3 ms·

I have never owned an NFT so I can't necessarily relate specifically on that front, but I do own bitcoin and ethereum. When it comes to ownership of digital as

I have never owned an NFT so I can't necessarily relate specifically on that front, but I do own bitcoin and ethereum. When it comes to ownership of digital assets/property obviously you can't own the jpeg picture, or the image, or the blockchain that hosts the information since they can be endlessly copied. But you do own the rights of the keys to make any changes regarding the objects you control to the blockchain. No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters. Same thing with credit cards and databases. Those are centralized databases owned and operated by a central organization. When it comes to blockchain technology, to make entries regarding the portions of the blockchain that you control, no one else can make changes to that portion of the blockchain without the keys. This is the aspect of ownership that makes digital assets ownable. The ability to control the asset that no one else who doesn't own it can. Look, I can't speak for ownership of NFT's, but to be honest, you probably can't either. Your entering the stage with a pitchfork and torch trying to hate it before you've even tried to see what its about. I don't think it has anything at all to do with seeing their name on some website, its about ownership. > proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff. You're not making a lot of sense here. Maybe you don't know what "poisoning the well" means. poising the well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well > is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Again, we don't know that NFT's are a fraud, so to say "Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck" asserts the question from the standpoint that they are, when we can't know that. You are coming to the stage proclaiming the New England Patriots have won the Superbowl when the Superbowl has yet to start. That's all I'm saying. That to me sounds more like the pretzel logic.

bb88 4y ago
> No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters. Well, that's the ideal right? The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier -- which you haven't addressed yet. So now you're arguing the low level details now and smearing your opponents intention rather than trying to make the big arguments in supportive of your point. That seems to me you have no further big arguments to support your point and are willing to go into minutae to score debate points.
- RedBeetDeadpool 4y ago
  > smearing your opponents intention Where is the smear of the intention? Was it because I said you are attacking the argument from the standpoint that something is a fraud, when the argument cant be attacked from a position that it was a fraud because that's a fact we cannot know?
- RedBeetDeadpool 4y ago
  > The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier Your communications of the reasons you've stated must have not come across very well because I didn't understand them from rereading your previous comments. What were the reasons again?

bb88 4y ago

> No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters. Well, that's the ideal right? The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier -- which you haven't addressed yet. So now you're arguing the low level details now and smearing your opponents intention rather than trying to make the big arguments in supportive of your point. That seems to me you have no further big arguments to support your point and are willing to go into minutae to score debate points.

RedBeetDeadpool 4y ago
> smearing your opponents intention Where is the smear of the intention? Was it because I said you are attacking the argument from the standpoint that something is a fraud, when the argument cant be attacked from a position that it was a fraud because that's a fact we cannot know?
RedBeetDeadpool 4y ago
> The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier Your communications of the reasons you've stated must have not come across very well because I didn't understand them from rereading your previous comments. What were the reasons again?