>>106561362
>having that ownership tracked in a way that cannot be tampered with is a useful property.
How so when the entire "non fungible" token is in fact very fungible, being just an infinitely copiable piece of data?

A picasso painting has a physical form and there is only one of any given example. Even if you just have a print, the print you have is not in my house. If I have a print too, it's not the same item as your print. I would potentially pay you for it to be in my house so I can enjoy it on some different level than looking at a jpeg of it or looking at it instead of or addition to my own copy. It's also a bad example because trademarks/copyrighted works are still the Picasso estate's property (or whoever owns it idk) but I can physically own prints and the original paintings and ownership thereof are separate from the right to make copies of them.

The only possible purpose for such ownership tracking is intellectual property where I can prosecute you for copying it, but again
>even for stuff like event ticketing or vidya items, it doesn't solve any problems that weren't already adequately addressed by a normal database
because the thing preventing unauthorized use is not a technical filter, it's legal force. I will sic my lawyers on you and depending on the place and severity of the copyright infringement, I might even be able to bring physical force against you (calling the cops on you for bootlegging). Proving I "own" it on the chain doesn't mean shit if my local courts don't agree because I didn't liase with them specifically and they happen to not use blockchain as part of registering trademarks and copyright.

> decentralize the database such that it cannot be tampered with.
Ah yes, because there have never been forks, splits, or rollbacks in crypto with whoever being able to "stake" the most being able to literally define the market. "decentralized" is just a codeword for "not controlled properly (so i can fuck with it)". literally picrel