[HN Gopher] An NFT without a Blockchain. No gas fees. No ETH. No... ___________________________________________________________________ An NFT without a Blockchain. No gas fees. No ETH. No gatekeepers Author : Amorymeltzer Score : 101 points Date : 2021-12-18 21:10 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (shkspr.mobi) (TXT) w3m dump (shkspr.mobi) | drdeca wrote: | This works if you just want to prove that you and the artist | agree that you paid the artist "for" the work. | | But, if you can't transfer it to someone else, is it really a | "token" in the relevant sense? | | Not that I think there's much value in the NFTs corresponding to | digital images, outside of from people being somewhat silly in | what they value, | | but this nevertheless doesn't satisfy all of use-cases of those | blockchain tokens. | | With those blockchain tokens, as this article mentions, you do | have to trust that the author is the actual author, and that they | aren't like, issuing more than they say they are (perhaps using | different addresses), | | but these are adequately handled by reputation and the author | simply having a single well-known-to-be-their-only-official | address/public-key . | | But, this trust is only needed for the origin of the token, not | for resale of the token. | | Whereas, with this system, attempting to use these "tokens" as | something that can be resold, would be vulnerable to the double | spend problem. | | Now, if all you want is to be able to prove to others that you | and the author agreed that [you paid the author money in relation | to the image or other document, and that they received the | payment], then 100% yes this is a better solution. Why get an | expensive public ledger involved if all you want it is to be able | to prove to others is that you and someone else both attested to | a particular claim? That sort of thing is exactly solved by | public key cryptography. | | (If people don't know your public key is yours, but they do | recognize the artist's public key, there are standard ways to | prove you control a key (though not that no one else does)) | | Whether this serves the purpose that people want NFTs "of"/about | digital images to serve, well, that depends on what that purpose | is. | | And, I'm not sure what that purpose is exactly, seeing as, again, | while I recognize the subjectivity of economic value, I still | think buying such tokens is kind of silly. | sascha_sl wrote: | Git. You want git. Git does this. Please use git. You can even | validate your transactions with a hook. | | I've joked about making a satire product website for a | revolutionary new crypto. And because most people deep into NFTs | have no idea how it works, I'd bet they'd love it. GitCoin? I'm | out of energy, feel free to steal this idea. | Zamicol wrote: | Gitcoin is very much so already a thing: https://gitcoin.co/ | | It's used to fund public goods/open source projects. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Right now there is a Product Manager at GitHub typing up a | whitepaper... | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | That's basically how this works. NFT's are store in IPFS which | is essentially git + bittorrent | | https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ipfs/papers/master/ipfs-ca... | teraflop wrote: | Stripe did something very similar as part of a programming | challenge several years back. | | https://abiusx.com/stripe-ctf-v3-writeup/ | vmception wrote: | > And because most people deep into NFTs have no idea how it | works, I'd bet they'd love it | | The market is telling you what to do | cortesoft wrote: | How would you gain consensus on which git repo is the original? | How do you distinguish between the original repo and a fork? | | Crypto is git + a way to determine who is a fork | bawolff wrote: | How do you know which blockchain is the original. How do you | distinguish between the original blockchain and a fork? | | After all most these things are on etherum, which itself is a | fork. | blablabla123 wrote: | I guess the one where the commits are signed by the author. | If there are forks, good for the author since these then are | backups. | | Disclaimer: I have only a vague idea about the whole | underlying tech but I've also been wondering if there isn't a | simpler approach. | skybrian wrote: | It's the main branch of the canonical repo on Github, | obviously, and there is an automatic test to verify the | ledger. | | But now you have to decide who to trust as committers and | they have to decide which pull requests to commit first. This | might not scale as well as we hope. Transaction latency might | be a little high. | nkrisc wrote: | Would it even matter? What percentage of people who've bought | into the cryptocurrency/NFT craze without even know how to | verify something that? | cortesoft wrote: | Just because they don't know how to verify it doesn't mean | it isn't important to them. They just need someone to be | able to. If you can't verify a fork, then you aren't going | to be able to sell your coins, and everyone wants to be | able to do that. | stale2002 wrote: | > How would you gain consensus on which git repo is the | original? | | That is a problem with blockchain just as much. The only way | to know what the original is, is to listen to the central | authority here, which is the artist. | bsedlm wrote: | > How would you gain consensus on which git repo is the | original? How do you distinguish between the original repo | and a fork? | | the one with the most commits? (perhaps, more accurately, the | most