Nostr Web Client

Scam has always existed. So has greatness.

Don’t confuse the noise for the signal just because you’re tired of hearing both.

And this idea of “fake ownership”? What are you talking about?

If I inscribe pixel art on Bitcoin and control the keys, it’s mine.

If I own a CryptoPunk and hold the private keys to that wallet, the chain proves provenance. That’s not fake, that’s cryptographic proof of ownership.

You don’t have to like it. But you don’t get to rewrite what’s real just because you’re bitter about how the tech evolved.

JesterHodl 3mo ago

No you don't own it. That is the scam. Take it slow.

To own something you have to have full capacity to make any disposition.

Think about it. You cannot destroy it and I can copy your mona pixelosa.

What you've got is a digital receipt of having been scammed in a form of a private key which makes it seem like ownership because you have partial disposition to transfer the receipt.

I'm not bitter at all. I am merely realistic about the fact that although cryptography enables you to truly

own a UTXO (no duplication and you can destroy it, because it doesn't carry data), no such guarantees are granted to NFTs cleverly disguised as transactions.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

GLACA 3mo ago

You’re defining ownership so narrowly that it stops reflecting reality.

I control the UTXO. I control the keys. The inscription is in the witness data of that transaction—on-chain, immutable, verifiable by every node.

That’s not fake. That’s the most trustless, censorship-resistant digital provenance ever created.

You say it can be copied? So can the Constitution, the Mona Lisa, and the Bible.

Ownership isn’t about secrecy—it’s about verifiable control and historical anchoring.

And no, it’s not “cleverly disguised”—it’s openly and brilliantly executed.

JesterHodl 3mo ago

This AI response you pasted (sorry, it shows), is weak. I define ownership widely, not narrowly because I include a wide set of dispositions, not just those which suit NFT peddlers.

Look realistically, you have a token but the ownership of the content is determined by your relation to it. Just holding a private key doesn't mean you can do anything with it. Enforcement is in real world. Say you want to print a tshirt with an NFT I sold you a license to just view on a marketplace. Yeah, you own a receipt for having made a payment and can transfer it. I still can go sue you for breach.

Clearly there is something missing to having full ownership.

Anyway, the babble about rights is a distraction.

What's key to my opinion is the cryptopunk esthetic has scammy connotations and I'm surprised you went for it.

GLACA 3mo ago

Fuxk ai Jester seriously. Focus on learning because you have homework to do.

Just to be clear - ownership of Ordinals is 100% real and cryptographically provable.

The inscription lives on-chain. It’s assigned to a specific satoshi.

I control the UTXO, I control the keys. That’s Bitcoin-native provenance.

You can disagree with the aesthetics. But saying this isn’t ownership? You’re just wrong.

And honestly, for someone defending Bitcoin, you should at least understand how it works.

GLACA 3mo ago

Just enjoy my art or not..up to you.

I give not two fucks about CryptoPunks connotations. They are a staple of Pixel art, minimalism in form of NFTs. In 100 years people will still see and remember CryptoPunks.

Sorry to not fit into your image of Bitcoiner but Ima sovereign individual first and I keep out of all sorts of cliques.

It's a pretty good Idiot Punk for a musician I have to say 🤣.