What might happen instead is that a new company starts up called “stream2” which allows you to play movies you’ve bought in the blockchain
Why would the relevant companies, i.e. movie studios, do that? They could do that now if they wanted to.
But this is precisely what we had before the internet. We used to have physical media that (theoretically) could be copied to multiple devices. You weren’t legally allowed to, but the technology left you in control. I know gamers as a group want this control back after getting shafted by video game companies.
But you seem to be claiming that the possibility of future parties ‘honoring’ NFTs, and NFTs issued by other parties, is exciting. I still don’t understand why that’s plausible. If anything, the visibility/legibility of NFTs makes me think this is MUCH less likely.
The blockchain contains information about who minted it.
The blockchain can’t itself verify to anyone that the information it contains is true or accurate.
So a hiring company—say, Google—would know which wallet MIT used for minting their diplomas.
I can imagine that Google would have alternate channels by which they could verify that a certain wallet is (or was) used by MIT for “minting their diplomas”, but that has to be outside the blockchain (and thus subject to all of the standard security ‘hacks’).
Definitely it seems like a paywall because it is a paywall. Just a more balanced one. As it is, any time you join any kind of DRM or paywall scheme, you’re completely at the mercy of the content host, who can remove your rights to all the stuff you “bought” at any time.
But you seem to be assuming that companies/organizations will voluntarily ‘honor’ past purchases when that seems to be extremely unlikely to me. Why would future content hosts pay to provide access to something (e.g. bandwidth, hosting) that people purchased from someone else? I can imagine someone doing that as some kind of ‘limited promotion’ but I don’t understand why everyone would do that (e.g. by default).
The process would be the same as if I lost my Physical diploma. Call the university and they have to mint an identical one for me, at a cost to me.
I was thinking primarily about the ‘other side’, e.g. the university losing access to their wallet (or access to it otherwise being compromised, e.g. fraudulent diplomas being “minted”).
Why would the relevant companies, i.e. movie studios, do that? They could do that now if they wanted to.
But you seem to be claiming that the possibility of future parties ‘honoring’ NFTs, and NFTs issued by other parties, is exciting. I still don’t understand why that’s plausible. If anything, the visibility/legibility of NFTs makes me think this is MUCH less likely.
The blockchain can’t itself verify to anyone that the information it contains is true or accurate.
I can imagine that Google would have alternate channels by which they could verify that a certain wallet is (or was) used by MIT for “minting their diplomas”, but that has to be outside the blockchain (and thus subject to all of the standard security ‘hacks’).
But you seem to be assuming that companies/organizations will voluntarily ‘honor’ past purchases when that seems to be extremely unlikely to me. Why would future content hosts pay to provide access to something (e.g. bandwidth, hosting) that people purchased from someone else? I can imagine someone doing that as some kind of ‘limited promotion’ but I don’t understand why everyone would do that (e.g. by default).
I was thinking primarily about the ‘other side’, e.g. the university losing access to their wallet (or access to it otherwise being compromised, e.g. fraudulent diplomas being “minted”).