Can someone explain at least what the theoretical solution to this is? Otherwise the whole thing just sounds like a scam.
So, we need a contract to link an NFT to a work. That contract should also spell out all the things the NFT holder can do (maybe the creator didn't want to, or isn't allowed to, sell all rights).
So contract the says who owns a work and what they can do with it, enforced by a legal framework and the courts. That us all you need to make NFTs make sense, I don't see what the problem is.
What's that? If you have the contract, why do you need an NFT? Well, what scrub would buy a paper contract with bitcoin? It's not even on a block chain!
We have courts and lawyers and contracts. We need to use those to make NFTs work, so why are NFTs valuable again?
That hasn't happened because blockchains are a bad match for how people think of ownership.
A notional monopoly on violence is important, but even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.
You think most people living under an oppressive regime think that there's nothing the government could do to be better? Such a state doesn't need broad consensus that there's no better alternative, it just needs to avoid the consensus that the personal cost of attempting to achieve the better alternative is worth it. That's where the monopoly on violence really helps.
No there’s no solution. Not until we all fully operate in a legal realm (the/a metaverse) that validates the contract and rewards the humans who created the contract to cover their own ass. If the contract doesn’t follow the _legal_ language and intent it’s not smart at all and yes it’s totally a solution in search of a problem.
this NFT stuff is doomed to failure until we all operate in the same realm validating the identity of the contract owner, validating the legal intent of the contract, because that’s what a contract is in meat space
Intellectual property is another thing entirely, and not as easy to enforce, especially in the digital age.
As with traditional artwork, the story of the work is what accrues value, not the work itself. You can create a largely undetectable forgery of a Picasso, but you cannot forge the historical record that traces the true work back to Picasso’s paintbrush. NFTs can make this historical record cryptographically secure, at least for the token itself, but whether that means the token should accrue value or not is up to the market.
The difference is subtle, but it is meaningful on edge cases such as around reward halving.
For this to work, a blockchain needs to access something outside the chain i.e an Oracle... now you have two problems.