NFTs are typically linked to digital assets, but it could also reference physical assets. Artists and collectors could link their physical artwork to NFTs to formalize ownership. And it wouldn't have to stop at art. Ownership of cars could be linked to NFTs. Manifacturers could link NFTs to chassis-references such that ownership would exist in the block chain instead of (or in addition to) national registers. Similarly NFTs could reference houses, computers, chipped pets etc.

I'm sure that there are a lot of issues with this, but the general idea seems fine at the very initial thought. Obvious flaws like increased hacking incentive or money laundering would probably turn it into a bad idea. But that's my point. The general concept is fine, but the execution makes it a horrible mess.

[–] Valmond4@lemmy.mindoki.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But why?

And who's in charge of errors in this immutable ledger?

I only feel it being shoehorned into some possible usefulness, conveniently forgetting everything that won't work.

What is it trying to solve?

Also linking physical objects, that's even worse, use it a bit and it's digitalisation will change lol. Also you want to sell your auto radio, but it's linked to your Car-NFT, it's Kafkaïenne lol!

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

All of those questions can only be answered with a big shrug. I don't know. I guess there exist cases of ownership disputes where NFTs would provide an easy answer, but it's fringe. Errors in transactions would probably be tough to handle, so I don't know what would be done there. I specified the chassis-reference on the car to say something that is unlikely to change for the car, but of course you end up with the "Ship of Theseus"-paradox.

And that brings it back to: it's a nice solution to a problem which doesn't really exist, and the application of it towards zero-value digital assets is a huge mess.