Thanks, guys.
Seeing that they are still working on decentralized game hosting ads more promise to the potential.
 

I have not played any blockchain games, I just read some things about them. So can someone please clarify for me...

Don't blockchain games still use centralized servers to run the actual game code itself?

So, just like with DLC where they can void the content you purchased, can they not also alter the game code on the "Block Chain" games to reject, nullify, or alter the actual effect of your NFT in game?

For example, can't they alter the game code in Decentraland to say "if property token says 'WhiteHouse' then refer to a dog house on 3rd Street in the game display" ?

If this is the case then the game would actually still be a centralized game and the NFTs would easily be no more valuable than toilet paper if the game servers shut down one day.

For a game to truly be a blockchain game and decentralized then the game source code itself (not just the game data) would have to be stored on the blockchain, open source, and unalterable so that such centralized actions cannot occur and anyone can host it.

So is it already decentralized servers?

Or is just the NFT game data decentralized with centralized game servers that can, on a whim, block NFTs from being used just like DLC content?

You are incorrect.
NFT does not prove ownership.
As proof, I uploaded this image to a digital art website and it now has an NFT token address.
By your statement, that proves I own this image. Do I?

I understand the value of tying a NFT to a physical artwork, or tying an NFT to digital goods used in a digital application such as a game.

What I fail to understand is tying an NFT to a digital artwork solely for the purpose of having digital art on the blockchain.


This does not apply to digital art.
If the digital art is displayed on a website then anyone can copy it.

On the aspect of PHYSICAL art or rarity having a blockchain record- I can COMPLETELY understand that to prove chain of custody for authentication.

Reading the article posted above:
↑ this is very NOT true.
If you copyright an image then you can prove it's yours.
And placing digital art on the blockchain does not make it un-copy-able.
It also does NOT prove you own the rights to the artwork.
If I copied "Starry Nights" to an NFT that is not proof that I own the rights to Starry Nights.

So imagine going to a place like Shutterstock. Buy reuse permission to one digital artwork such as "Dad Hugs Wife #1552"
Then upload the not-watermarked copy to an art NFT website. The fact that you have an NFT token associated with that digital art will not grant you copyright protection to it in ANY court.

So whoever paid $777,777.77 for that digital art that I herd about in the news...
It really sounds like a fool and his money were parted.

But they aren't actually buying the art, are they?
They are buying a slot in the ledger that says they own a token. The token just has a copy of the art embedded in it.

It sounds like buying 1 of 500,00 Nike Air Dunks. But the one you buy has a copy of "Michael Jordan" signature stamped on it by the factory press and paying $50k for it.

All of the other "Nike Air Dunks"(NFT) sell for $40. A $40.00 shoe(NFT) with a stamp.

I don't get the motivation because you can just buy another NFT from the same blockchain and download a copy of the picture from online.

Unless some type of art ownership rights transfer with the token, what is the motivation?

If I went to Shutterstock and bought a copy of "Family Picnic #466532", that purchase only grants me a non-watermark copy with free-use rights.

This means I can put it in my website with no watermark and they won't sue me for copyright infringement.

However, if I buy "Crypto Art", then what am I buying? It's obviously not the "original" so the "I own the original Stary Night and it's in my bathroom" brag surely can't apply.

It's not a "hard to get non-watermark" copy, because that's recorded on the blockchain in public view, isn't it?

And Van Gogh would make way more money licensing rights to use to multiple people rather than rights of ownership to a single person.

So what are people actually buying when they buy Crypto Art? What is the motivation to the buyer?

Crypto Art (1 or 2 words?)

Let me see what I understand and what I don't. And please correct me.

Ok, so Mr. Artist makes a work of art on a computer. The artist then uploads it to a NFT art website. That website puts a copy of the art on the blockchain and records in the ledger "Mr. Artist Owns This".

Mr. Buyer buys the digital art through the website. The website updates the ledger to say "Mr. Buyer owns this".

Does the buyer now own all rights to the art?

If Mr. Buyer does not own the rights to all reproduction and copyright licenses then why buy it?
It's not the original. To own the original then you'd have to go and get Mr. Artist's PC where the original pre-upload file is stored with the original 1's and 0's on disk.
Unless he defragged his drive and the computer copied the 1's and 0's to a new location and erased the original 1's and 0's to allocate free space.

It seems that, unless the copyright and reproduction rights transfer with the ledger entry, all one is buying is just bragging rights for a specific ledger space with no actual purpose.

Educate me, please.

(posted from my phone)