[HN Gopher] That's My Ape - A blockchain-free chain of custody tool
___________________________________________________________________
That's My Ape - A blockchain-free chain of custody tool
Author : cryptogogue
Score : 126 points
Date : 2021-12-23 17:53 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thatsmyape.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thatsmyape.com)
| akdav wrote:
| The licence even though looks satirical says the whole story.
| Most if not all web3 projects have a proper open source
| commercial reuse license.
| er4hn wrote:
| > You'll also need to register the work you want to protect with
| a copyright office, and, if you're not the author of the work,
| you'll need documentation showing that you purchased the work or
| specific rights to it. Don't skip this step - you'll be digitally
| signing a declaration of ownership under penalty of perjury, so
| if you don't actually own the work in question, that could be
| embarrassing for you.
|
| Antiquated institutions ruled by written laws that require other
| certified humans to interpret? In my blockchain?! Can you really
| say that NFTs are open to all/private/democratic unless the laws
| are all written in conjunctive normal form via Solidity?
|
| (the above is mostly satire. But this project is an amusing take
| on avoiding double-spending)
| [deleted]
| EGreg wrote:
| Basically, the crypto industry painted itself into a corner due
| to greed:
|
| 1) Bitcoin adopted Blockchain to solve the double-spend
| problem, the most brute-force approach to solve it, which
| doesn't scale to make a "peer to peer cash system"
|
| 2) Around 2013 the narrative changed to a "store of value" and
| some drunk guy's misspelling of HOLD became a rallying cry
|
| 3) Ethereum and others continued to use blockchains with
| balances instead of UTXOs, which is even less scalable
| (https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2021/09/10/concurrency-and-
| all...).
|
| 4) And now the technology is entirely unnecessary for NFTs, the
| industry should have started with NFTs and worked backwards to
| implement currency
|
| Ok this is getting long... see
| https://intercoin.org/presentation.pdf for what needs to happen
| for crypto to get past "number go up" speculation and power
| real adoption. Counterpoints welcome.
| yob28 wrote:
| atweiden wrote:
| Thankfully, NFTs aren't just a way for executives to hype up an
| underlying cryptocurrency they're invested in. I'm _confident_
| the social media companies claiming NFTs are a pure hearted way
| to aid struggling artists will _rush_ to integrate Cryptogogue's
| legally sound toolkit for verifying ownership over digital
| artworks which is cheaper than any blockchain and devoid of
| financial conflicts of interest. These are very principled people
| who would never engage in financially-motivated thinking.
| thathndude wrote:
| I can't help but feel maybe you're being a little sarcastic or
| cynical here.
|
| https://youtu.be/2mSd5t2n3ck
| lekevicius wrote:
| This page argues for registering artworks and going to courts
| to verify full chain of custody, not to mention having digital
| identities issued by a trusted authority, which is also usually
| not free.
|
| All combined, this is a lot more expensive solution, not to
| mention a lot less global and time-intensive.
| masklinn wrote:
| > this is a lot more expensive solution
|
| That implies there already is a solution. What is the
| existing solution?
| beaned wrote:
| Blockchains
| danShumway wrote:
| You're missing the point of the satire.
|
| > No. Mere possession of bytes does not prove ownership
| of a work, as many casual music pirates discovered during
| the early aughts. The more important question is "do I
| even own the artwork being right-clicked to begin with?"
| If you bought an NFT, you probably don't.
|
| [...]
|
| > There is no trustless way to prove ownership. If push
| comes to shove, you will need to appear in a court of law
| and identify each person on the chain of custody. So you
| can trust it as must as you trust each individual
| participant.
|
| ----
|
| The point, which
|
| - many artists who have had their work stolen and minted
| without their permission have already realized,
|
| - many owners who found out that NFTs can get scammed
| away from them have already realized,
|
| - many users who are now grappling with platform
| decisions about what sales to allow have already
| realized,
|
| - many owners who are trying to navigate what exactly
| they are legally allowed to _do_ with their NFT tokens
| have already realized,
|
| is that NFTs don't actually get rid of any of the legal
| problems or systems, and in fact often are completely
| subservient to those systems. For example, BAYC itself:
|
| > The BAYC license states "You Own the NFT. Each Bored
| Ape is an NFT ... you own the underlying Bored Ape, the
| Art, completely." The license then goes on to place any
| number of restrictions on its use, implying that you
| don't, in fact, "own" the "underlying Art" at all.