commits all of which pass all tests) | | > Crypto is git + a way to determine who is a for | | agreed. also, in order to commit, (let's say) the commited | changes have to pass all tests | cortesoft wrote: | So whoever has a faster computer who can create new commits | faster in their repo is the original? | | That is basically how Bitcoin works right now. | [deleted] | jazzyjackson wrote: | blockchain should have been called timechain, it's a | timestamping service | | To know who was first, you can just record timetables with | git and have various mirrors - if you can trust them to be | adversarial such that if one alters its history that mirror | gets flagged and rejected, then you have a distributed | timestamp you can trust - but at some level of distribution | and automation you reinvent blockchain | YPCrumble wrote: | Is the way people can tell which blockchain is a fork because | it is shorter than the original? And it is shorter because of | the difficulty of adding blocks via proof of work? | BlueTemplar wrote: | He said _without_ a blockchain ! :P | | While Git is arguably... | | https://medium.com/@shemnon/is-a-git-repository-a-blockchain... | | P.S.: This is of course a joke - pretty sure that the GP had a | more rather than less restrictive definition of "blockchain" in | mind ? (So I agree with you.) | knowaveragejoe wrote: | GitCoin is already a platform for soliciting software bounties | or funding & deploying hackathons: | | https://gitcoin.co/ | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | The interesting thing to me is that many discussions around NFTs | (my previous comments included) focus on whether people will | treat these digital markers of provenance the same as physical | markers of provenance (like a signed portrait). The thinking goes | that since the physical markers of provenance obviously and | provably have value (sometimes multi-hundred millions in value), | the digital ones should as well. | | I wish instead that there would be more discussion around how | fucked up it is that provenance is a thing that has value to | begin with, digital _or_ physical. There are literally huge | swaths of humanity that are nearly starving on a daily basis, yet | others spend obscene amounts of money on things with 0 tangible | value. Say what you want around billionaires blowing their wad on | flights-of-fancy space projects, at least they are building | something _real_ that could have value to humanity. Paying for | provenance is just a place to stash wealth, when extreme wealth | inequality has made it difficult to find places for the wealthy | to store their dough. | | I don't really have any purpose with this post - human nature is | what it is, and having value in displays of status is as old as | the species. I still think it's horribly fucked up. | romwell wrote: | In defense of provenance, there's value in saying "I have | contributed to this by chipping in". You can print off a | digital painting on your inkjet, but paying for a signed print | means you are enabling the artist to create more art, and you | can justifiably take pride in that. | | Of course, that's not how the world works. I wish provenance of | something was not as valuable when we're talking about art made | by dead people (or already reach and famous). I wish art was | not used as a money store. And I feel that NFTs - and this PGP- | based idea in particular - offer a possible solution to this, | due to this one bug-that's-a-feature: | | >Without a published chain of transactions, there is no | guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple | times. | | In short, the value cannot be driven up by scarcity, because | there is no way to verify that. What you pay for is _the record | of paying someone_. | | We kind of have this with political donations already (public | rosters of donors serve that purpose), and we have Patreon, but | if I wanted someone to take pride in supporting my art with $5 | - and make them able to publicly show off, which helps me too - | there's no obvious way to go about it without relying on 3rd | parties, like Patreon, which may or may not exist in 10 years. | | The inherent flaw of NFTs-as-stores-of-value (and digital | signatures/provenance proofs in general) may also be their | saving grace. | samvega_ wrote: | The money they pay also has 0 tangible value. You can't pay | humanity out of poverty, that's a ficticious dream. Poverty is | a structural problem, and a political one. It has more to do | with what other countries are allowed and not allowed to do | within the larger financial superstructure dominated by western | capital. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > The money they pay also has 0 tangible value | | Inflation may be a bitch, but last I checked I could walk | into McDonald's with a green piece of paper with a "$5" | printed on it and walk out with a Big Mac, no questions | asked. | indigochill wrote: | That's what "fiat currency" means. The green piece of paper | is useless in a vacuum (maybe unless you're a fan of tiny | origami or in search of kindling), but because everyone | just agrees (and the US government enforces) that a | particular kind of green paper with a "$5" printed on it | has a certain value, then it can be used as a medium of | exchange. | samvega_ wrote: | It doesn't scale, is the thing. You can't walk into a | macdonalds and walk out with a billion burgers just because | you're a billionaire. What seems to make sense on a micro | level is completely nonsensical on a macro level. Money is | mostly tied up in property, stock, loans and financial | derivatives anyway. It's largely a ficticious element, | which is printed by the billions every day. