5 ms·

I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework,

I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?

zepto 5y ago
The issue is that you also told this lie: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.
- originalcvk 5y ago
  Happy to update it. Better? Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Better? Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed. If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it. This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.
    - originalcvk 5y ago
      In a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!
      - zepto 5y ago
        At the beginning of an article you told an outright lie. Later you equivocate. The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say later is obviously absurd. As I have pointed out this is a motte and Bailey fallacy. Also, it’s still a completely misleading statement. The change to ‘similar to’ doesn’t make it true. It still isn’t true, only now you have some wiggle room to claim it’s not a lie. You are still trying to misleading people into thinking that NFTs confer ownership of the media.

zepto 5y ago

The issue is that you also told this lie: > Just like a deed conveys ownership of a house at some address, the token conveys ownership of that media.

originalcvk 5y ago
Happy to update it. Better? Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Better? Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed. If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it. This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.
  - originalcvk 5y ago
    In a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!
    - zepto 5y ago
      At the beginning of an article you told an outright lie. Later you equivocate. The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say later is obviously absurd. As I have pointed out this is a motte and Bailey fallacy. Also, it’s still a completely misleading statement. The change to ‘similar to’ doesn’t make it true. It still isn’t true, only now you have some wiggle room to claim it’s not a lie. You are still trying to misleading people into thinking that NFTs confer ownership of the media.