So basically it's an odd form of a digital autograph associated with this tweet, that the owner presumably agrees not to autograph again and sell to other people.
I wouldn’t mind having $2M I didn’t need to bid on this level of abstraction.
Also, in the highly unlikely event of a hash collision, the Dorsey hash wins and the other hash has to go back to to /dev/null, metaphorical head held down in shame.
Duplicating the token means creating an exact bitwise duplicate of the NFT on the Matic sidechain, which the Ethereum Virtual Machine will not allow. There is no hash to send to someone else and unless there is an exploit in the EVM the NFT can only be owned by one person.
To be clear these NFTs only has the meaning of "signed tweet" because people decide it does. If you copied their smart contact and launched your own exact replica Jack could verify on your platform and a new and different NFT would be minted with the same "accepted representation".
Just like the existing art world, except now you have more ways to prove provenance, and originality. the prior timestamp and your ownership and the price history being onchain.
At least an artist copying their own painting has to produce a new object.
The direct consequences for Jack are none, just as if a company that produced a limited edition stamped #001 of a product decided to manufacture and sell the same product with #001.
By using this platform he's indirectly given them his blessing and like the company example even though it would be physically difficult I doubt he'd do.
The tuple (contact id, token id, owner public key) will remain unique on the blockchain as enforced by the EVM.
I suppose the digital analogy would be for me to break into your stash and copy the files for the art or whatever and enjoy them on my own. Easier than learning how to forge a Rembrandt.