So was it a NFT pointing to a hosted image, or a URL to the actual tweet permalink? The latter being marginally less ephemeral than the former.
But neither would encompass any kind of "ownership".
But neither would encompass any kind of "ownership".
Are any of them even original? It's possible that the first bits & bytes on a server that hosted that tweet are long gone, tossed out after twitter scaled beyond its humble beginnings. The original could be a slagged hard drive, a cooled molten lump of metal & silicon. Actually, that would be much more interesting to own than the NFT.
Also it would be funny if there was a (very highly unlikely) hash collision between two different valuable NFTs.
I mean, clearly hashing wouldn't seem to apply there. But it still leaves the question of whether there's a substantial difference between a traditional database entry. I may be overlooking something because I don't see the problem solved by NFTs. I see the use for them as part of an artistic statement, but not a general use function.