151–160 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My even change 1 bit? Just create a new NFT with the same exact image. Nothing is stopping you.
You can create a smart contract where only a set group of people (ie, the devs) can mint NFTs. You cant just mint arbitrary nfts whenever you want, that's why they are unique.
NFTs are obviously a bit silly, BUT, it would be nice if things bought on platforms like Steam, Roblox, Amazon, iTunes etc. were transferable to other games/platforms. The platform providers would still need to agree that a specific blockchain / NFT is actually the source of truth, and so it's not really trustless. But the internet itself isn't perfectly decentralized either. I could see a future where developers cou…
Just imagine, if you bought a movie or game and could "consume" it on any platform you want, or event download files from web, skipping platforms. While technology is there, and you could prove ownership using public or private blockchain, this is obviously "bad for business" and no company will ever implement it. They better re-sell you same digital goods few times on several platforms.
One day, it might not be a normal business practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That should be possible though shouldn't it? Tying a copyright license (at least non exclusive) to the NFT transfer sounds not that far fetched. It would be a little bit tricky to make that work globally but you could probably do that as well. The question is would courts accept it as a valid contacts and how to enforce them. How would NFT prevent infringement (aka mme creating the latest bansky NFT)?
> Tying a copyright license (at least non exclusive) to the NFT transfer sounds not that far fetched. It's indeed what some artists and some of the NFT marketplaces do.
All of the things you've mentioned already exist, with a lot less effort. Copyright law is well established on digital goods. Contract/IP law is well established.
If NFTs have utility, beyond greater fool theory, then surely it will exist beyond having to go replicate all of these web2/tradfi/whatever concepts. Otherwise, what's the point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tying a copyright license (at least non exclusive) to the NFT transfer sounds not that far fetched. It's indeed what some artists and some of the NFT marketplaces do.
You guys are approaching this from the wrong direction: you've taken NFTs and decided they are valuable, and set about trying to prove you can do useful things with them. All of the things you've mentioned already exist, with a lot less effort. Copyright law is well established on digital goods. Contract/IP law is well established. If NFTs have utility, beyond greater fool theory, then surely it will exist beyond hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like....what? If the games are by the same publisher then that's trivial to do anyway. If they are not from the same publisher....then what kind of "resource" can you transfer? And why would NFT make it any easier?
Idk man, use your imagination. It could literally be anything. NFT just stands for non-fungible-token. It's like a unique ticket sitting on the public blockchain that can be tied to any digital asset sitting on IPFS. Any game or software can verify that you own the NFT without a third centralized party. I don't even play or like video games so this isn't my domain of expertise. Im more interested in seeing NFTs repla…
Guy spends $200 a month and fills a 20TB hard drive because he doesn’t understand nfts aren’t drm. Thanks for backing up all the art dude. Much appreciated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of Moon Shares from like 20 years ago. You could buy property on the moon and the company would verify ownership for you. Although this is totally different, because it’s blockchain.
Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership over particular tokens on that blockchain. Those are valuable so long as there are enough people that agree they are valuable and are willing to exchange other goods and services for them. Oh yeah, kind of like fiat money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership over particular tokens on that blockchain. Those are valuable so long as there are enough people that agree they are valuable and are willing to exchange other goods and services for them. Oh yeah, kind of like fiat money.
Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.
But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.
The JPEG is incidental. What you own is the token. You don't need the legal system to enforce your ownership of it because it is essentially impossible for anyone else to assert ownership of it without your private keys. But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
In 1995 most of the uses of the internet were stupid. Eventually, they became useful. Hopefully the same happens with crypto