* Artificial seeming scarcity out of something that's inherently abundant
* No actual ownership of actual thing
* Instead, a overly-detailed focus on mechanics of the process: We will send you a gilded certificate; we will put your entry into a leather bound book; this cook will be registered with United States Copyright Office; it will be added to Library of Congress, etc etc etc - giving seeming legitimacy to the endevour
The only thing that's missing, and it's a critical difference, is the complete lack of secondary market for named stars :D
Lets start at the beginning. You have analogy wrong ( which is a problem with analogies - they are open to interpretation ). The joke part says the following:
1. You have a wife. 2. She is not behaving like your wife. 3. You have a marriage certificate saying she is your wife
And NFTs follow the same pattern, because:
NFTs say they are your wife. They do not behave like your wife ( everyone can have them ). You have a digital certificate saying that NFT is your wife regardless.
**
As a guy on the street, I only see a value of selling fake wife certificate. I do not see value buying it.
I hope I explained it right.
You just described the whole NFT scam. I would love to produce pngs I can sell for thousands of dollars. I won't buy NFTs not even for a penny.
If the NFT is the wife, what is the certificate?
I feel like this comedian knows their audience
Seriously though, implying that somebody having sex with multiple people makes them worthless is horrible. Also, if someone and their partner have incompatible expectations or boundaries then they should break up. What's forcing you to stay with your hypothetical wife? Seems like she'd be better off without you anyway.
Some people are into that, I try not to judge :)
NFT collectors are valuing that authentication to various benefits first, and imagery second.
I get the impression people are not able to separate whats going on in the 1/1 market versus the collections marker. Just an allergy to the acronym NFT.
> your wife is being drilled by everyone and you can't do anything about it
I interpret this as "someone owes you to not have sex with other people" (which is a common assumption in most marriages), not that someone owes you sex...
No matter how hard you blockchain you're still under the law of the government. You still have to pay taxes in your country's currency. Your "decentralized" blockchain still relies on centralization. Your internet infrastructure is centralized and ran usually by the government. The power grid you depend on is centralized.
My point is your blockchain technology still relies on the government. China even outlawed Bitcoin mining. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIX POLITICAL PROBLEMS WITH BLOCKCHAIN.
They knew that when it was created that States would crush it like they had crushed other attempt. With Bitcoin, they could not. I don't think its safe to say its under the law. The law is to the side. Bitcoin exists in a numerical and computation universe that cares not for the laws of man.
No one other than extremists (which exist in all groups) believe this, using this as a reason to hate NFTs makes you appear unreasonable and not grounded in reality
This is the main argument I hear. Tell me then, how else is it useful?
> using this as a reason to hate NFTs makes you appear unreasonable and not grounded in reality
It's a perfectly valid reason to hate NFTs among so many others. Instead of since centralized authority such as a government keeping track of who owns something it's a "decentralized" blockchain.
To claim it has no benefits other than decentralization seems odd to me
Edit: I can't respond past this point as I'm being throttled
I’d argue that what you’ve stated is just the mechanism by which decentralisation is achieved (you haven’t identified any additional benefits).
Still, legally speaking, who is exactly enforcing it? Opensea? MPAA? I get that is going to be a fun question to answer since you can technically sue for anything ( but its not a guarantee that a judge will throw it out if he/she sees something sufficiently in the 'wasting my time' category ).
No. Authenticity of the data is not part of the concept.
What would that even mean in the context of non-physical contracts? You can buy an experience as an NFT (i.e. dinner with a C-list celeb) and the NFT serves as nothing more than a receipt saying you purchased that experience. Doesn't have to be unique (several people could by the same), doesn't include any specific metadata relating to the buyer.
What kind of "cryptographic authenticity" would even apply in such case?
It gets worse with digital assets if all you get is an IPFS URI. The actual data can be removed or altered at any point without the NFT itself being affected in way. Unless the asset itself is stored in the blockchain (which is practically impossible for anything beyond thumbnail-sized images) there's nothing to validate on the BC besides the token itself.