> The problem is that NFTs doesn't solve a problem that existed.
In a way they do, they solve the problem that crypto was only about fungible stuff (money) before, now there's also non-fungible stuff. I think the point of NFTs is not exactly to prove that you own something, but to offer people an easy and non-fungible token to exchange with other people. The goal is not ownership but exchange (some would say speculation). At least that's how I understand it.
How do you exchange something that neither of you own? Beyond bragging rights, you will need some way to establish legal ownership of something because you own the corresponding NFT. So why not sell that ownership directly without the level of indirection that is the NFT? I guess the reason is that you have decoupled ownership and the ability to sell that ownership, making it easier to speculate independently of legal domains like countries.
Really, it's just adding a level of indirection, as always :-)
> I guess the reason is that you have decoupled ownership and the ability to sell that ownership, making it easier to speculate independent of legal domains like countries.
> Really, it's just adding a level of indirection, as always :-)
If Nvidia provided an nft for every graphics card they sold, and every online marketplace like ebay required that you provide that nft to resell the card, then that truck of stolen graphics cards becomes much harder to move.
I can't tell if you're being facetious, but Jesus what a terrible idea. What if you lose your private key and lose access to the NFT? Can you not use the graphics card? Or can you not sell it? What if NVidia goes out of business someday in the future and the card gets bricked because they stop maintaining the chain that held all the NFT's of the graphics cards?
Ahh, in that case, the problem this solves is the database owner has admin power, and could take away your graphics card.
This is similar to how I was always worried that Bank of America would arbitrarily change the balance in my account for some reason, but bitcoin solves this problem. Now I just have to worry about losing my password or getting hacked and losing all of my money, and that's just much less realistic than a major bank abusing their centralized admin powers to change my balance.
There is so much Poe's law content in this thread - not sure if you're being facetious or not. But I'll bite.
If Bank of America deducts money from your account, you can call customer support and threaten to file a complaint with a regulatory agency, threaten to close your account, or just take them to court. No guarantees that you'll get your money back, but at least there's a chance.
If you lose your wallet password. It's game over. 0% chance of ever recovering any of that money.
The difference is that nVidia would not be able to remove your NFT from its db of serial numbers, because the association between the number and you, instead of being in a DB it is in the blockchain itself, and the only one that can change that association is the holder of the NFT.
So in this scenario would the NFT be burned onto the card's ROM, and basically serve as a serial number you can trade without the participation of the manufacturer?
Until someone made a counterfeit, sold that (with the NFT) and kept the original. They can simultaneously "prove" they've sold the original and also reap the benefits of having the graphics card.
The same thing applies to other similar "NFT as certificate of authenticity" schemes I've seen, such as around luxury goods.
> (...) then that truck of stolen graphics cards becomes much harder to move.
That sounds like a convoluted and impractical solution looking for a problem. Mobile service companies and hardware vendors managed to implement services that support activation and bricking without getting any crypto-related buzzword in the way.
Yes, this is correct. For now, people are willing to participate in the collective delusion that these tokens are what they claim to represent: real ownership of an off-chain asset. I don't think that's going to last.
It's possible to imbue an NFT, itself, with real value. Like if it was a legally recognized title. Or if ownership of an NFT could be used to produce an authorization token for access to some physical or digital experience.
Smart contracts are a very generic concept. NFTs are a smart contract design pattern. They typically employ standardized smart contracts (e.g. ERC-721, ERC-1155) so that services can be built to interface with any standard NFT contract. But it's also possible to make custom smart contracts to manage non-fungible digital assets.
In a way they do, they solve the problem that crypto was only about fungible stuff (money) before, now there's also non-fungible stuff. I think the point of NFTs is not exactly to prove that you own something, but to offer people an easy and non-fungible token to exchange with other people. The goal is not ownership but exchange (some would say speculation). At least that's how I understand it.