What do they "like" about holding an NFT? They don't own the copyright usually, and they also don't own the original. Do they like seeing their name as the owner on some website? Because we can do that with credit cards and databases and html.
If the well has been poisoned already, asking someone for proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff. This is the kind of pretzel people try to logic themselves out of.
What do they like about holding Joe Montana's rookie card? Or a first-edition Charizard? Do they like having the physical card? Because we can do that with cardstock and inkjet printers.
It ain't my cup of tea in any case, but it also ain't my place to judge them for it or interrogate their motivations. If they want to collect Yu-gi-oh cards or bored monkey NFTs, power to 'em.
So if collecting doesn't involve adding to the global warming crisis, I'd be much more okay with it.
And if holding an NFT (especially on a proof-of-stake blockchain, wherein the carbon footprint is negligible) was in any way comparable to holding child porn, then maybe that'd be a valid point.
No one else has that power to make changes to the portion of the blockchain that you own the keys to. This is the aspect of ownership that matters.
Same thing with credit cards and databases. Those are centralized databases owned and operated by a central organization. When it comes to blockchain technology, to make entries regarding the portions of the blockchain that you control, no one else can make changes to that portion of the blockchain without the keys. This is the aspect of ownership that makes digital assets ownable. The ability to control the asset that no one else who doesn't own it can.
Look, I can't speak for ownership of NFT's, but to be honest, you probably can't either. Your entering the stage with a pitchfork and torch trying to hate it before you've even tried to see what its about.
I don't think it has anything at all to do with seeing their name on some website, its about ownership.
> proof of the poisoned well seems silly when all you have to do is look in and take a whiff.
You're not making a lot of sense here. Maybe you don't know what "poisoning the well" means.
poising the well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
> is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
Again, we don't know that NFT's are a fraud, so to say "Or do they realize its all a fraud as well and trying to make a quick buck" asserts the question from the standpoint that they are, when we can't know that.
You are coming to the stage proclaiming the New England Patriots have won the Superbowl when the Superbowl has yet to start. That's all I'm saying. That to me sounds more like the pretzel logic.
Well, that's the ideal right? The reality says otherwise for reasons I stated earlier -- which you haven't addressed yet.
So now you're arguing the low level details now and smearing your opponents intention rather than trying to make the big arguments in supportive of your point. That seems to me you have no further big arguments to support your point and are willing to go into minutae to score debate points.
Your communications of the reasons you've stated must have not come across very well because I didn't understand them from rereading your previous comments. What were the reasons again?
Where is the smear of the intention? Was it because I said you are attacking the argument from the standpoint that something is a fraud, when the argument cant be attacked from a position that it was a fraud because that's a fact we cannot know?