What you are purchasing is a digital certificate of the tweet, unique because it has been signed and verified by the creator
So basically it's an odd form of a digital autograph associated with this tweet, that the owner presumably agrees not to autograph again and sell to other people.
What happens if the autograph owner emails the hash to their friends? What does “own” mean here? They can all print it and frame it on the wall. Meanwhile Twitter’s data systems go down and the tweet disappears, no one “has” the actual tweet.
I wouldn’t mind having $2M I didn’t need to bid on this level of abstraction.
Ownership in this case is a NFT (EIP-721, a smart contact standard for non fungible (unique and single ownership) tokens) on the L2 Matic sidechain for Ethereum return the public key to your public-private keypair.
Duplicating the token means creating an exact bitwise duplicate of the NFT on the Matic sidechain, which the Ethereum Virtual Machine will not allow. There is no hash to send to someone else and unless there is an exploit in the EVM the NFT can only be owned by one person.
To be clear these NFTs only has the meaning of "signed tweet" because people decide it does. If you copied their smart contact and launched your own exact replica Jack could verify on your platform and a new and different NFT would be minted with the same "accepted representation".
I guess you could print out the hash & get Dorsey to sign it by hand as well. That should be part of the deal. That way you know it's the one.
Also, in the highly unlikely event of a hash collision, the Dorsey hash wins and the other hash has to go back to to /dev/null, metaphorical head held down in shame.
What's unique here isn't just a plain hash but the tuple (ethereum contact id, nft token id, address public key) on the blockchain. Having the tuple is worthless becuase ownership is having the associated private key.
Doesn't that completely defeat the point of the NFT if the thing you really need to prove ownership is a signed autograph from the author? We've valued signed autographed copies of original works highly for a very long time without NFTs.
> the owner presumably agrees not to autograph again and sell to other people.
Just like the existing art world, except now you have more ways to prove provenance, and originality. the prior timestamp and your ownership and the price history being onchain.
He'd have to sell the same tweet on another platform who has an NFT that people interpret as representing tweets.
The direct consequences for Jack are none, just as if a company that produced a limited edition stamped #001 of a product decided to manufacture and sell the same product with #001.
By using this platform he's indirectly given them his blessing and like the company example even though it would be physically difficult I doubt he'd do.
Its up to the market to discern the difference, which it is pretty good at, but you are relying on them or yourself for sounding the alarm and making a big stink about it
I’ve been a cryptocurrency user and fan since early days, but I just never understood the purpose of NFTs. I couldn’t get my head around Rare Pepes or Cryptokitties, but after seeing your comment, I can finally cement why I was sceptical all along - an autograph is a good analogy!
I was of the same mindset before I heard of the opinion by crypto savy artists. As an example just listen to the enthusiasm and points from Rhett / Mankind (https://myoutu.be/DYyW_tTPAhU).
Seems more of a sales receipt. For any physical good like a pair of shoes, you can have the receipt but I snagged the shoes from your locker and I’m the one wearing them at the club.
I suppose the digital analogy would be for me to break into your stash and copy the files for the art or whatever and enjoy them on my own. Easier than learning how to forge a Rembrandt.
So basically it's an odd form of a digital autograph associated with this tweet, that the owner presumably agrees not to autograph again and sell to other people.