I value this meme at eleventy billion and won't take a cent less

It's more like you have a receipt for a link of where to get the manual for the TV.

Yeah you can own an NFT but you can own any image through a license agreement with the owner.

“You own the image“ functionally doesn’t mean anything in the context of NFT’s because the image component in an NFT is not actually exchanging hands so there’s nothing to truly enforce here. It doesn’t grant exclusive rights and all that comes with it, it just gives them ownership rights - an artist can’t say the owner can’t use it for their own purposes. People can screenshot it, make memes of that, etc. and you have no legal recourse because you do not have exclusive rights to the actual work. They did nothing that violates your ownership. The NFT is you have a receipt that nobody can dispute that says “I own this receipt associated with this image and can use it as such.”

When I shoot video and give people a screener, I watermark it and have legal rights to the image/video content itself. They cannot duplicate it or use it in any fashion without risking legal action by me against them. NFT’s do not have that same protection. I can screenshot a bored ape image that someone “owns,” barely augment it, and mint a new NFT with no repercussions from the person who bought the original NFT. The original artist could come after me potentially because they have the actual exclusive rights to the creation, which again does not transfer with an NFT purchase.

In addition, you don’t even own the means to protect the receipt. If the blockchain goes down, your receipt is meaningless and you don’t even have exclusive rights to the image to sell or license out.

To give one more example: if I buy a video game, I have certain ownership rights associated with that disk. This is assuming physical copies of course. I can do whatever I want with that physical copy within the bounds of ownership of a distributed IP. I can snap it in half, I can back it up to a drive, etc. What I cannot do is make copies and distribute it because I have no rights to the IP, it has not been transferred to me with the purchase. The developer/publisher still has exclusivity, they control the IP. And if somebody else makes copies of my gave to be distributed, I have no legal recourse. This is really the key factor here. That law they’re breaking is not about my ownership, it’s about the game developer and publisher’s rights to the IP. They are the only ones who have legal recourse. NFTs, it’s the same way. The artist has all of the legal protections that come with IP ownership. Not the person who bought an NFT of the artwork.

TL;DR: NFT’s are buying receipts. They’re roughly as useful as “a certificate of authenticity“ they comes bundled with collectors items that were sold on infomercials in the 90s and 2000s. Except you don’t even get to store the certificate yourself, you’re dependent on somebody else

Hey, domain names are a thing you know

Nope! Not even that. Just an agreement between the scam arti- sorry, seller and the dumbfuc- sorry, buyer, that the rights to something have changed hands. Nothing more, nothing less.

No a deed to a house has legal meaning. So it’s not at all like a deed to a house.

Sort of except it means nothing. It's like having a deed with absolutely no legal weight.

If I buy a microwave and try and return it with only the receipt they won't give me a refund because I only bought the receipt. I could sell the receipt, sure it says you bought it but I am keeping the microwave.

If the deed was scribbled with crayons by a hobo and the house would be imaginary. That would be comparable to NFTs.

No, because an NFT just tells you were the picture is on the block chain. In theory If you had access to the block chain and another picture you can just change the picture stored at that point

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/NAeOzDhL6tc?si=it3vFINprPvt8ExV?t=115s

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

Monero has mechanisms for validating supply:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vW9H6VIONWM&t=174s

If you're going to repeat this argument ad nauseam then at least don't do it in a misleading absolutist way.

That's not true, clearly an apostrophe means: "watch out, here comes an s!"

That's not true. Apostrophes can be used to make acronyms plural, and there are cases where not doing so is clearly wrong (e.g. Oakland A's)

Except you don't own that server and have no control over it, and if the server owner takes the image offline you're screwed

I’m pretty sure you could always store a full image in an NFT on ethereum, it’d just cost stupid high transaction fees.

Interesting, but the scarcity this is trying to manufacture still doesn't apply to the image itself which can be easily and endlessly copied.