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Of course it scales. Sure, he'd probably need to call | ahead (like, way ahead), but if a billionaire wanted to | buy a billion burgers, it's not like that's an | impossibility. | everydaybro wrote: | you can't pay humanity out of poverty, but you can help | humans out of poverty. don't look at it as a global problem, | it's an individual problem. so the thousands of dollars that | went to stupid monkeys, if you take just 1% and give it to | someone that values it is much much better | donmcronald wrote: | > The money they pay also has 0 tangible value. | | That money absolutely has tangible value. If Jeff Bezos is | willing to pay $500 million for a yacht, but I'm willing to | pay $600 million to build schools, the market should favor | building the schools and society ends up with a bunch of | schools rather than a single super yacht. | | That's why we need some kind of significant wealth tax. Take | the money away from people that will choose to allocate | resources to yacht building and other frivolous things and | spend it on stuff that has an obvious benefit to society. | everydaybro wrote: | Couldn't agree more. they all think that they are investing the | thousands of dollars that went to the NFTs, I think if a stupid | monkey drawing became extremely expensive in a little time, it | will become worthless in less time. | beambot wrote: | It's not as bad as some other options -- eg extravagant | consumption with huge carbon footprint or digging shiney metals | & stones out of the ground. | andreilys wrote: | Humans crave status. | | Owning scarce items gives them status. | | Ergo, money is spent to secure these items to signal the owners | status. | tomp wrote: | > yet others spend obscene amounts of money on things with 0 | tangible value | | Ah, yeah, the impeccable communist logic. | | _Well actually:_ Maslow hierarchy of needs. Once the basic | needs (food, heat) are satisfied, people want more; a lot of | what they want is competitive (zero-sum game) - social status, | sex(-ual partners), VIP access, free time. | | If you look around the first world, you'll see that even well- | fed people can _still_ find many reasons to be sad | (increasingly more reasons? mental health issues are rising). | But let 's be honest in this analysis, communism cannot yield | the improvements you want (technology to feed more people) - | only free-market capitalism can, some rich will spend money on | improving the world, others will trade tokens/paintings. | swayvil wrote: | The fuckedupness is connected to the vast popularity of | authoritarianism over empiricism. | | For 99% of the population, what you see is less substantial | than what authority asserts. And the realm of meaning, ruled by | authority and popularity, is realer than the realm of the | senses. | | Yes, it's fucked up. Anti-scientific. Psychotic even. | | I think it's called "poststructuralism". | vasco wrote: | Rich people spend money on useless things, provenance isn't | required to pose the same question. End of the day life has no | meaning and people find it in whatever they do. It's unfair | that people starve while others have so much but such is the | universe. The photon that gets gobbled up by a dark hole | doesn't think itself more or less lucky or worthy than the | photon that crosses the universe. | k__ wrote: | What I don't understand is the focus on media NFTs. On both | sides. | | To me, it's obvious that owning an image or a song doesn't give | you any advantage over just "right clicking" it. | | I can look at it, the owner can look at it, that's basically | what you can do with most media. | | But there is so much more that can be done with NFTs. For some | thing, ownership actually gives you an advantage. | | I own my drivers licence and my bachelor degree. Other people | can look at them too, like I can, but looking at them is not | the actual value of them. | treeman79 wrote: | My opinion, NFT is mostly a scam for the next round of | investors. How long it will last, I have no idea. But it's | not sustainable. | | Just my opinion, feel feel to roast me. | nhooyr wrote: | What advantage do you get from NFTs? | labster wrote: | In Russia, you own bachelors degree. In Soviet America, | bachelors degree loans own you. | emersonrsantos wrote: | It hurts a lot when the shit hits the fan and you notice things | that were clear all the time and you just didn't notice it before | because you didn't want it to be true. | [deleted] | everfree wrote: | If ownership is not transferable, then how can you call it a | token, and what is it non-fungible in relation to? This | categorically seems like it is not a non-fungible token, or even | a token at all. It's just an artist signing a file using PGP. | | So many articles throw around the term "NFT" nowadays without | stopping to even break down the acronym, let alone consider what | it actually entails. | Aeolun wrote: | The NFT part is only the "I paid for this item" part. You can | make a chain by making a further transaction with the ID of the | last one (which arguably indicates you own the file hash | indicated). | | I don't think the NFT actually does anything but identify a | certain bunch of content? The important part is the transaction | history. | everfree wrote: | > You can make a chain by making a further transaction with | the ID of the last one (which arguably indicates you own the | file hash