|
| NFTs don't solve the fundamental problem of trust, they
| only solve the problem of a shared ledger. And it turns
| out that they don't even solve the problem of trust _in
| that ledger_ , and the community seems to be pretty split
| on questions like whether someone who steals an NFT from
| someone else "owns" it or not.
|
| A lot of the NFT hype about distributed consensus boils
| down to "the code is law, except for these exceptions
| when it's not, and except for when the code has a bug,
| and except for when the real law steps in and threatens
| to send someone to jail." In short, if the answer to "how
| do I know an NFT is legitimately issued by the artist who
| made the artwork" is "community consensus/law", then the
| blockchain isn't actually solving the problem of
| ownership, the community/law is.
|
| "That's My Ape" offers transparent, user-facing reliance
| on a system that everyone in the NFT space is already
| relying on anyway.
| a9h74j wrote:
| Check out, also, Writers Guild of America West.[1] They
| provide an online service for registering a file of up to
| 10MB. IIRC the fee is $25 or $50. The result is legal
| evidence, acccording to them.
|
| One use case, so I heard: Rather than showing a copyright
| date on an old script (which can date it and suggest is has
| been rejected many times), the cover page can specify
| "Registered with WGAw"
|
| [1] https://wgawregistry.org/Register.aspx?CookieCheck=1
| smoe wrote:
| At least for digital music
|
| - register and embed ISRC code that have been around since
| the late 80s into your recording to automatically handle
| licensing fees and track sales
|
| - send registered letter containing the recording and any
| associated contracts to yourself and never open it (or to a
| bank safe or lawyer or something if you want to get fancy)
|
| It's not sexy tech, but holds up in court. Doesn't solve
| all the problems the crypto world products claim to solve,
| but then again, the mechanics of getting paid is about the
| least of problems for artist imho.
| katmannthree wrote:
| This is explicitly satire criticizing the concept of
| ownership of goods being derived from arbitrary tokens rather
| than defined by the extant legal framework in virtually every
| jurisdiction. From the end of the article:
|
| >Q: Is any of this for real?
|
| >A: No. Good lord. If you want to protect your digital
| rights, hire a lawyer. If it wasn't immediately clear that
| this is a work of satire, we've got some NFTs to sell you.
| Cantinflas wrote:
| Hire a lawyer. What a great solution! We don't even need
| computers for that!
| riccardomc wrote:
| > "we don't even need computers for that!"
|
| Upon reading these words, he suddenly awakened to
| enlightenment.
| afavour wrote:
| Maybe if we call the lawyer cost "gas fees" everyone will
| let it slide.
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| But this lawyer that showed up 3 weeks ago is making the
| rounds on twitter with 4 week old accounts, and they have
| much lower fees! Sure, they only communicate through tor,
| but that's the beauty of it: complete anonymity.
| vyrotek wrote:
| Wait, is this suggesting you use traditional centralized services
| to confirm ownership of decentralized items?
| jamescostian wrote:
| From the FAQ:
|
| > Q. Can I see the source code and run it locally?
|
| > Yes. The source code for That's My Ape! is available here and
| is licensed for local, personal use.
|
| The word "here" in that quote is a link to the source code:
| https://github.com/cryptogogue/thatsmyape
|
| Theoretically, "anyone" can run thatsmyape locally, and
| assuming they've ran `npm install`, they don't even need
| internet access to do so. Not sure how realistic this is in
| reality - there aren't even any instructions to get set up, but
| if there were, then an even larger set of "anyone" could run
| it.
|
| That said, this is of course a joke. Also from their FAQ:
|
| > Q. Is any of this for real?
