• General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s not.

    It’s very tamperable. It lacks common safety features like 2FA. Hacks are common and stolen NFTs can not be recovered.

    It doesn’t provide any evidence of ownership, much less proof. Anyone can mint NFTs without providing any evidence of ownership or anything. There is no legal requirement that ownership of anything is transferred along with an NFT.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      There isn’t just one single way of coding an NFT, you’re talking about an entire class of application here. You can indeed add all sorts of safety features if you want to.

      Saying “anyone can mint NFTs” shows a misunderstanding of the specific application we’re discussing here. Not just anyone can mint an ENS name, specifically, which is what we’re talking about. ENS names are minted by the ENS contract, so they can be guaranteed unique. An ENS name isn’t “representing” anything other than the information contained within it, so there are no legal issues whatsoever. If you own the ENS name NFT then that’s all that you need to worry about, it has no other effect or implication other than that.

      This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the “scarlet letters NFT”. People have an enormous prejudice about the technology and leap to incorrect assumptions about its uses based on those prejudices.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It was a waste of time and resources for a particular application, yes. But the basic technology is useful for many applications.

        Those “bored ape” NFTs were for jpeg images, do you also think that the jpeg algorithm was a colossal waste of time and resources?