this idea evolved out of thinking of how to use git as an image hosting site for my art.
if I add each art piece in a separate commit, I'm essentially putting them on a blockchain.
we can imbue this setup with uniqueness by including a public pgp key in the commit, and selling the private key to whoever wants to own the "NFT"
so there is real ownership in a thing: the ability to challenge the public key.
now just add a terms of use thing to the image site saying the images are there for private enjoyment but can only be displayed publicly via licensing rights demonstrated via the pgp key. so the pgp key encodes a file which is a copy of the image, but encrypted. only the encrypted version of the image is licensed for public display. so actually you could even have a version of this where to even be able to see the image, you need to have the pgp key. so the key assigns the right to publicly display a particular image, but it could also control the ability to view it at all.
so instead of "NFTs", you'd be selling someone a pgp key that unlocks a commit. instead of ownership, there's "proof of access".
jesus, it's just a shitty permissions system.
I guess worst case, it's a different style of NFT. almost like a "self-destructing" NFT, where the "destruction" is the desctruction of its uniqueness. in that light, the value of an individual PGP key would be extremely fragile. People would be incentivized not to trade them, or to trade them extremely infrequently.
so yeah this is really about the structure of the license. if the license is structured correctly, the pgp key thing could actually be pretty interesting.
lol fuck you NFTs. gonna undermine that whole shit. GPUs will be reasonably priced again some day, and artists will be able to both publish and sell their work at no additional cost to the artist, in the exact same market as NFTs.