The claim is the token it's connected to on the blockchain contains a unique hash.
That's not false. Whether it has any real value is another matter. But anyone participating in the auction is fully aware you can copy and paste a digital image and what they want to buy is the token.
Answer all of these questions please:
1) Are digital images scarce?
2) Does 1 sat = 1 sat?
3) Does a unique hash on a blockchain indicate proof of ownership in a court of law?
You're coming at me as if I'm defending the product. I'm not.
I'm merely pointing out that no one participating in the auction believes a digital image can't be copied and I don't see Bitcoin Magazine claiming otherwise.
Bidders choose to put value into the token underlying it. Is that value justified? Imo, no. But I don't see where the deception takes place.
You stated it’s not a scam and I’m trying to help you understand why it is. Could you please answer my questions?
1. Digital images are not scarce but a unique hash quantifiably is by the laws of mathematics and cryptography.
2. 1 sat = 1 sat, broadly speaking, but sats aren't necessarily fungible on-chain - for example if you had a load of BTC from Silk Road the Feds would be following you through the chain.
3. Whether ownership of an NFT can hold up in a court of law largely depends on the intellectual property rights that come with it. If you owned one of those apes, you'd also own the IP, which is enforceable in a court of law. If the creator retains ownership of the IP, the answer would be no.
Can't be digitally scarce if anyone can right click it. Just another deceptive marketing lie coming from these low life shitcoin scammers.
The image isn't scarce but the token is.
Dunno why that's complicated.
I'm not even arguing the token has value, but "digital images aren't scarce" is a strawman.
