261–264 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ownership of digital goods does exist since blockchain technology. You can now proof that things existed at a given time and that you are the rightful owner. That was not possible before without a middleman. Incoperate that to YouTube. At the moment millions of channels steal video revenue from their creators. If it would be accepted as proof that you where the first uploading this video, ownership can be proofen in…
Videos already have timestamps. Plus, all you gotta do is change one imperceptible bit in the video to get a different hash. Now your "proof" method is useless again. Well, actually, that's incorrect. It was always useless, it's not useless "again."
Going a little bit further, modified versions of videos could be signed by the private key of the creator, proofing that the modified version was published with the consent of the creator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ownership of digital goods does exist since blockchain technology. You can now proof that things existed at a given time and that you are the rightful owner. That was not possible before without a middleman. Incoperate that to YouTube. At the moment millions of channels steal video revenue from their creators. If it would be accepted as proof that you where the first uploading this video, ownership can be proofen in…
This doesn't require a middleman, even pre-blockchain. Proof of Ownership of digital content has existed for at least 30 years; digital signatures were a feature of PGP. I could host the original video (original quality before upload) on my own website, link to / host my PGP public key, host the content digital signature on my website, then post these links in the YouTube description after I upload it there. NFTs don…
Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely pretend to understand it; - those that duel in such profound abstractions that the actual world for them becomes a nuisance, a minor detail, an after thought. NFTs are a joke, a thought experiment taken too far. They're the modern version of The Emperor's New c…
Or they are the new baseball cards.
What's the point of 'owning' a digital baseball card if anyone can download it and store it on their PC? There's only one Mona Lisa, it only hangs in the Louvre, you can't just have an exact copy of it at zero cost.
It's make-belief ownership. The only viable application I've seen is digital licensing, for non-free software or digital assets. This can work in a closed-garden system, like in-game assets, software licensing, ... where you don't have control over the environment you're in, but cannot work on an open internet. But anyway, the gas-cost on eth is WAY too high ($70-ish to mint?) for this to be actually used for these applications, and if you're in a walled-garden anyway, who needs decentralisation?