|
| > No. Good lord. If you want to protect your digital rights,
| hire a lawyer. If it wasn't immediately clear that this is a
| work of satire, we've got some NFTs to sell you.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Isn't that the whole point of the satire? Anyone can make
| duplicates of any NFT on the blockchain so you _still_ need a
| central authority to say which is the real million dollar jpg
| and which is a copy, even though it 's on a blockchain.
| timdaub wrote:
| I suggest that to fix the problem of a single owner being able to
| sign away the ape to more than one person, the app could be
| extended as such:
|
| - For every new custody signature, the signer publishes the
| transfer online to a collectively-maintained database
|
| - We chose the database software such that is publicly accessible
| to anyone that wants to participate in ape collecting and
| checking custody signatures
|
| - In case some people start to get annoying and illegitimately
| edit the custody database, we somehow try to lock the databases
| edit function making it append-only
| er4hn wrote:
| This is very similar to the concept of "certificate
| transparency logs" for x509s
| Jerrrry wrote:
| This was brilliant, I had a chuckle.
| gfodor wrote:
| I'm trying to remember what satirical slash comic book guy style
| sites + examples like this there were to ridicule bitcoin.
| petesergeant wrote:
| https://www.computercoins.website/
| emodendroket wrote:
| I suppose the point here is that those critics have all been
| "proven wrong." Bitcoin has proven a great vehicle for
| speculation but the other promises seem unfulfilled.
| neximo64 wrote:
| Can't you make a new signature in the future?
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| But how do I gamble my magic beans with this system? If it's not
| emitting 30kg of CO2 to mint a new ape is it really art?
| folli wrote:
| Too complicated, just use http://nuftu.com and get a "real" NFT
| from your artwork in like 5 minutes.
| mcherm wrote:
| Honestly, not even bothering to solve the "double spend" problem
| makes this much less than it could have been.
|
| After all, it is very easy to solve the "double spend" problem
| without the use of a blockchain: simply use a single trusted
| authority.
|
| You know how every time you buy a house or piece of land you have
| to get a state-licensed notary to verify your identity, And then
| after signing the deed you have to send the paperwork to the
| county registrar because if they don't write it in their books
| then the land hasn't actually changed hands? That was NFTs
| working fairly well long before the invention of blockchain or
| computers or cryptography.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Trustless solutions have no place in a world with robust trust,
| which is most of the developed world and parts of the
| developing world. The solution isn't blockchain, it's more
| trust and the organizations and governance that builds that
| trust.
| rglullis wrote:
| Why does it have to be a binary property?
|
| Yes, I buy many domains and I don't expect them to be taken
| away from me. But I like the idea of having alternative ENS
| names (yes, ENS domains are NFTs) as some kind of hedge
| against the occasional top-level domain crisis, or in the odd
| chance that my domain registrar fucks up/gets hacked or even
| as some kind of back-up plan for the case where registrars
| decide to collude and increase prices.
|
| Same thing for banking/finance. Yes, SEPA works well in
| Europe and in 99% of the cases I am okay using my credit
| card. It doesn't negate the case where I'd like to pay
| someone where the only alternative is Paypal and with it its
| crazy fees, odd cancellations, poor customer support, etc.
|
| For merchants, the same. Not long ago OnlyFans almost
| destroyed its own business because it wanted to kill its
| adult content side. The reason? Mastercard. Should we be
| telling all the sex workers and adult entertainers that we
| should be better at "building trust", or should we be able to
| say "crypto payments can be an alternative and do not depend
| on the interests of some powerful group with the right
| connections"?
| jspaetzel wrote:
| ENS is great until you lose control of it due to a hack or
| a death. Compare the reprocussions of that with the
| traditional system.
| rglullis wrote:
| OpsSec is and should always be part of the vocabulary for
| anyone dealing with crypto seriously and they should know
| that they need to have a plan for the inevitable. Also,
| more and more smart wallets are implementing solutions
| that allow for social recovery of keys.
|
| > Compare the reprocussions of that with the traditional
| system.
|
| It's a _hedge_. It works both ways.