indicated). | | You can, but then you either have to host a central | transaction history somewhere or you run into the double- | spending problem. | DevKoala wrote: | > But there are a few drawbacks with this. | | > Without a published chain of transactions, there is no | guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple | times. | | Then it doesn't handle the most basic case. | DitheringIdiot wrote: | The piece goes on to say that the same can be true for NFTs. | | An artist could just sell an identical work multiple times. | | I like this idea, it has the exact amount of usefulness of NFTs | without the ecological issues. | mattdesl wrote: | I don't think the piece is accurate. | | An NFT is uniquely addressable by its contract address. | Copying it would produce a new address, and it would be | obvious the artist is trying to sell the same work again. | This is why it is "non-fungible" and what makes it uniquely | different from mere files, receipts and signatures. | Aeolun wrote: | So you make another layer of PGP file where you first make | a token/id that indicates you created the file (which ID | doesn't change between transactions). | | The problem is it still wouldn't be obvious because nobody | can verify anything. | DitheringIdiot wrote: | I'm sure you can generate a unique token for a non-unique | artwork. | | I mean, I can just make an NFT now with a screenshot of | someone else's NFT. | mattdesl wrote: | Yep - I can make an NFT of a CryptoPunk, but since the | addressable hash of my contract will be different, | probably nobody would see value in acquiring my tokens. | Social consensus (and, by extension, tooling and network | effects) have built around the original crypto punk | contract address, which seems to give it value over any | other copy contracts that might be deployed after the | fact. | DitheringIdiot wrote: | So the real value of an NFT isn't in the mechanism at | all. | dkersten wrote: | So you have two unique NFT's claiming ownership of the same | piece of art or tweet or whatever. Maybe on different | blockchains, maybe not. Now what? Which one is the "real" | one that conveys said ownership? How do you prove which one | is the "real" one? | mattdesl wrote: | Usually whichever came first, or is still in circulation | (hasn't been burned), or whichever the distributor/artist | says is the real one. | | Similar to a signed and authenticated physical artwork - | if a newer copy turns up, which one is the authentic? | throw_nbvc1234 wrote: | Example solution: | | You assume that the UI/marketplace you're viewing the NFT | in doesn't do this for you. If something is sufficiently | famous (ie the artist is well know to the UI) it's | trivial to validated that an NFT is made by one of those | artists and have the equivalent of a twitter blue | checkmark. | | For stuff that's not sufficiently famous, then the | question of duplicates is probably not a real problem. | Who cares if someone copies a <$1 digital asset. And if | the artist ever becomes famous and is back-filled into | the UI's known list, then all their previous works gain | the blue checkmark. | | These UI's will probably have a few centralized winners | (which is why VC's fund crpyto startups) but there can be | a long-tail of decentralized UI's as well. How much you | care about authenticity will guide you to which UI's your | willing to use. | timkam wrote: | Generally (with NFTs), the supposed 1-1 mapping of art piece | (or other artifact) and token happens on meta-level, right? So | for sure, an artist can issue many tokens that represent the | same art piece (and don't tell me the token is a hash of the | image or whatever; it still can be sold on a different | technology, or noise can be added to the image, et cetera). | Because of this object-/meta-level mix up, it seems that NFTs | guarantee pretty much nothing, they are just great at | facilitating speculation, because the whole thing takes so | little effort... | drdeca wrote: | If the person/entity minting them commits to only using a | particular address/public-key when minting (such that only | ones from that address would be regarded as legitimate), then | one can still check all the transactions they've made, and, | well, if they mint tokens for other files which you don't | know what those files are, and have no way to retrieve them, | then yes, you could be uncertain as to whether or not those | are essentially the same image but with some noise added. | | If there is a list of what all those files are though (maybe | the files are all available for download on the author's | website? Doesn't have to be the author's, just any source | providing each file. Doesn't need to be a trusted source | either.), you could check that none of them are essentially | the same. | | Though, the reliance on all the images being publicly | available, does go against what it seems like the way many | seem to want to use NFTs, | | and so for the use cases which are completely incompatible | with all the images being publicly available (e.g. people who | want to be the only person who has access to an image), your | point is entirely valid, and there is presumably no way to | achieve the use-case that those people seem to want. | | As for "what about on other technologies" I think this fits | under the "the author should just make well-known all the | [address+chain combos] they issue from, and instruct people | to treat as illegitimate any which is issued from a | [chain+address combo] that is outside of this well-known list | as illegitimate" thing. | | It doesn't