You’re all just haters, non-fungible token does exactly what it promises.
Have you ever seen fungi growing on an NFT? Mold? Mushrooms? No? Then it’s working.
I’ve always held that Non-fungible is a typo. It’s meant to say non-functional token.
it will be interesting to see if NFTs are “properly” implemented using the web browser DRM that Google is creating
NFT is not ART. It is digital ledger that says that the art belongs to someone (you, for example). The art itself can be freely copied. NFTs are not copyright enforcement.
Yes. But you don’t own the art or the right to it, just the token leading to it. You literally don’t have the rights to the image so you cant copyright enforce it.
All you have is a line in the ledger stating that you own it (and who sold it to you). Whether you can enforce copyright through the courts, is very separate issue, and not NFT function.
It’s as valid as me saying because I am linking the url below, I must own it: https://google.com NFT has no implication that the url being linked is owned in any way.
It’s just a url just like I posted in this comment. If I own it or not is irrelevant. There’s no proof of actual copyright ownership anywhere involved with NFTs and requires a legal document for copyright, which they don’t have.
NFT is a record of agreement, that one side acquired something from another. It is as powerful as agreement wrote on paper. So, it might be enforced by court, depending on situation.
If it can be “freely copied” with a literally identical one, it has literally zero value.
There is no art involved. A file is way too big to be stored in the ledger. They just point to a url which is very much mutable, can go down, or change to whatever the fuck at any given time.
Not all NFTs are Art NFTs… Domain NFTs have a lot of great use cases for example
No, not really. At least not in the real world. In their own little crypto fanboy universe: yes of course.