| shatteredgate wrote:
| >Should we be telling all the sex workers and adult
| entertainers that we should be better at "building trust"
|
| Given that the reason there was controversy around OnlyFans
| was because of scandals about child sex trafficking, I'd
| say yes. The rest of society should be able to trust that
| OnlyFans is not providing a platform for trafficking
| children; crypto payments do nothing to solve that problem,
| they may even make it worse. They're really good at
| increasing fees for middlemen though, and it's very
| frustrating to hear them pitched as a solution to something
| when the original problem seems to so often get lost in
| translation.
| rglullis wrote:
| > controversy around OnlyFans.
|
| I'm not going to argue about the specifics of OnlyFans
| because I'm honestly not aware of the details. In any
| case, you are missing the point. I could talk about any
| "legit" adult site and all the extra fees they have to
| pay because of the risk and credit card fraud associated
| with the industry, or I could even just use a more
| "innocent" example such as Gumroad or Steam, who sell
| only digital content, and would benefit from crypto-
| payment systems: no chargebacks, no fees for
| micropayments, no currency conversion fees, etc.
|
| > they're really good at increasing fees for middlemen
| though.
|
| I can make transfers now of any amount of ETH/DAI for
| exactly $0.19. [0] This is already competitive with
| credit card transfers for less than $5. Raiden [1]
| released today a new version of their client, so you can
| have decentralized transfers for virtually free
| (fractions of a cent if the transfer needs to be mediated
| by other nodes, but basically free otherwise).
|
| [0]: https://l2fees.info/ [1]: https://raiden.network
| shatteredgate wrote:
| I can't see how that is the point, I honestly don't
| understand what cryptocurrency provides there at all.
| I've seen nothing about it that suggests it has some kind
| of novel solution to fraud prevention; no chargebacks
| just means the customer now has no recourse from a
| fraudulent vendor, so you've pushed the cost of fraud all
| onto them. It's also possible to get no fees for
| micropayments and no currency conversion fees with a more
| traditional virtual currency, crypto only adds costs on
| top of that.
|
| >Raiden released today a new version of their client, so
| you can have decentralized transfers for virtually free
|
| I've read some of their blog series:
| https://medium.com/raiden-network/raiden-protocol-
| explained-...
|
| It seems like an interesting way to do peer-to-peer
| lending, that is not specific to cryptocurrency. I would
| be interested to see the same algorithm deployed on a
| credit card network to see if the fees can be reduced
| even farther.
| rglullis wrote:
| > no chargebacks just means the customer now has no
| recourse from a fraudulent vendor.
|
| This is the realm of the social layer, not the
| technology. You _can_ add an escrow system or even use a
| reputation-based approach as a way to manage fraud, but
| the idea is that it is optional. If all you want is to
| buy some cheap and fast content online, you can 't do
| that with credit card but you can with crypto.
|
| > It's also possible to get no fees for micropayments
|
| Please point me to _one_ micropayment solution that does
| not involve middlemen and /or extraordinarily high fees
| (in proportion to the value of the transaction).
|
| > and no currency conversion fees with a more traditional
| virtual currency, crypto only adds costs on top of that.
|
| Problem statement: you are a software company in the UK
| and you want to contract a developer based in Argentina.
| She wants to receive (in Pesos) the equivalent to 500GBP.
|
| Find me some non-crypto alternative where she can get
| that amount with minimal loss. We can compare notes later
| if you want, but I can tell you a crypto alternative
| where the cost is less than 0.3%.
| darawk wrote:
| Trust requires us to give leverage to centralized authorities
| over our critical records. If you deposit money in a bank,
| they can unilaterally decide that you can't withdraw it
| today. Their systems can be down. They can be closed at a
| time you want access to your money, etc. Or the person at the
| front desk can simply not like you, and if they're the only
| branch in town, you're out of luck.
|
| Critically, trust like this comes from scale. The likelihood
| of a bank screwing you personally over diminishes as the bank
| grows larger. In other contexts, people call this a network
| effect, and it is an anti-competitive moat. Even if we
| completely trust the bank, which we don't, this anti-
| competitive moat leads to all sorts of problems, like
| stagnation of service quality (look how long it took us to
| get same day wire transfers and decent quality online
| banking).
