The author could use a unique private key for each blockchain NFT if they wanted to avoid that.

The problem of how to associate a NFT with a physical object is a different one from the transfer/spending problem.

I think that is the "minting" problem.

An artist simply signing stuff does not even prove that a physical object corresponding to the token exists.

I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government).

Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies right now, so I have to leave it at that. The reason why a "government signature on the deed" would achieve the same thing is because we trust on the government to keep a proper ledger. And the government asks for a lot of money for a transfer.

> I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government).

A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain.

"A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain."

Only because the government keeps track of who owns what in a centralized database. Typically they also ask for pretty high transferal fees.

Huh? If you can’t verify that the public key is the author’s then you wouldn’t consider the message to be signed by the author.

Why wouldn't you be able to verify the public key?

You seem to be suggesting that a problem with NFTs is that the artist can mint multiple copies of their artwork, possibly using secret additional private keys.

The answer is that this is not a problem, because the whole point is knowing who the creator of the NFT is, and beeple trying to create additional copies using a secret wallet but not telling anyone will be treated by the market the same as me minting a copy of a beeple piece.