If the NFTs don't care that the artwork can be copied, what is their use case? If I own the NFT for a digital file that other people have copies of, what do I actually use the NFT for?
The only thing I can think is proof of authorship, but private key cryptograph already solves that.
Edit: after reading some other replies I've come to the conclusion that NFTs provide a way to prove who put a file on the blockchain first. Thus the use case is trustless transfer of the ownership of this fact of "being first", which is where the scarcity of the NFT comes from and thus the value.
Except that, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone else from putting the exact same data in another block in the chain, and claiming that is "first" instead. And unless you already know the first copy exists, there's no way to find it via the blockchain itself, and so no way to prove "first" without already knowing it's the first.
I only have a fairly basic understanding of crypto, so this may be a very naive view, but I thought it was the same as bitcoin, whereby the whole network eventually comes to a consensus on the order of transactions / blocks on the chain?
Sure, but if I post data to the blockchain (perhaps a URL to an XKCD comic) and someone else posts that exact same data another time, how would we even know each other posted it? At some point, it's practically impossible to search the entire block chain.
Now suppose each of use are selling the 'first' post of that data. How does a buyer know that we're really the first?
And so I'm saying that even claiming 'first' is practically impossible via blockchain. Even if someone knew about both of the instances above and could arbitrate between them, there might be a third, older instance yet.
Why is it impossible to search the block chain? Isn't this how bitcoin works: to accept a transaction, all transactions with the relevant accounts must be searched and summed to ensure there are enough funds?
My understanding is that people don't even mint whole files due to the cost of minting scaling with the size of the data, so they are minting links to the files, which you then have to hope always point to that file.
In-game items are a great use for NFTs because they provide ownership outside the game and can traded on 3rd party markets.
For example, i purchased a plot of land on cryptovoxels. Each individual plot of land is linked to a unique NFT. When i log into the game with my ethereum account (web3), then i gain build access to the plots of land that i own the NFTs for.
How is that different from paying for it with a microtransaction? You still have no rights outside of what the developer implements[1] and when they shut down, your token’s value rapidly approaches zero.
1. For example, say they sell to one of the big companies and the new boss with an MBA in gamer milking decides that virtual land needs annual property taxes, utilities, and improvements purchased from the company store or it’ll be reclaimed or simply that they’re creating new, more desirable terrain which will devalue yours. They control the code and servers, so your options are paying, giving up, or trying to convince other players to build, operate, and adopt a clone. The blockchain’s heavy cost doesn’t appear to be providing anything significant.
In a virtual world why the shit are you paying for a "plot of land"? It's not real land. There's not a finite amount. It's not made out of only the finest free range grass fed bits.
The only thing I can think is proof of authorship, but private key cryptograph already solves that.
Edit: after reading some other replies I've come to the conclusion that NFTs provide a way to prove who put a file on the blockchain first. Thus the use case is trustless transfer of the ownership of this fact of "being first", which is where the scarcity of the NFT comes from and thus the value.