seem like that serious of an issue? | | That being said, I don't see much point to tokens like these. | I'm just talking about "what can be done under different | goals + assumptions" . | btoiled wrote: | He argues just a few sentences further down that the same is | true for on-chain NFTs. | authed wrote: | copyright? | [deleted] | eightysixfour wrote: | > Without a published chain of transactions, there is no | guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple | times. | | > Without a verified on-chain transaction, there is a risk that | either the buyer or the seller may be lying about the transaction | price. | | I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record on | the chain is what actually matters. I don't like NFTs, but the | anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as | frustrating. People value status signaling tools. A lot. Image 99 | of 1000 isn't a status signaling tool, showing you paid for the | image is, the verifiable receipt is what matters. | | This article is like suggesting the signature on art is what | matters, but what matters is the actual provenance. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | > suggesting the signature on art is what matters, but what | matters is the actual provenance. | | an entry in the blockchain is literally a signature though... | | a piece of art is yours if it's hanging in your living room. | | much easier IMO | romeros wrote: | >> I don't like NFTs, but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to | get it and that is just as frustrating. | | Oh! The anti-NFT crowd does get it. Unfortunately, only too | well. And the thing is that there is nothing there to actually | get it. | | >> the verifiable receipt is what matters | | No, this is just a marketing strategy to fool gullible and | naive people into aping into NFT. Nobody ever had a problem | with verifiable receipts when attending concerts or buying a | car or eating at a restaurant. NFT is a solution simply looking | for non-problems to solve to justify its existence. | | NFT is simply put 100% speculative asset. The only reason it | got a big hype is because people want to spend 0.00001 Eth and | sell it for 100 Ethers and then they don't have to work for the | rest of their lives. | | There is a suicide hotline that gets posts after every crypto | crash. Inevitably the same thing is going to happen once the | NFT market crashes (100% guaranteed) and regular people lose | most of their savings for worthless jpeg that nobody else wants | to buy. | exdsq wrote: | Hey, I have a ticket to your favorite band. I'm selling it | for $25 and you really want to buy it from me, but you don't | know me - this is our first contact! How do you buy it from | me? | GauntletWizard wrote: | Reputation of the provenance and authenticity of goods is | an entirely different problem. | Scarblac wrote: | The nice thing of selling on concert tickets on a public | block chain is that it's public, so those tickets can be | invalidated easily. Everybody hates ticket resellers. | eckmLJE wrote: | In person with cash or stubhub. | exdsq wrote: | Stubhub has a 10% fee for the buyer and a 15% fee for the | seller. It also can't guarantee tickets are valid, they | do guarantee a refund to the buyer if they're false | though. This is more expensive and less safe than an NFT | ticket. | petesergeant wrote: | > 10% fee for the buyer and a 15% fee | | What are the gas fees and how do they compare to the | average concert ticket? | exdsq wrote: | Very fair question! On Ethereum the fee would be stupid | high. However Polygon has fees of around $0.02 so say I'm | looking to make myself a bit of a profit for making the | UX nicer with a website we'd be looking at around $1 | fees. | exdsq wrote: | I keep using this example in NFT arguments but no one has | actually done it yet. Screw it, I'm going to launch this | and prove it works (or admit my defeat lol). Time to open | vscode. | duskwuff wrote: | And what makes you think that ticket sellers would | implement such a system? The pure goodness of their | hearts? | | (My understanding is that NFTs can be constructed to | charge a fee on transfers. At least, this is what I've | been told by people trying to promote their use for | artwork...) | [deleted] | krrishd wrote: | > Nobody ever had a problem with verifiable receipts when | attending concerts or buying a car or eating at a restaurant | | Sorry, but spoken like someone who has no idea how the | fashion industry operates. | | Seriously though, it's one thing to not like the | superficiality of the fashion market, but to deny that NFTs | exploit the same demand (for less-gauche proof of wealth) | seems wrong. | jacksnipe wrote: | People definitely care about the price of the painting on | your wall, the price of your car, and the price of the | restaurant they're eating at, though. | | Even if they don't _directly_ care, you had better believe | that the price of a Rolls Royce shapes the way that people | think about them; and you buy one because of the way people | will think about it. Same goes with the art you put on your | wall (an incredible painting that you got for cheap will | never be as cool as something by someone whose art is in the | MoMA, even if it's still very cool). | | I'm not sure NFTs are going anywhere either, but some people | definitely care about receipts. Conspicuous consumption can | be very conscious. | eightysixfour wrote: | The Real Real is a $1b company because people care about | provenance in the real world and now there's a place for it | in a