5 ms·

That makes no sense- surely the same applies the money in your bank account? Or IP rights? Etc etc.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Neither of those build up a system where immutable transactions are the absolute arbiter of ownership. If they did, then the same would apply.
- albertgoeswoof 4y ago
  Ok so if I hacked into your computer and stole your private keys, I get to keep all your Bitcoin? Even if you know it was me and have irrefutable evidence? Even if I admit to it? You wouldn’t consider asking the courts to use real force to get it back?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Bitcoins aren't specifically designed the way I described. It's reasonable to invoke normal contracts and courts with bitcoin. This is a situation specific to NFTs and people that are going super hard on smart contracts. And even if I was a true believer in NFTs, yeah I'd probably ask the courts to do that, but doing so would be a betrayal of my beliefs and evidence that the foundation of NFTs is very shaky. The idea that I would do something hypocritical in such a hypothetical situation doesn't change the argument I made in my previous post.
- criddell 4y ago
  Ownership is a legal concept and the blockchain says nothing about that. It merely records transactions and says nothing about the right to do those things. For example, if the court orders you to turn over your Bitcoin holdings to creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding and instead you transfer them elsewhere, you are probably going to jail. When you transferred them, the coins were in your possession, but you weren't the rightful owner.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Correct, blockchain itself doesn't mess with ownership. But NFTs and certain smart contracts are meticulously designing a custom form of ownership for themselves. That's what changes things. And this would be true even if they didn't use blockchains! If you throw out all that custom ownership logic, you lose the core of what makes an NFT an NFT. Now it's just a few dozen bytes that anyone can mimic.
    - criddell 4y ago
      > smart contracts are meticulously designing a custom form of ownership Not sure what you mean by custom form of ownership. If you are talking about fractional ownership, even that isn’t new. Contracts around ownership are built on top of legal system. Smart contracts provide automation around defining and execution the contracts. That’s cool and can be super low cost, but apart from the automation, there isn’t much that’s different from traditional contracts. They can still be challenged in court. For example, if you had a contract that, upon your death, transferred all your money to your nurse, your spouse could still challenge that in court if the contract was created under duress or created when you weren’t of sound mind.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        No no you cut me off there. NFTs do it, and certain smart contracts do it. If you get picky about the latter part, then I retract it and just say NFTs for simplicity.
        criddell 4y ago
        Ownership can’t be defined outside of the law. Ultimately these are boring old contracts in a digital form and they may or may not be valid. The validity can’t be determined within the NFT, smart contract, or blockchain. Some code may initiate a transfer of something and that gives you possession of it, but ownership isn’t guaranteed. For example, you can write a smart contract that would watch for divorce papers being filed by your spouse and upon filing, you would transfer your Bitcoin balance or NFT to some other wallet. A court isn’t going to fall for that. You will be found to have hidden community assets (ie assets you don’t entirely own).

Neither of those build up a system where immutable transactions are the absolute arbiter of ownership. If they did, then the same would apply.

albertgoeswoof 4y ago
Ok so if I hacked into your computer and stole your private keys, I get to keep all your Bitcoin? Even if you know it was me and have irrefutable evidence? Even if I admit to it? You wouldn’t consider asking the courts to use real force to get it back?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Bitcoins aren't specifically designed the way I described. It's reasonable to invoke normal contracts and courts with bitcoin. This is a situation specific to NFTs and people that are going super hard on smart contracts. And even if I was a true believer in NFTs, yeah I'd probably ask the courts to do that, but doing so would be a betrayal of my beliefs and evidence that the foundation of NFTs is very shaky. The idea that I would do something hypocritical in such a hypothetical situation doesn't change the argument I made in my previous post.
criddell 4y ago
Ownership is a legal concept and the blockchain says nothing about that. It merely records transactions and says nothing about the right to do those things. For example, if the court orders you to turn over your Bitcoin holdings to creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding and instead you transfer them elsewhere, you are probably going to jail. When you transferred them, the coins were in your possession, but you weren't the rightful owner.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Correct, blockchain itself doesn't mess with ownership. But NFTs and certain smart contracts are meticulously designing a custom form of ownership for themselves. That's what changes things. And this would be true even if they didn't use blockchains! If you throw out all that custom ownership logic, you lose the core of what makes an NFT an NFT. Now it's just a few dozen bytes that anyone can mimic.
  - criddell 4y ago
    > smart contracts are meticulously designing a custom form of ownership Not sure what you mean by custom form of ownership. If you are talking about fractional ownership, even that isn’t new. Contracts around ownership are built on top of legal system. Smart contracts provide automation around defining and execution the contracts. That’s cool and can be super low cost, but apart from the automation, there isn’t much that’s different from traditional contracts. They can still be challenged in court. For example, if you had a contract that, upon your death, transferred all your money to your nurse, your spouse could still challenge that in court if the contract was created under duress or created when you weren’t of sound mind.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      No no you cut me off there. NFTs do it, and certain smart contracts do it. If you get picky about the latter part, then I retract it and just say NFTs for simplicity.
      - criddell 4y ago
        Ownership can’t be defined outside of the law. Ultimately these are boring old contracts in a digital form and they may or may not be valid. The validity can’t be determined within the NFT, smart contract, or blockchain. Some code may initiate a transfer of something and that gives you possession of it, but ownership isn’t guaranteed. For example, you can write a smart contract that would watch for divorce papers being filed by your spouse and upon filing, you would transfer your Bitcoin balance or NFT to some other wallet. A court isn’t going to fall for that. You will be found to have hidden community assets (ie assets you don’t entirely own).