|
| Decentralized systems democratize trust. They break anti-
| competitive network effect driven moats. This is a good
| thing, even if we completely trust our centralized
| authorities, which again, we should not.
| jakear wrote:
| Doesn't the entire NFT market rely on trusting that the
| company you bought your "certified original one of a kind
| URL pointing to the image they host" doesn't cease to
| exist?
| rglullis wrote:
| No. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29609617
| acdha wrote:
| The correct answer is yes. You're still paying to host
| the content even if you add new ways to pay to update a
| shortlink. ENS has to point somewhere and that someone
| will want to be paid for their time and resources.
| rglullis wrote:
| No. ENS records are on the blockchain. Once you executed
| the contract that gives you ownership to a name, it will
| be yours for the time you paid it for. The ENS developers
| can not revoke it and they can not change the underlying
| records or subdomains.
| acdha wrote:
| Still yes: ENS records are a pointer, not the data
| itself. You will need to pay to host that data and you
| will need to pay every time you change the ENS pointer.
| shiohime wrote:
| NFTs are simply single issue tokens that can optionally
| be part of a collection. While most NFTs today take the
| form of a link to decentralized storage on solutions such
| as IPFS or Arweave, it is completely possible for an NFT
| to provide value as a token. For example you can have a
| project where NFTs provide access to services, as well as
| optionally have links to art. But you really don't need
| to have the art aspect at all, you can use them as access
| tokens or whatever you want really.
| jakear wrote:
| So it's either an expensive way to claim ownership of a
| resource provided other people are trusted to do the
| actual work of hosting that resource, or it's an
| expensive way to replace JWT's. Exciting. Truly.
| shiohime wrote:
| NFTs are only expensive on Ethereum. You can mint for
| cents or less on other chains.
| rglullis wrote:
| Expensive on Ethereum's _base layer_. Don 't forget the
| many layer-2 solutions. Loopring is about to launch its
| marketplace, ImmutableX is already live as well.
| shiohime wrote:
| Yes, thanks for the clarification.
| rglullis wrote:
| Your cheap jab says more about your lack of imagination
| about potential use-cases than about whatever
| shortcomings the technology has at the moment.
|
| Okta is a multi-billion business and could also be
| characterized as "an expensive way to replace JWTs".
| Authz/authn is one of the most common use cases that
| every application developer needs to implement. How much
| would you like to bet that in 5 years time NFT-based
| authz/authz will be bigger than Okta's market?
| bb88 wrote:
| > Decentralized systems democratize trust.
|
| What you're asking us to trust is that: 1.
| We trust the coders to know what is best for us. 2.
| You can write perfect code so that our money is safe.
| 3. The price will never plummet.
|
| I've observed: 1. Mt. Gox Failure 2.
| DAO Failure 3. First BTC price crash 4. USDT
| regulatory concerns 5. Lack of learning from
| failures 6. Politics still exist, they just moved to
| the coding layer 7. Willful ignorance of the scams
| and crimes cryptocurrencies has enabled 7.1 Because
| somehow cryptocurrency is better for us. 8. Hype
| over price security and software security 8.1
| Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us.
|
| Trust in USDT is centralized in the corporation Tether and
| has none of the benefits you mentioned. Trust in BTC is
| hoping (praying?) that the price doesn't crash, and
| software doesn't control the price, humans do.
| rglullis wrote:
| I can use blockchain apps all of my life and even if
| there are people (now) making billions of USD worth of
| Tether transfers, I _never_ will be forced to accept it,
| because I don 't trust them. That is _exactly_ what
| "democratized trust" looks like.
| darawk wrote:
| > What you're asking us to trust is that:
|
| > 1. We trust the coders to know what is best for us. >
| 2. You can write perfect code so that our money is safe.
| > 3. The price will never plummet.
