Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bitcoin NFTs: Making the Case to Be Sole Digital Asset Protocol
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are unique identifiers stored on a blockchain which represent ownership of a particular asset in the digital or physical world. They are typically created and transferred on a smart contract platform such as Ethereum or Solana. However, NFTs have recently come to the Bitcoin blockchain, which is an exciting development for several reasons.
Advantages of Bitcoin NFTs
First, there are groups of people such as Bitcoin maximalists who believe that there should only be one protocol or network for digital assets. This leads to increased networking effects, greater ease of use for users who do not have to keep track of multiple cryptocurrencies, and lower maintenance when everyone is transacting on the same chain rather than using multiple blockchains. With the advent of the Bitcoin NFT, Bitcoin has increased its chances of becoming the sole digital asset protocol.
Second, the Bitcoin blockchain has many advantages over other digital asset protocols. Now these advantages can be applied to NFTs. For example, the Bitcoin blockchain originated in 2009, making it the longest-running blockchain compared to its competitors. The Bitcoin blockchain is also extremely secure. It has never been hacked and currently has a hash rate of about 350 million terahashes per second. That means it would require an incredibly large amount of processing power for a single entity to take over the network, making it nearly impossible. The decentralized and secure nature of Bitcoin blockchain therefore makes it a great place for valuable NFTs.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.