>>389084000
You're implying that unless a system is foolproof and unbreakable that it shouldn't be bothered with. Do you not lock your doors just because someone can smash your window? I do agree that virtual currencies are a waste of time though. Just use normal fatbux or kongbucks or whatever the fuck. As long as payment services are a thing to facilitate transfers it's fine.

>>389084236
Your autism is showing. Just because you latch onto a very specific definition of possession that suits your narrative doesn't mean you've proven a point or won an argument. No one gives a shit about your internal dictionary, Timmy.

Beside, you can "possess virtual goods" by virtue of having possession of the medium on which they are stored. The reality is that what you're licensing from Steam is not ownership of the game itself, but the right to download or update the game from Steam's servers at any time you want.

>>389085170
People really need to learn that Blockchain is one thing, and only this one thing: A transaction ledger. That's it. Nothing else. It could be used as a tamper resistant way to catalogue things like ownership of vehicles (IE: by putting VINs in with ownership information) but it's not some kind of magic forever tamper proof database of copy protection or whatever NFT scammers want the public to think.

>>389085507
At the end of the day there are ways to uniquely identify an asset. Protect it? No, identify it, yes. Public vs private key cryptography for example. A combination of PGP encryption and a blockchain ledger for rights transfer would offer a decentralized way to verify that Person A has the rights to a given asset that is cryptographically signed as the original (Think serial number embedded or some shit)

does it stop anyone from copying it and doing what they want? Of course not... Does the fact that I can download a Metallica album change the fact that Metallica owns the rights to the music?