One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights. Movie rights for a book adaptation for instance moving between companies in IP sales and mergers/acquisitions.

[–] Robin@lemmy.world 54 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

IP rights is not a problem that needs solving. In fact, the existing legal system has ways of punishing copyright violations whereas the Blockchain does not.

Supply chain validation is also an example of the block chain "in action". But the people that are entering the data on the Blockchain are the same people that were typing it in an email yesterday.

I used to be a fan of the technology as well but so far it hasn't show itself to be useful. A solution in search of a problem.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And it's ALWAYS the same problem. You can have all the lists you want. A central authority has to recognize and enforce that list. At which point, the structure of your list is completely irrelevant. It could be ANY list. What matters is that it's chosen to be enforced. And currently, most power structures are happy with plain old databases. Or pen and paper.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

A plain old database also has ways of dealing with theft.

If someone steals your crypto keys and sends your assets to themselves, they have no legal ownership over those assets but they're listed as the owner in the blockchain, so blockchain isn't even any good at being an accurate, verifiable record of ownership.

Yes, you can't make changes to the blockchain, but that also means you can never fix anything. So you actually can't rely on the blockchain to be accurate.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, NFTs do have good uses

I hear that now since 12 Years. Its not going to happen.

[–] papabobolious@feddit.nu 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Without really having an opinion on the matter - I think there's a difference in having a use and being adopted.

Something can be absolutely awesome in theory but useless if no one is using it.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Yeah I think a lot of people don’t understand that “good for x problem”, “better than existing solution”, and “switching to this solution is better than staying with the existing solution” are three vastly different things

Blockchain fails because switching to it is consistently worse than sticking with current solutions, and often it fails at being better than current solutions in the abstract

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

That just sounds like you're describing me.

[–] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I don't know the value in a decentralized IP rights system. If the key holder gets phished, you can lose your rights to a TV series you've been working on. (Like Seth Greene)

He wouldn't have lost it and had to pay back the ransom in a traditional contract. Having a contract centralized and enforced by the legal system has many perks and I can't ever see how a decentralized rights platform can enforce itself.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

"Intellectual Property[sic]" is dishonest loaded language, but yes, I agree with you that blockchain could be a good way for a copyright holder to prove their monopoly. 'Course, that's also what registering your copyright with the Library of Congress is for, so...