Really. The entire concept is so fundamentally stupid that you’d have to be even stupider to fall for it. Turns out, there are plenty of people who are.
The concept of a shared cache layer that uses cryptographic hashes to distribute copies to everyone that request them isn’t stupid at all. In fact that is how CDNs work and they are extremely useful. The stupid part is paying large sums of money to “own” a specific sequence of bits on a specific ledger. The ledger can be copied and is copied, but you have zero ownership of those copies and you don’t own the original work either. So what did you pay for?
The ability for a 3rd party consensus of truth against an immutable ledger. Without it, the 3rd party has to keep their own copy or federate with an original authority. The fact nft still needs consensus of truth is only somewhat problematic. Blockchain solves ownership through secrets, but a coin or nft is only worth something if someone else cares about that ownership and agrees that ledger is valid. 1 bitcoin is not 1 dogecoin for the same reason I wouldn’t buy a monkey picture for a million dollars, but that same million dollar monkey picture gets you into a yacht party with someone else. Ultimately you paid for dispute resolution by a 3rd party for some kind of use of that nft. If there is no use, then you paid for nothing.
Your comment tells us the definition of “worth”. It doesn’t tell us why someone is willing to pay that much for it, which is what bag-o-chips is asking about.
How is it “worth” any more than 0?
Really. The entire concept is so fundamentally stupid that you’d have to be even stupider to fall for it. Turns out, there are plenty of people who are.
Why? How is it stupid to store a hash of something on a distributed ledger?
The concept of a shared cache layer that uses cryptographic hashes to distribute copies to everyone that request them isn’t stupid at all. In fact that is how CDNs work and they are extremely useful. The stupid part is paying large sums of money to “own” a specific sequence of bits on a specific ledger. The ledger can be copied and is copied, but you have zero ownership of those copies and you don’t own the original work either. So what did you pay for?
The ability for a 3rd party consensus of truth against an immutable ledger. Without it, the 3rd party has to keep their own copy or federate with an original authority. The fact nft still needs consensus of truth is only somewhat problematic. Blockchain solves ownership through secrets, but a coin or nft is only worth something if someone else cares about that ownership and agrees that ledger is valid. 1 bitcoin is not 1 dogecoin for the same reason I wouldn’t buy a monkey picture for a million dollars, but that same million dollar monkey picture gets you into a yacht party with someone else. Ultimately you paid for dispute resolution by a 3rd party for some kind of use of that nft. If there is no use, then you paid for nothing.
It’s worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for it.
Yes, I understand capitalism. My question stands.
That’s the answer to the question. It’s unsatisfying I know, but that’s the answer.
Your comment tells us the definition of “worth”. It doesn’t tell us why someone is willing to pay that much for it, which is what bag-o-chips is asking about.
It doesn’t matter, that’s the answer. You can be unsatisfied all you want, that’s the answer.
they’re successful attempst by the ultra rich to hide their money while getting more from everyone else.