I have an example but it’s not necessarily the best and most practical solution, it’s just one very good solution to a problem that not everyone experiences, so it’s generally shot down as unnecessary.
In countries where buying a car or house involves an asynchronous exchange of money and keys or signing of documents, with all the trust issues involved, having an NFT represent ownership (which requires recognition and acceptance by the state) is a perfect use case, where you transfer ownership and receive payment in one atomic operation.
In countries… so you’re already under the country’s legal system, so there’s no need for a blockchain. You can just use an ownership database maintained by the country. Blockchain offers nothing at all of value in that situation.
which requires recognition and acceptance by the state
Exactly why blockchain is pointless. Blockchain, if it has any value, is in that it is a distributed ledger that is not subject to any state’s laws. That’s great if you want to have a monetary system that no country can control, but of course that also means that no country can help you in a dispute over who owns something. In a cryptocurrency / blockchain world, there’s no appealing to the state, but also no recognition or acceptance by the state.
You have obviously never sold a car or a house in a country where you have to trust that the cash the buyer is giving you is not counterfeit, or if using a bank transfer, that they will actually make the transfer once you signed away your ownership. You’re privileged to be able to trust your fellow american (I guess you’re from the US) and your legal system.
You can just use an ownership database maintained by the country
The blockchain would be the ownership database maintained by the country. The key is the atomic exchange of money for ownership. In case you don’t know what I mean by “atomic”, I mean that the two operations cannot be done separately: either the ownership and the money are both transferred, or none are. Which solves the problem that you apparently don’t have but many others less privileged do.
I have an example but it’s not necessarily the best and most practical solution, it’s just one very good solution to a problem that not everyone experiences, so it’s generally shot down as unnecessary.
In countries where buying a car or house involves an asynchronous exchange of money and keys or signing of documents, with all the trust issues involved, having an NFT represent ownership (which requires recognition and acceptance by the state) is a perfect use case, where you transfer ownership and receive payment in one atomic operation.
In countries… so you’re already under the country’s legal system, so there’s no need for a blockchain. You can just use an ownership database maintained by the country. Blockchain offers nothing at all of value in that situation.
Exactly why blockchain is pointless. Blockchain, if it has any value, is in that it is a distributed ledger that is not subject to any state’s laws. That’s great if you want to have a monetary system that no country can control, but of course that also means that no country can help you in a dispute over who owns something. In a cryptocurrency / blockchain world, there’s no appealing to the state, but also no recognition or acceptance by the state.
Yep, I knew you would show up.
You have obviously never sold a car or a house in a country where you have to trust that the cash the buyer is giving you is not counterfeit, or if using a bank transfer, that they will actually make the transfer once you signed away your ownership. You’re privileged to be able to trust your fellow american (I guess you’re from the US) and your legal system.
The blockchain would be the ownership database maintained by the country. The key is the atomic exchange of money for ownership. In case you don’t know what I mean by “atomic”, I mean that the two operations cannot be done separately: either the ownership and the money are both transferred, or none are. Which solves the problem that you apparently don’t have but many others less privileged do.