I don’t know what “sole flexibility” is, but if Microsoft owns them and tells them what their goals are, he must not have much authority.

Can this guy really be considered a CEO if GitHub is a fully owned subsidiary of Microsoft?

You know Microsoft, the company that is heavily invested in OpenAI and is spending hundreds of billions to try to make AI happen?

So, they’re compiling and publicly releasing the personally identifying information of someone in order to facilitate stalking, intimidation or extortion? That’s not what I’d heard the app was used for.

How are you defining “doxing” here?

there needs to be admin tools to restore the NFT to the proper owner.

The whole point of the blockchain technologies is that they’re (supposedly) immune to state interference. What’s on the blockchain is the “truth”. The state wouldn’t have any power to restore the proper owner of the NFT / house because they chose to trust blockchain instead of having control over the database.

If states can “restore ownership to the lawful owner”, they can also seize people’s cryptocurrencies.

That’s why no state would ever have house registries on a blockchain that they didn’t control. And if they did control it, there’s no point in using a blockchain when they could just use a traditional database.

You claim that “governments order companies to do stuff all the time”, but how does that apply to an entry in the blockchain, which we’ve agreed is the authority on who owns property. The hint is: a company couldn’t change an entry in the blockchain, even if the government ordered them to do it.

And what’s your argument?

Ok, so who’s the government going to order to change the blockchain?

The only way to guarantee that is to change the law that deeds of houses can only be an NFT.

Which means that sovereign states would have to agree to no longer be the authority of who owned property, instead they’d just have to hand over all that authority to some distributed database. What’s in it for them? What’s in it for the people?

If the authority on who owns a home is a blockchain, then what happens if someone shows up at the police station, bruised and bleeding, and claims that they were tortured until they agreed to sign over the deed to their house. In the real world, the police (or at least the courts) would have authority over that deal, and if their investigation proved that someone was in fact tortured, it would mean it’s not a legitimate sale, and the ownership reverts to the original person. But, if “blockchain”, the police and courts have no authority. What’s on the blockchain is law.