|
| Nobody is asking that. The source code is public, read it
| and decide for yourself. Good luck doing that at your
| local bank. There are plenty of stablecoins, you don't
| have to take on crypto exposure.
|
| > 1. Mt. Gox Failure
|
| Totally irrelevant.
|
| > 2. DAO Failure
|
| Sure, a public commons infrastructure will elicit a lot
| of bad projects. Just like the vast majority of open
| source projects are bad. This is not an indictment of
| open source.
|
| > 3. First BTC price crash
|
| Irrelevant.
|
| > 4. USDT regulatory concerns
|
| Use one of the many other stablecoins, then. This is the
| beauty of the system. It's actually open, so there are a
| diversity of issuers. You could even start one yourself,
| if you wanted.
|
| > 5. Lack of learning from failures
|
| There is an enormous amount of learning from failures. If
| you believe there isn't, you aren't paying attention.
|
| > 6. Politics still exist, they just moved to the coding
| layer
|
| Yes, this is true. However, this layer is thin, by
| design. That means the layers above it, which implement
| most of the relevant functionality, are a diverse
| ecosystem of choice. Contrast to the thickness of
| politics in other domains.
|
| > 7. Willful ignorance of the scams and crimes
| cryptocurrencies has enabled > 7.1 Because somehow
| cryptocurrency is better for us.
|
| New technology brings about scams roughly in proportion
| to its power. The internet enabled tons of scams. Fiat
| currency enabled tons of scams. Coinage enabled tons of
| scams. And so did banks, particularly of the fractional
| reserve variety.
|
| That doesn't mean scams are good or should be tolerated.
| But it takes time to develop the social and political
| conventions to deal with them. I believe that process is
| taking place in crypto, though perhaps not as quickly as
| we'd like. I think if you look back at the history of
| other comparable technologies, you will see that crypto
| is pretty far ahead of the game in this regard, though.
|
| > 8. Hype over price security and software security > 8.1
| Because somehow cryptocurrency is better for us.
|
| Sure. Lots of elements of crypto are overhyped. Overhype
| comes along with any transformative technology. See hype
| about carbon nanotubes, nuclear power, 3d printing, etc.
| Hype is an indictment of people, not technology.
| e9 wrote:
| > Nobody is asking that. The source code is public, read
| it and decide for yourself. Good luck doing that at your
| local bank. There are plenty of stablecoins, you don't
| have to take on crypto exposure.
|
| Most people are not advanced coders and will never be. So
| most people still have to trust a random coder (be it
| close friend or someone on the news or online). If
| something happens to your money because someone took
| advantage of you in the code then good luck getting
| anything back. At least with banks there are laws around
| this stuff and you can actually get your money back. For
| average person this is still the way to go.
| acdha wrote:
| There's also a massive unregulated conflict of interest
| here: reviewing the source code will require experience
| which someone is unlikely to have without also having a
| financial interest in expanded use of cryptocurrencies.
| As we've seen so many times over from all of the
| cryptocurrency boosters who talked up code or services
| until a major problem occurred, this can cloud someone's
| judgement even if they're not intentionally scamming you.
| anonporridge wrote:
| The fundamental problem with systems based on trust in
| humans, is that even if you completely trust the humans in
| control _today_ those people will eventually be replaced, by
| death if nothing else.
|
| So, you also need a system of determining succession of
| trusted individuals that not only selects humans who can be
| trusted, but humans who understand the challenge of defending
| the purity of succession procedure. All it takes is one
| corrupted transition. One person submitting to a little
| nepotism, to poison the entire system.
|
| And of course, wherever you create a centralized repository
| of power, whether it's a hoard of wealth, a position of
| authority, the head of cult following, or admin access to a
| database, you immediately create a game for power hungry
| people to figure out a way to corrupt the systems in place
| that prevent abuse of that power.
|
| _This_ is why so many people are working towards
| decentralizing systems of power. Hell, even the US
| constitution is an instantiation of that, with the
| established separation of powers between the 3 branches of
| government. While we recognize that centralizing all
| governmental power in a single position can lead to
| incredible efficiencies if you get the right person in
| charge, it is also incredibly fragile and dangerous in the
| long run. We accept the inefficiencies of decentralized
| systems in exchange for long term stability and anti-
| fragility.
| voakbasda wrote:
| I think you overestimate the amount of trust that some of us
| have in organizations and governance.
