4 ms·
Not the point; a digital asset is not comparable to a physical asset; the image the nft points to is the same bytes as the image he gave that image to others to
by tluyben2 4y ago
Not the point; a digital asset is not comparable to a physical asset; the image the nft points to is the same bytes as the image he gave that image to others to prove a point. There is nothing at all fake about the second image; it is the same image. And in this case it was even the actual same link from the nft I think which is even better. There is no notion of fake in digital; you copy something and you have it, identical to the what you copied it from. This does not apply to Rolexes and calling it fake makes no sense and it’s a bad example that doesn’t educate people; people who might have ‘invested’ into nfts but don’t know any tech might think ‘but I have the real Rolex, so it does work!’. And that would be a bad and wrong interpretation of the facts.
- Mordisquitos 4y agoI think you misunderstood my comment as I was emphasising your point. I was saying that a real Rolex is, as a watch, materially different from a fake Rolex regardless of how much of a real Rolex's value comes from its image and recognition. The fact that a "real" NFT is, as a URL on a blockchain, no different from a "fake" NFT was implied.
- tluyben2 4y agoAh, sorry about that! Thanks for clearing it up ; I read it differently. Then we agree. (it doesn't happen often online!)