Assuming if the banks are bad, please tell me why are we replicating them them again but in worse way? (opaque, unregulated, anonymous and usually sitting in offshore fearing IRS sanctions)

You seem to have a very flawed, fundamental misunderstanding of either the term opaque, or what a public ledger is. There is nothing opaque about bitcoin transactions. They are all (every single one of them) open to the public. They are more traceable than cash transactions and more public than bank transactions.

> please tell me why are we replicating them them again but in worse way?

But this is just your disputed opinion. It is like asking "why is Kanye always singing and selling bad new songs, and we already have the beatles". Because they can and want to.

Bitcoins are transparent, that I don't contest. Now please tell me how do Bitcoins specifically facilitate "proof of ownership" of stuff? Because that's where this thread started, that crypto will somehow do this, according to crypto fans.

Short answer: passwords The very same way your online bank account facilitates "proof of ownership" of that said bank account.

Lolno. You are completely mistaken about what ownership means. I don't own my bank account (it's complicated), I don't own my HN account. Password is only used to authenticate and authorize me on the digital property owned by someone else - PG or bank corporation.

You do own your hacker news account. If someone hacks into your computer, and makes stupid comments while pretending to be you, you have every right to seek compensation. Because you actually OWN your hacker news account, in the very same way you OWN the house you are renting. Your landlord cannot just rock up to your house tomorrow, walk in and sit in your yard for an hour because they "own" the house. So yes, you are right! Ownership is and can be complicated, and NFT ownership is no different. ;)