[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)