• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    9 months ago

    No, NFTs do have good uses, but things like image NFTs are just a misappropriation, like SPAM is to email.

    One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights. Movie rights for a book adaptation for instance moving between companies in IP sales and mergers/acquisitions.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      90
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights.

      Why is your system better than the existing one?

      There is, for example, the first-owner problem in a public blockchain. What happens if I make an NFT saying I own you property? Without an external system, how can you prove your NFT is real and mine isn’t? And if there’s an external system, why not use that instead?

      • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I thought of that problem the moment when they started explaining their use case. I had no idea there is a name for it, kinda cool. If the blockchain people have a real solution for it, it would be a pretty big deal

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s a term from copyright. The First Owner of a work is usually the person who makes a work, and they can then do all sorts of things with that.

    • Robin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      IP rights is not a problem that needs solving. In fact, the existing legal system has ways of punishing copyright violations whereas the Blockchain does not.

      Supply chain validation is also an example of the block chain “in action”. But the people that are entering the data on the Blockchain are the same people that were typing it in an email yesterday.

      I used to be a fan of the technology as well but so far it hasn’t show itself to be useful. A solution in search of a problem.

    • fishos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      And it’s ALWAYS the same problem. You can have all the lists you want. A central authority has to recognize and enforce that list. At which point, the structure of your list is completely irrelevant. It could be ANY list. What matters is that it’s chosen to be enforced. And currently, most power structures are happy with plain old databases. Or pen and paper.

      • zurohki@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        A plain old database also has ways of dealing with theft.

        If someone steals your crypto keys and sends your assets to themselves, they have no legal ownership over those assets but they’re listed as the owner in the blockchain, so blockchain isn’t even any good at being an accurate, verifiable record of ownership.

        Yes, you can’t make changes to the blockchain, but that also means you can never fix anything. So you actually can’t rely on the blockchain to be accurate.

    • Metz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      No, NFTs do have good uses

      I hear that now since 12 Years. Its not going to happen.

      • papabobolious@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Without really having an opinion on the matter - I think there’s a difference in having a use and being adopted.

        Something can be absolutely awesome in theory but useless if no one is using it.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah I think a lot of people don’t understand that “good for x problem”, “better than existing solution”, and “switching to this solution is better than staying with the existing solution” are three vastly different things

          Blockchain fails because switching to it is consistently worse than sticking with current solutions, and often it fails at being better than current solutions in the abstract

      • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The perfect use case is tickets to live events. One entity creates one NFT for each seat or spot available and can initially sell them. The owner of that NFT (ticket) can then do whatever they want with it without the need for a third party (Ticketmaster) to scalp the shit out of any subsequent transactions.

        Proof of ownership of a single ticket at the time of the event is the end goal, which is what NFTs do.

        Why this hasn’t been done is pretty baffling to me.

        What’s better, is if artists want to provide a subset of tickets that are not resellable they can. Those tickets will only be accepted if a single transaction has taken place.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          9 months ago

          The owner of that NFT (ticket) can then do whatever they want with it without the need for a third party (Ticketmaster) to scalp the shit out of any subsequent transactions.

          How is that supposed to prevent scalping, exactly?

          Proof of ownership of a single ticket at the time of the event is the end goal, which is what NFTs do.

          And that’s better than physical tickets, because…?

          What’s better, is if artists want to provide a subset of tickets that are not resellable they can.

          That’s also already a solved problem: write a name on a ticket and validate that name with an ID.

          • Psionicsickness@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Just responding to the “scalping” quote. It absolutely wouldn’t stop scalping, what I HOPE op was trying to say was that it could be used to prevent Ticketmaster, or any entity like it, from charging fees on every exchange of said ticket.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            And that’s better than physical tickets, because…?

            paper tickets are relatively easy to counterfeit, especially for the purposes of selling the counterfeits as scalped/unwanted tickets.

        • Xanvial@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          9 months ago

          The sounds like scalpers paradise. They can buy multiple tickets and sell it without thinking about any authorization (id card or something) when using that tickets

        • FreeFacts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Why this hasn’t been done is pretty baffling to me.

          Because the blockchain needs an incentive. Who is going to be taking part in the blockchain if there is nothing in it for them? That’s why these tokens are often tied to crypto currencies, as mining is the incentive.

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah why would ticketmaster, who makes a killing having their ticket monopoly and control, develop a system where they lose control?

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          That is an absolutely TERRIBLE use case because it is by definition centralized. The venue already has ample control over who tf gets in and there is little problem with counterfeit tickets.

        • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          Duranium-on-the-Mohs-scale hard pass. Tickets work fine.

          What’s baffling to me is the ramping up of the 21st century penchant for mindless wheel-re-inventing.

        • Euphorazine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          That’s not a perfect use case for it. That’s a central authority (venue) selling tickets to anyone who wants to buy them. But instead of using a local database and approving transfers from person to person and losing the ability to reverse transactions due to fraud, it’s hosted in the wild west of crypto.

          There’s nothing stopping a venue from offering your perfect use case in a centralized system, but they outsource it to Ticketmaster (namely because Ticketmaster owns like 80% of music venues or something) so they don’t have to deal with it.

          Your scenario outsources it to the block chain, who will charge gas for the transactions instead of ticketmaster charging fees.

    • Euphorazine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t know the value in a decentralized IP rights system. If the key holder gets phished, you can lose your rights to a TV series you’ve been working on. (Like Seth Greene)

      He wouldn’t have lost it and had to pay back the ransom in a traditional contract. Having a contract centralized and enforced by the legal system has many perks and I can’t ever see how a decentralized rights platform can enforce itself.