digital space. Do I think Bored Apes are worth thousands | of dollars? Absolutely not. Will it crash? Absolutely. | | Do I think it is starting as a stupid toy and may eventually | do more interesting things? Yes. If Reddit gives you an NFT | for being a top poster for a year in a specific subreddit so | you can show it off on Discord and Twitter, I don't see much | value in that, but there are plenty of people who do, a lot. | stefan_ wrote: | [Citation needed] | | You are just gaslighting us that there are apparently | hundreds of thousands of real customers for NFTs out there | and we're totally misunderstanding them. The overwhelming | evidence is no, there are not. It's one big circlejerk of | people looking for the next bag holder. | kurthr wrote: | I think the article mentions this exactly, since buyer/seller | kiting is trivial even on a blockchain: | | "There's nothing to stop me buying an NFT for 100ETH and the | seller immediately returning that to me in cash." | duskwuff wrote: | Not only is it trivial, but a number of smart contracts | support "flash loans", allowing users to receive a temporary | loan of a large amount of cryptocurrency so long as it can be | proven that it will be paid back immediately through other | contracts. They're a common tool in smart contract exploits. | gfodor wrote: | It's more than that. By it being on chain, it's part of a | permanent durable public ledger, meaning it can be consumed and | verified now and in the future by any third party for any | reason, without any orchestration, as long as that person has | an internet connection. | coolestguy wrote: | It's like the author has absolutely 0 idea what the reason for | blockchain is | meheleventyone wrote: | Right but which chain and which NFT? NFTs on the blockchain | suffer the same problems which is the point made in the | article. There are multiple blockchains and no guarantee that a | particular NFT is unique or even published by the actual | author. | bsedlm wrote: | > Right but which chain and which NFT? | | whichever them who you want to recognize your status know | about. | meheleventyone wrote: | Which is exactly the point made in the article and why the | solution presented there meets the same criteria. | Aeolun wrote: | That's not really relevant for status signalling as long as | John Doe can somehow be pointed to an easily accessible | website showing Greg Moneybucket paid $10k for an image of a | turd, regardless of what chain it is. | Bluecobra wrote: | $10k for an image of a turd is so little I forgotten how to | count that low! | dralley wrote: | It's a steal compared to $40 million for 20% of a picture | of a dog. | | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-09/twe | nty... | dkersten wrote: | So just create your own NFT that claims you paid $10k, | without actually paying $10k. That's the problem with this, | there is no authority regulating which NFT's were created | "correctly" and which aren't. For example, that person that | sold an NFT claiming ownership over a tweet, anyone could | make an NFT claiming ownership of the same tweet, none have | more validity than others and the owners of these NFT's | still don't actually own the tweet, since they have no | control or copyright or anything over it. | Geee wrote: | It's not really about status signaling, the whole idea is | trying to flip them for more dollars. | another_story wrote: | I can buy something from myself on one of those sites for | 10k and do the same thing. Also, I've not really heard | anyone bragging. Price s get thrown around, but I never | know who is buying. | root_axis wrote: | > _an easily accessible website_ | | Right... they can just post the PGP NFT to their website, | no blockchain required. | meheleventyone wrote: | Right but no need for a blockchain as CSGO skins or more | disturbingly Roblox demonstrate. | kevinventullo wrote: | I'm not an NFT person, but I think the counterargument is | that those are both centralized. | meheleventyone wrote: | Kevin, the point here is whether that is a useful | distinction or not. The article is putting forward a | decentralised, cryptographic, non-blockchain equivalent | that has the same guarantees as an NFT. My reply was | specifically in answer to the parent comments point that | it's about status signalling on an easily accessible | website. It's immaterial in that regard whether the data | source of said website is centralised or not because it's | about the social phenomenon not technical implementation. | ximeng wrote: | You're right that it's not necessary to have blockchain | directly. However, NFTs show you're close to a group of | people who are connected in the cryptocurrency world, | just like CSGO/Roblox flair shows you've invested in | those worlds. And a lot of crypto people made a lot of | money so it's a good status signal to be close to those | crypto people. | meheleventyone wrote: | All power to you if you want to flex with your crypto | bros. But this is a very niche end result for technology | that is nominally meant to be revolutionary. | ximeng wrote: | I agree with you about it being niche, but this is the | main reason I can think of that would suggest NFTs could | be valuable. | stale2002 wrote: | > I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published | record on the chain is what actually matters. | | Sure, but you don't need a blockchain for that. It could be | published anywhere. | | When it comes to publishing information, a blockchain is one of | the least efficient ways of doing that. | | The blockchain doesn't change much