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.