You're getting downvoted by cryptobros, but you are absolutely correct, there is no good use for block chain and never will be

It's a fully public database among trustless parties. To the first point, there's no reason any database can't be made public if so desired. To the second point, for the block chain to have any meaning or value beyond itself, some authority eventually needs to interpret its contents. That authority might as well hold the database or, in trustless cases, a third party trustee. Nothing about it makes sense at a very base level, you don't even need to explain the tech because it just doesn't hold up logically.

I've never seen a use of blockchain yet that didn't boil down to being virtual money.

A classic bitcoin article agrees with you: It's Not About the Technology, It's About the Money

Nobody who is knowledgeable about crypto ever thought dogecoin was anything but a meme coin or pump and dump scheme. They would have known it offered zero benefits technologically over existing cryptos. Some may have bought it to cash in on the crazy market surrounding it, but they never thought doge was the future or anything. The people who thought that were the "i read one article and I'm a crypto expert now" crowd referenced in my original comment.

I think the entire boom it had was from regular people, people who specifically weren't knowledgeable about crypto.

It's very expensive to add the actual image picture into the blockchain, so most NFTs actually contain a hyperlink and the NFT owner "owns" (because to my knowledge there's no legal base to assert ownership) only that hyperlink within their token, not the image itself.

Go away, feddit de you never have anything useful to say

Even in single instances of trust there can be advantages to using blockchain for those applications:

• Decentralization can give you better uptime/availability of those documents. If the DMVs website or authentication service goes down, documents can still be authenticated since they and/or their signatures stored in a distributed manner. The internet can go down at your bar but if you have a recent copy of a chain, you can still verify somebody's ID.
• It can make them easier to transfer between parties, and creates a digital "paper trail" which can conform to whatever requirements one might have. For example, you could easily require several parties to sign off any time the document is moved or assigned to a new person.
• You can use those documents and their signatures with smart contracts or other decentralized apps. For example, you could sign up for an account at a bank or a platform like eBay using your NFT'd digital ID and the bank could accept it would needing to manually verify if the id "looks fake" or if your blurry phone picture is going to cut it. They don't have to call up the government and ask them to verify it or pay some third party to match your address against their database of known people, etc.
• Maybe you need better transparency in how many documents are issued and (potentially) to whom. Voting systems, for example, are a use case for this. It could be used for shareholder governance structures, etc.
• Blockchains can enforce rules which centralized entities can't, which is important to consider. An example of how this is useful: imagine the government has a digital ID system and it's run in a centralized fashion, which makes sense, because they are the issuing authority right? Now imagine that centralized system gets hacked and an attacker starts printing and authenticating a bunch of fake ID requests. In the time between when this attack happens and when somebody figures it out, which could be hours to days, banks and other entities could be relying on those fake documents and potentially lose millions. An example of a rule a blockchain can enforce is "this ID issuing authority cannot issue in a single day more than 10% above it's daily average of issuances over a six month period", limiting the scope of an attack. One may say "Well, but blockchain can be hacked too!" which is true, but it's less likely because the software for these networks has thousands of eyes on it whereas there may only be a couple system admins approving changes to your state-run ID database. Open source software is more secure than proprietary for this reason. Additionally, a security flaw needs to effect 51% of the network which isn't likely to happen when you have a diversity of software versions.
• Many smart contracts need ways to protect against sybil attacks (ie one person pretending to be multiple). Quadratic funding being used for charity fundraising is a perfect example. By using credentials issued on chain by centralized authorities, they can verify a person is not multiple people. Quadratic funding is an awesome way to fund public goods.

The problem IS the centralized authority. Can you forever trust a government to not artificially inflate or deflate the value of a currency? The whole point was to have a system with no single authority. No single point of failure.

It is, however, not perfect. The volatility, limited number of transacrions per second , and reliance on an incredible amount of energy expense were the largest of these when the original bitcoin concept was created. Some of these issues have solutions, but its still an evolving technology.

So I have news for about NFTs...

And it's got "This is a fake" written in felt-tip pen on the canvas.

So if an NFT was 500 years old and made by Obama then it would be the same?