AOC is a gaffe machine

I actually think she’s pretty well spoken. A lot of people clip her just to farm outrage, but honestly, we’ve seen (especially with Trump) that out-of-context clips don’t really shift public opinion much anymore, they just reinforce whatever people already believe.

Quarterstaff, personally. It can double as a walking stick.

So he wants to clean up the environment? I, for sure, am not going to correct him.

T

Te be fair, it’s not much of a concentration camp if people are just going to be alive in there all the time. /s

Right, I agree that not all NFTs are illegal just because one might infringe IP. But the broader issue is enforcement, blockchains, by design, don’t offer mechanisms to remove or suppress infringing or malicious content.

And with legal documents like deeds, I get that stealing a key is like stealing a physical one. But the difference is that if someone steals my house key, I can rekey the lock. If they steal my private key, the blockchain can’t “reassign” the NFT unless a centralized authority steps in, defeating the idea of decentralized, immutable ownership.

Sure, you could update the legal system’s contract to point to a different NFT, but again, that requires a central entity with authority to override what’s on-chain. So at that point, we’re counting on some central authority to fix blockchain’s problem of not having reversibility.

So this goes back to the main question, if we need centralized enforcement and off-chain enforcement, anyway, what actual value does a blockchain add compared to an access-controlled database?

Firing volunteers to save money… What?

As far as I can tell it isn’t possible to create a legal structure on a blockchain. Technical limitations inherent in blockchain prevent this from making it possible.

• Lets say I mint an NFT of Mickey Mouse. I don’t own that image since it is protected by copyright. First created doesn’t mean ownership or authenticity. To be legally compliant, there would have to be some central authority to take down the offending IP on another contract, but blockchain doesn’t offer an ability to do this.
• Or lets say my house deed was on the blockchain and a hacker stole my secret pass phrase and took my deed. He doesn’t have legal authority over my house.

Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain, but if we are using a central authority then there isn’t any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.

Sure, you can establish a stronger tie between the token and the file by embedding the chain ID, contract address, and token number in the content or metadata, but there’s no way to enforce that tie at the blockchain level. Anyone can still mint a copy with different metadata on a different contract.

As for legal documents, while storing them on-chain might help with transparency or timestamping, the blockchain itself has no legal jurisdiction. It doesn’t have legal authority, and documents stored this way are not inherently compliant with local laws, so they’re unenforceable unless recognized by a traditional legal system.

That’s true, the (chainID, contractAddress, tokenID) can be globally unique. But that doesn’t solve the original concern, it doesn’t prevent content duplication.

Exactly, and that’s the key issue. If we need a central authority, whether it’s a game distributor, marketplace, or platform to recognize and validate the “official” contract, then we’re back to a trust model similar to traditional databases.

Take your example of game ownership. If the launcher only accepts NFTs from a specific contract, that launcher is acting as the central authority. At that point, the launcher can just manage ownership records in its own database. NFTs only add complexity without eliminating the need for trust in a central entity.

And as we’ve seen with Magic Eden, even trusted platforms can make mistakes, leading to confusion or scams. So centralization is still required to resolve identity/authenticity, I don’t believe NFTs offer any meaningful advantage over a traditional database.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/magic-eden-to-refund-users-after-25-fake-nfts-sold-due-to-exploit

Right, it’s a link to the JPEG. Either way, the point still stands, there’s no mechanism in the blockchain to prevent duplicate content or enforce uniqueness of what the NFT points to. The NFT token is unique within its contract, sure, but that doesn’t stop someone from deploying a near-identical contract with the same media and metadata. That’s the issue, the blockchain doesn’t know or care if the same JPEG is being reused in other collections.

Completely agree, but the guy I responding to thinks the monkey jpeg is unique across the whole blockchain, when that isn’t true. The monkey jpeg can be copied. There’s no uniqueness enforced in a blockchain.

Lets say you don’t have a central authority declaring one is official. How would you search the entire blockchain to verify you have the original NFT?

But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the “right contract”. If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It’s no longer a decentralized.

The NFT is only unique within the contract address. The whole contract can be trivially copied to another contract address and the whole collection can be cloned. It’s why opensea has checkmarks for “verified” collections. There are a unofficial BoredApe collections which are copies of the original one.

Ah sorry, I’m getting the terms confused.

Oh, this is actually a useful feature, then.

I see it quite a lot, personally. Democrats are blaming other Pro-palestine democrats for not voting for pro-Israel candidates.

I think there’s a technical hurdle here. There’s no reliable way to enforce unique access to an NFT. Anyone with access to the wallet’s private key (or seed phrase) can use the NFT, meaning two or more people could easily share a game or software license just by sharing credentials. That kind of undermines the licensing control in a system like this.