where you're going, but unfortunately this is not apt -- the fungibility of coins was specific design point for Bitcoin (and for money in general, which is where the analogy surfaces). NFTs are by design and intention not fungible; they are not divisible nor combineable nor substitutable.
  - dpark 5y ago
    > NFTs are by design and intention not fungible; they are not divisible nor combineable nor substitutable. Except that they are, right? You just described a scenario where a token can be revoked and replaced. This is by any sane definition a substitute. I suppose you could argue that they cannot be divided or combined, and in that sense you are correct that they are not really usable currency. But I honestly fail to see how NFTs are actually non-fungible. If an indefinite number of equivalent tokens can be minted, what does it matter if each one is technically unique?

bombcar 5y ago

The real use case of NFT is that you could have a token that you can trade. We'll call the token a "coin" (and since it's digital, a "bit"coin) and you can trade it with other people.

andrewla 5y ago
I get where you're going, but unfortunately this is not apt -- the fungibility of coins was specific design point for Bitcoin (and for money in general, which is where the analogy surfaces). NFTs are by design and intention not fungible; they are not divisible nor combineable nor substitutable.
- dpark 5y ago
  > NFTs are by design and intention not fungible; they are not divisible nor combineable nor substitutable. Except that they are, right? You just described a scenario where a token can be revoked and replaced. This is by any sane definition a substitute. I suppose you could argue that they cannot be divided or combined, and in that sense you are correct that they are not really usable currency. But I honestly fail to see how NFTs are actually non-fungible. If an indefinite number of equivalent tokens can be minted, what does it matter if each one is technically unique?