Comment by runeks | Hacker News Reader

Comment by runeks | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm quite thrilled about this accurate analysis of the problematic aspect of using blockchains to solve arbitrary problems.

However, I'd like to point out an issue with this paragraph:

> For a long time, the only accurate applications were to cryptocurrency. But that is changing: the current non-fungible token (NFT) boom is a prime example. The fact that MetaKovan holds a $69 million NFT of Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” is not independent of the blockchain. Quite the contrary: his holding that NFT depends entirely on the blockchain’s saying he does. The blockchain dictates who holds which NFTs.

Specifically, this sentence

> The fact that MetaKovan holds a $69 million NFT of Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” is not independent of the blockchain.

is not entirely true because it claims two things, not just one, and only one of these things is defined by a blockchain (i.e. "accurate"):

1. MetaKovan holds an NFT

2. This is an NFT "of" Beeple’s "Everydays" artwork

Only the first of these two statements is "accurate", i.e. defined by a blockchain. The second statements is "inaccurate", i.e. defined outside of a blockchain.

Nobody "holds" an NFT. In much cases it's just a hashed URL to a website to display "art".

There are already reports on vanishing NFT'S because the image doesn't exist anymore.

It's a fancy description. But it ain't real ownership. They are spending money for a link to an image:

Relevant free link ;): https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nft...

So someone else explained to me that we are all misunderstanding NFTs. They dont relate to ownership or even authenticity. They in theory could do these things, but nothing in the setup explicitly gives any of that right now with any real meaning. Simply, it shows you associated an image/string of text/tweet/whatever to a token with a supply of one. I cant think of a good real world analogy other than that company that used to sell the naming rights to stars. No one recognized their naming claims except for themselves. While I get the people trying to make a quick buck off NFT, "theres a bigger idiot somewhere", let's just stop fooling ourselves that it's any more than that. This makes folks who thought Beanie Babies were a sound, long term investment seem intelligent. If I'm going to invest in a digital currency, EVE ISK has more sound backing than crypto.

A patent is the same idea, some people or orgs don't actually hold the technology for said patent but they control the use of it.

Not the same idea at all. An NFT doesn't allow you to control the use of anything. It'd be analogous if a patent allowed you to authoritatively claim you were the first person to patent it (at least on that specific blockchain), but didn't grant you any exclusive right to use of the idea.

A patent relies on a state actor to enforce a set of rules

No it's not.

A patent can be enforced in court.

Who would have a legal base to hold an image of a site?

Indeed. The copyright owner if there is one and then probably the site holder.

There's no single lawful correlation between NFT's and the real world. And people are literally buying this, they don't even know what they are buying.

They just trust the description... Lol

Yeah I disagree with his assertion that blockchain accuracy extends to NFTs or house ownership. Whilst the former is true in a very limited sense, there's nothing to stop you minting multiple NFTs relating to the same item. On the former, the original input owner is surely subject to potential inaccuracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com