Came here to say this. It's a silly way to look at it, but these dorks are basically saying "no, using the 'internet' is not going to catch on silly techies." It's a kind of technology, not a vehicle specific to capitalism or big funds. NFTs could be proof of ownership over anything.

Consumers want true ownership, even if it requires a kind of tokenized-receipts system.

[–] art@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We've had gpg signatures for ages. No block chain needed.

[–] Catsrules@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bold statement.

I would argue that just because something that could work doesn't mean it is the best fit for the job for one reason or another.

We have multiple programming languages, database, filesystem, media formats etc...etc... Those also generally perform the same thing but some do certain things better and you pick whatever one best fits your needs.

why can block chain and go both existing and fit whatever role best fits them?

Not saying block chain / NFTs are the answer to ownership tracking just saying we shouldn't write them off just because something else might work.

[–] art@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

New technologies are great but sometimes you're just reinventing the wheel by creating a more complicated and energy expensive wheel.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can these be held and traded in a verifiable way?

[–] art@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes. Old signatures can be included in a new signature.