Basically it all comes back to monopoly on violence. If you steal my painting, police will crack open your home and take it back.

That's not the heart of it. Imagine a government just said, "Ok, this blockchain solution is what defines true ownership." Theft would be rampant, but now police reports would be met by, "Sure, it used to be your house, but the blockchain says it's his now, so we're kicking you out. He stole it fair and square."

That hasn't happened because blockchains are a bad match for how people think of ownership.

Also consensus. The thief may think they should get to keep the painting, but if most people don't agree, police or no police they'll have trouble keeping that painting. In that case to keep it they will most likely have to hide it, and then what's even the point?

A notional monopoly on violence is important, but even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.

>even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.

You think most people living under an oppressive regime think that there's nothing the government could do to be better? Such a state doesn't need broad consensus that there's no better alternative, it just needs to avoid the consensus that the personal cost of attempting to achieve the better alternative is worth it. That's where the monopoly on violence really helps.

I think we're on the same wavelength, but perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.

No, it comes down to people cooperating and agreeing on stuff.

Furthermore contracts - in the context that a human being wants to be rewarded for their labor - also a legal construct. Meaning smart contracts aren’t very smart at all when they go wrong and reward the wrong party through unintended glitches or computer mis-interpretation of the contract. Or straight forgery.

No there’s no solution. Not until we all fully operate in a legal realm (the/a metaverse) that validates the contract and rewards the humans who created the contract to cover their own ass. If the contract doesn’t follow the _legal_ language and intent it’s not smart at all and yes it’s totally a solution in search of a problem.

this NFT stuff is doomed to failure until we all operate in the same realm validating the identity of the contract owner, validating the legal intent of the contract, because that’s what a contract is in meat space

I can't agree. If say the US government established a central authority say "The National Federal Thingy" authority perhaps and had a registry of NFTs (or could register a decentralized blockchain ID) then it could happen as there is value in guaranteeing something is “the original” promoted by artist, twitterer, etc. However, I don't see that happening as even as such, it seems like kind of a joke and I don't see lawmakers wanting their name on something so associated with grifting.

Ownership used to be by virtue of possessing something. Sure you could steal something, which is why people protect the things they own, because possession is in fact a huge part of who owns what.

Intellectual property is another thing entirely, and not as easy to enforce, especially in the digital age.