Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In @ Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,945

Joined

2 yr. ago

An NFT on its own doesn't allow transfer of legal ownership of real goods. It needs to reference legal documents and those documents need to reference the NFT and whatever other property or rights are being sold.

Overbooking is a choice airlines make to maximize profits. It seems to me the main problem is that capitalism motivates airlines to maximize profits instead of transporting people to their destination.

Agreed. That's why it can only start with low cost airlines outside the US.

Also, the article you shared actually makes no mention of overbooking.

Unfortunately we can only speculate why they chose NFTs over traditional tickets.

I also have to point out that this article was written by and unnamed, "crypto believer," and self-published in Medium by an NFT company. It's not exactly a great source.

Don't shoot the messenger. There are other sources available via Google. And the airline website describes it as ticketing 3.0

My point isn't that they're useless, just that their uses are overstated and create a financial bubble.

Agreed. Monkey pictures were genius marketing but absolutely useless. A porche 911 NFT isn't much better. But real b2b use cases do exist (supplychain, green energy, shipping etc.).

Zuckerberg's VR investment cost Facebook $60 billion.

I think his gamble will pay off for AR. Glasses will be mainstream and will make phones obsolete.

You seem angry about people selling stars. The NFT is just the paper the certificate is printed on.

Lets say I mint an NFT of Mickey Mouse. I don't own that image since it is protected by copyright.

Not any more. So let's choose Minnie Mouse instead.

First created doesn't mean ownership or authenticity.

Agreed

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.

Incorrect. An NFT of Minnie Mouse would not be legal, but that doesn't make other NFTs of other art illegal.

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.

Agreed. Stealing the crypto key is as exactly as illegal as stealing a physical key and claiming ownership.

Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain

No need to roll back. The legal contract can be made to point to a different nft.

but if we are using a central authority then there isn't any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.

In this case the blockchain removes friction. Real world enforcement of laws is centralised because society demands it.

I agree. You don't buy a receipt. The NFT itself is not valuable. What the NFTs are linked to is what is of value. All the NFT does is show who owns whatever it represents.

You can link NFTs to green energy certificates. It's the certificates that are valuable, all the NFT does is show who owns the certificate.

The monkey jpegs are not what made bored apes interesting, it was the marketing and "additional features" that was valuable (to some people).

Um, yes. At the most basic, NFTs are receipts.

Anyone can still mint a copy with different metadata on a different contract.

That would not be an exact copy, because the data is different. Then traditional copyright laws take over.

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.

Agreed. The NFT and legal documentation has to be constructed in such a way as to pass local laws. Having a bill of sale on-chain rather than on-paper isn't that big a difference.

Just transferring an NFT doesn't guarantee that legal ownership has changed.

But it is possible to create a legal structure that does create a legal bill of sale just by transferring an NFT.

The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database.

Traditional invoicing is bilateral. You have no idea about the components that make up the end product being invoiced. Solving this is both organisational and technical.

What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?

that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system,

Not if you are looking further up or down the supply chain. Someone providing components will not be able to predict the final destination so will be unable to interact with the correct proprietary system.

What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?

Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it.

If access to that system can be altered at the whim of the database owner then it is unacceptable

Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available.

If information needs to be published in a public, immutable, traceable manner. Then Blockchain is the only technology that can solve this.

But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders.

If it can be altered then there is no guarantee if business for stakeholders. They will not engage.

There's a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.

You are now describing Blockchain technology. Primary keys are held by each stakeholder and uniqueness is cryptographicly guaranteed.

Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn't solve. "Trustlessness" only guarantees data/transaction immutability,

So blockchain does solve it.

it doesn't guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates).

Nor was this claimed.

And if you don't trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?

Because you want money. Businesses want a solution where trusting a particular organisation isn't necessary.

The method for unique content is to reference the chainID, Address and token number in the content itself (I.e. in a metadata field). This approach works well for legal documentation, but could equally be applied to monkey pictures (although it usually isn't).

The NFT token is unique within its contract and since the contract had a unique address the NFT pointer is unique. Include chainID in the description and the NFT is globally unique.

They could set up an efficient secondary market if they wanted to, without NFTs.

They could, but NFTs are a cheaper, more secure way of transacting.

Aiports overbook because there are always passengers that do not show up and they want to make sure their planes are fully booked.

That doesn't have to be how they work.

Those late/missing passengers arent going to sell their ticket to other passengers.

What? They would love to.

Someone has to go first. A low cost airline adopted them to avoid the hassles and inefficiencies of overbooking flights.

There are also lots of B2B uses of NFTs, mainly around supply chain and energy tracking, but I thought a B2C example would resonate better here.

then give appropriate access to all of the actors

What if the actors don't know they will end up on your database? What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else? What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?

And isn't updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system?

No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.

Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.

Oh yes. Centralised systems are faster cheaper and easier to maintain. But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.

So each launch is 2x the faeroe islands annual CO2 output

The invoice management system is owned by the whole supply chain. It is not a database run by walmart.

The problem wasn't solved before blockchain because centralized databases do not have the administrative flexibility to respond to a changing supply chain. A central administrator only sees one layer deep.

It's a bit chicken and egg. One of the reasons airlines overbook is because there is no efficient secondary market.

But overbooking is seen as a profit center (I.e. consumers lose out) so only low cost airlines looking to provide consumer value would have any interest in NFT tickets.

The leadership of the most powerful country in the world generating tariff calculations with AI

What! Is this guess or actual fact?

I think quantum-as-a-service will exist on the major cloud providers, and they will produce libraries with specific algorithms that are enhanced by quantum processes.

All a developer will do is swap scipy for qscipy

NFTs would prove to the customers that their flight is not being overbooked.

You can do this with databases.

Blockchain is a database. One that everyone automatically can access. The advantage is that you don't need an admin console. There is no complex on-board and control of users.