3 ms·

> The legal binding on the original NFT is broken, and a new NFT is issued. oooooooof. Centralization removes what modest benefits there were in the first plac

• leashless 4y ago
  Not from where we are standing. For us, the critical features of the blockchain are: 1) simultaneous execution of a substantial number of legal contracts between different counter-parties as a single atomic transaction 2) non-repudiatable payments going to all of those contract counter-parties 3) single source of truth on a publicly visible resource so all parties can see what's going on at all times 4) "litigation-ready" record keeping about who did what when And so on: it's a better way of doing certain legal processes not some kind of magic pixie dust. That's a pretty different take from the general blockchain rhetoric, but this represents the UK legal consensus on the blockchain. It's a tool, not a jurisdiction.
  • giantrobot 4y ago
    It's not a single fucking source of truth since you need an oracle to go between the blockchain and the actual legal authorities to register ownership. You just have an entry in a ledger that says "X owns Y" with zero legal backing. I can take your money and give you a receipt but that doesn't mean anything if I don't have the authority to sell the thing.
    • mrguyorama 4y ago
      It's a company with some REAL contracts to pretend that the stupid database is authoritative, as if judges love stupid law games like that. A blockchain adds nothing to this, as it is merely an extremely stupid and expensive database. The point is to cash in on crypto hype.
  • UncleMeat 4y ago
    This is just being an escrow company. No blockchain necessary.