Replying to Avatar Pablo Xannybar

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.
Avatar
corndalorian 2y ago

You stated it’s not a scam and I’m trying to help you understand why it is. Could you please answer my questions?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

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.