Yesterday I read up on this NFT thing. If I got it right it is basically a hashcode of a digital thing, e.g. an image that is stored on some blockchain to document who owns it (it being the NFT+the associated object). 1/3
2
1
There is nothing in there that prevents anyone to copy the object a million times. There is nothing in there that prevents anyone to create tons of more NFTs for the same object, except for the proof of work involved for storing something on the blockchain (and legal contracts).
2
2
So, why does this have value? 3/3
4
3
I totally think the entire NFT thing is completely overblown but fundamentally, think of it as a signed copy of some authors work brought to the digital world. For some folks that can be something valuable, others couldn’t care less. 🤷‍♂️
2
4
Replying to @odrotbohm @jensschauder
It would make a lot of sense if there were licensing rights attached to the token, especially for the extremely complex rights associated with music. If it’s just a token, though, I agree it’s worthless (unless you see worth in ownership for its own sake, which I consider stupid)

Apr 16, 2021 · 5:56 AM UTC

2
Replying to @stilkov @jensschauder
Hm, what about a signed print of a photo? Or those 100 signed copies of a music album? I honestly don’t see a reason why this is anything different than in the physical world in which people value that and pay extra money if they care. You can copy the work but not the signature.
1
2
Agreed for photos, good point. But if I have an original painting and you have a copy, we have different things. If we both have a fungible copy and an irrelevant non-fungible extra, the main thing is still the same for both of us.
3
more replies
Replying to @stilkov @odrotbohm @jensschauder
This is something we actively research (in the academic context, together with @posth). As it is now, it is not yet a stable and well defined use case. But it created a discussion, which is interesting.
1
1