in the equation here. | eightysixfour wrote: | It is inefficient but it absolutely provides things | "anywhere" doesn't, with a much longer likelihood of | surviving than "anywhere." | seidoger wrote: | > but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is | just as frustrating | | I don't hate on NFT themselves, but the artificial scarcity | bizzaro ponzi pump-and-dump cult aura around them. | SilasX wrote: | >I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record | on the chain is what actually matters. I don't like NFTs, but | the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as | frustrating. | | Are you sure it's not the _pro_ -NFT people that don't get it? | | It came out recently that the ecosystem around NFTs is all set | up to trust OpenSea's version of truth, regardless of what's on | the blockchain, and so it can be revoked at will. | | https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1454863786783875075 | CharlesW wrote: | > _This article is like suggesting the signature on art is what | matters, but what matters is the actual provenance._ | | And blockchains can't guarantee provenance either, although | they _can_ help ensure that the claimed provenance (probably) | hasn 't changed since the data was first added. | cma wrote: | > Without a verified on-chain transaction, there is a risk that | either the buyer or the seller may be lying about the | transaction price. | | The chain doesn't really guarantee this anyway because a wallet | is not a person. There are already examples of big wash sales. | Osmose wrote: | You add in a centralized service that enforces these rules and | feature-wise it is equivalent, except the service is in | control. The leading service is the company that is most well- | funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. | | Whereas with a proof-of-work blockchain, whoever has 51% of the | network's mining hash rate is in control, which is effectively | who is the most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. | | Or a proof-of-stake blockchain, where whoever has 51% of the | network's stake, which is effectively who is the most well- | funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. | k__ wrote: | Implying the most well funded is enough to get >50%, right? | ;) | Osmose wrote: | If we've learned one thing from capitalism it's that it is | _not that unlikely_ for a small group of people to get more | than half of all the money. The structure still | concentrates power. | eightysixfour wrote: | This is pretty reductive IMO. Instead of trying to sit and | think about how it is an inefficient, slow version of the | same databases we are used to using, try and steel man the | argument a bit and think about what is unique and why some | people value it. | | It will cost millions of dollars to maintain a one hour | attack against a PoW chain. It is crazy inefficient, it is | slow, but it provides a level of trust that is unique. A | software license NFT that lives on a blockchain is a perfect | example - would you rather have that or one that depends on a | centralized company keeping their server's running (like | Adobe's with CS3 and before)? | vmception wrote: | > Whether that claim can be meaningfully sold on to someone else | is outside the scope of this discussion. | | Taking the non fungible part too literally then | laluser wrote: | How would people validate ownership of an NFT when there could be | hundreds of blockchains in the future? Would I have to go and | verify each one of them to make sure my NFT hasn't been sold | multiple times already? | thesuperbigfrog wrote: | Artificial scarcity is artificial. | | Nothing prevents someone from making copies and selling each | "unique" one. | | Since it is decentralized, there is no centralized authority to | take down the copies (that is, a DMCA-style take down). | | The "no one can censor you" upsides of decentralization are not | without downsides: you cannot censor or take down others, even | in cases of copyright breach. | edent wrote: | We'll have to create a centralised registry of all tokens on | all chains!? | CharlesW wrote: | And even though there may be tens of thousands of these | search engines/registries built in the next two years, Google | (for example, pick your poison) can step in any time and own | this if NFTs turn into something more than pet rocks. | Zamicol wrote: | Just as there's a central ledger of all the various citizens | of the word's countries? | | A few trusted ledgers is all that's needed. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | It's the circle of liiiiiiiiiife! | dqpb wrote: | NFTs only make sense within the context of a system (or | ecosystem) that has a protocol for recognizing it. | | For example, if an NFT represented a game asset, then the game | (or potentially a whole ecosystem of games) would be the system | that recognizes it, and the NFT would have value within the | context of that game. | mindwok wrote: | I really don't understand the use case of NFTs for in game | assets. How is using a block chain to trade assets an | improvement over the in game marketplaces we already have for | games like TF2, DotA2, etc? | SavantIdiot wrote: | Ding ding ding. These people have literally no idea what they | are doing. You think the average tech VC is a clueless about | NFTs? Wait to you talk to people in the art world. | cortesoft wrote: | It is silly to try to save money on the mechanism for NFTs. That | defeats the entire purpose. The entire purpose of of an NFT is to | publicly demonstrate that you wasted money