i say nft people instead of nft bros because, tragically, there's actually like two or three women who own NFTs. like, the person who created that stupid fucking ape is a friend of a friend, and that person is a woman.

i know this is tragic

I mean sure, but the Mona Lisa has value beyond its scarcity (though its scarcity is a significant contributor to its value) because it's a historical artifact with artistic merit

NFTs are completely devoid of value independent of their scarcity. They have literally 0 artistic merit because they are basically picrew avatars pumped out by cynical bitcoin shitheads in order to drain money from morons. Without their perceived "uniqueness" they are not interesting at all. So they hate it when that putative uniqueness is undermined because it reminds them that they spent four or five figures on a jpeg of an ugly monkey

Also proof of ownership only works as long as people recognise that proof of ownership as valid. If I turned up with a deed to your house from the House Deed Printing Company you would be like "what the fuck is that? get off my property." the more the idea of nft "possession" as "ownership" is undermined, the more valueless it is. so there's financial consequences, despite being abstracted

I think the primary emotional reaction here is that "right clickers" don't get it. Even if saving and replicating the image outside of the blockchain doesn't matter it shows that the person doing it doesn't respect the idea of the blockchain. They're stupid and don't get what the real ownership means but as blockchain ownership is even more of a fake social contract than other kinds of ownership people not taking it seriously is actually an existential threat to the concept.

Note: The above is not my perspective. NFTs are stupid and a scam. I am just trying to understand the mindset.

That's why I started my post with "the most generous interpretation of NFTs".

The stupid apes aren't inherent to NFTs. The centralized platforms thing aren't inherent to NFTs.

Also proof of ownership only works as long as people recognise that proof of ownership as valid

Yeah, that's one of the main issues. You'll still need to rely on traditional legal systems.

In the most generous interpretation, NFTs can help with that? A little? "Here's a hash of the document, here's a hash of the document with my signature on it, and here's that same hash on the blockchain, which can be independently verified."

The second main issue is that you can do most of that without any cryptocurrency shit! The only benefit is that it becomes harder to fake and easier to verify.

But the third main issue is that that's not even how it's being used! NFTs aren't storing hashes of some piece of art, it's storing a URL to a centralized platform. This URL can change (and absolutely will when the platform goes down.)

So, in even the most generous interpretation of NFTs, they have little value. And that little value is completely undermined by how they're used in practice.

I agree with you and I think it's great when coinbros feel threatened, but I also am pretty sure most of the cryptocoin hype people don't understand it either. I think most understanding goes as deep as "Here's the benefits of decentralization, cryptocurrencies will bring those benefits I swear for real, and you can get in on the ground floor with snakeoilcoin NFTs."

so apparently commercial rights have actually been tied to nfts already? i don't know how this works, but, i know about this because seth green lost an nft and can't make his tv show now. so this is hilarious