on it. This is the | case for all status symbols; if you are saving money on it, it | loses its value as a status symbol. | edent wrote: | My proposal saves money for the artist creating the token. | Investors can pay as much as they like - with no middle-man. | trutannus wrote: | >But how can you prove that you've paid an artist for a specific | piece of work? | | Again, another author talking about NFTs who doesn't understand | what an NFT signifies. _An NFT does not confer ownership of the | underlying work_ it just confers ownership of the NFT itself, | unless you ALSO agree to a secondary contract in the process of | buying the NFT. Which, at that point, you 've just negated the | supposed value of owning the NFT in the first place. | beebeepka wrote: | Remember what Victor Chaos said about NFT - you don't make money | with them, you earn money by making people to invest in them. | | I think it's stupid by really not much different to people | spending money on hats in TF2 or whatever. | | People used to lose their shit over virtual items in Diablo and | MMOs. It's the same thing. Plenty of suckers out there | moffkalast wrote: | Yeah it was never about the so called art, it's just the latest | way to hype up and get people to fork over cash for something | that's functionally the same as buying crypto anyway. Though | you do get the bonus tax evasion, so that's neat. | colpabar wrote: | I highly recommend the new south park post covid special for | anyone who still doesn't understand what an NFT is or who just | thinks the whole thing is kind of silly. | CharlesW wrote: | https://decider.com/2021/12/16/south-park-covid-part-2-nfts/ | k__ wrote: | It really is a good episode, even the crypto crowd liked it. | | The scammers and the clueless critics all get their moment, | lol. | dom96 wrote: | I can't help but feel like it doesn't even matter if NFTs (and | cryptocurrencies) are a scam. At this point just the mere fact | that you can provably show some NFT was sold for millions is | enough, some people entering these scams will still get rich, | it's just the people at the end that won't. But looking at it | this way, there are plenty of people willing to take the risk to | try and be those early people that get the money and don't get | screwed, so it doesn't really matter if it's a scam or not in the | end. | er4hn wrote: | This raises a very interesting point. Much of the problems with | blockchain's, i.e. proof-of-work, on-chain transactions needing | everyone to know about them, are because there are no central | authorities baked into the design that can behave in opaque ways. | | Yet, centralized services still spring up to handle transactions: | OpenSea for NFTs, Coinbase for cryptocoin transactions. These | services in turn still rely on a sea of middlemen which take a | cut, or "gas" fees for their work. If you are transfering coins | among several services then there are fees for each transfer, | etc. | | So tying this back to present day, mainstream, finance: When you | run a credit card there are several middlemen between the | cardholder and the merchant. This diagram | (https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-process...) | suggests 4 intermediaries, each taking a cut. | | In theory each of these provides a service - but how many are | required in modern times? Let's say that the cardholder just | wants to pay the merchant, and the merchant wants to maximize | their take. In cryptocoin-land you would have a direct | transaction with the merchant. This works because you cannot | double pay. In trad-finance land you need to have your issuing | bank state that you have the funds. Credit cards provide a level | of abstraction where the merchant gets paid now and the credit | card provider collects later. This all happens live. | | What if instead you had a system where: | | - Card holder uses a computing device (say a smartphone with TPM) | and that cryptographically signs transactions to say that the | card holder requested this. | | - Issuing bank gives the card holder a signed certificate each | week saying: This is account holder #XXXXX. They can purchase up | to $YYY at one time. | | - Card holder provides the cert to merchant upon wanting to make | a purchase along with a signed receipt indicating a transfer of | money. You could add a pin to be entered on each transaction as | 2FA. | | - Merchant gets this crypto-receipt and has some reasonable | amount of time to turn it in to the issuing bank (say 1 month) | and collect payment. | | - Issuing bank gives merchant money for receipt and charges | account holder. Account holder does normal procedures of paying | for things, complaining about charges, etc. | | This scheme has a few advantages and feels very similar to how I | sort of understand credit cards work in Europe. | | - Issuing bank can get a larger take since there are less | intermediaries. | | - Merchant can get a larger take since there can be less fees. | | - There is a reasonable assurance of lack of fraud due to 2FA, | and TPM storing signing key. | | - This does not require live internet access nor live responses. | | Why is there nothing like this? What are the drawbacks? Tying | back to the parent discussion, is this a reasonable optimization | on top of crypocurrency as it exists today? | csmarshall wrote: | So...art, you're talking about art... | dqpb wrote: | An NFT is not a digital representation of a piece of art. | | An NFT is a token whose value is independent of all other tokens. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-18 23:00 UTC)