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| So we should implement suboptimal systems, proven to be
| inferior technically, at scale for a vocal minority?
| rglullis wrote:
| Who is the "we" that is actually implementing things and
| putting their skin in the game, if not this "vocal
| minority" that wants to build an alternative? I don't
| know of any developer in crypto being forced to work on
| things against their will.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| What about the permissionless angle.
|
| Right now, anyone can go an build a new notary or governance
| protocol on blockchain, for their own purposes, without
| asking for anyone's permission.
|
| Government trust is great, and bank anchored trust is great,
| but neither of those parties has as yet volunteered to run
| the kind of digital infrastructure required to run your own
| stuff on top of, and can you imagine the paperwork? (I bet
| there are some bank efforts but good luck getting on their
| platform).
| 542458 wrote:
| The thing I don't get about NFTs in general is that they don't
| actually seem trustless to me. You need some sort of trusted
| source that says "this NFT is genuine and not just a
| bootleg"... and at that point you might as well just have that
| trusted source track ownership.
| lekevicius wrote:
| It's a problem, I agree, but because the "authenticity
| information" can be expressed somewhat succinctly (it's just
| a smart contract address), the trust element can be
| decentralized. Artist might post it on their Twitter,
| Instagram and website -- if they all agree, and you as a
| buyer trust that the author is actually managing their
| Instagram, Twitter and website -- then there might be enough
| to create real world - digital world trust bridge. This is
| particularly easy if an artist is working primarily online
| and their digital identity already is the main contributor to
| their fame.
| timdaub wrote:
| e.g. that's why famous nft artists either have their ENS name
| in their Twitter bio or as their name. With that, you know
| that e.g. if shaq.eth minted an NFT, it's indeed the real
| shaq o'neal as otherwise the imposter shaq.eth registrar
| would have had to have the access to the real shaq o'neal's
| Twitter account.
| codebje wrote:
| Doesn't that make Twitter the central authority providing
| the trust framework required for it to work?
| timdaub wrote:
| no because similar to PGP keys it really doesn't matter
| where you publish your fingerprint or how you connect
| your identities. If shaq had a popular website, he could
| do it there too. E.g. I have my PGP fingerprint on my
| website: https://timdaub.github.io
| judge2020 wrote:
| NFTs are trusting a single authority, which is the consensus
| of all of the nodes/miners of the blockchain. Sure, if you go
| to opensea and try to find the owner of a NFT, they could lie
| and become an accomplice in a double-spend scheme; but in
| general you could also download and watch the entire
| transaction chain and search through it locally (with trusted
| and auditable OSS) to verify ownership and transfers.
| acdha wrote:
| > NFTs are trusting a single authority, which is the
| consensus of all of the nodes/miners of the blockchain.
|
| That's only for the in-chain history. To actually be able
| to trust that the NFT is what it's represented as, you also
| need outside third-parties. For example, many artists are
| having to deal with NFTs fraudulently claiming to represent
| their work or benefit the artist, which is not something
| you can validate using only information on the blockchain.
|
| Once you have a way to confirm the authenticity of the NFT,
| you also don't need the blockchain because the actual trust
| is coming from the artist's own statement.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Well yes, but the technology behind NFTs is explicitly
| just for solving the problem of double-spend/duplication.
| The authenticity is always provided off-chain since
| identity and reputation is still managed off-chain, so
| while "is this NFT real or impersonating an existing
| contract" is off-chain, the "who is currently owner"
| question is answered on-chain and requires no further
| trust or approval of the original artist.
| acdha wrote:
| But again only for the NFT, not the actual work of art.
| shiohime wrote:
| But you can determine NFT authenticity by only examining
| onchain data. You can for instance check the program ID that
| executed the mint and that it is verified (in the case of
| Solana, at least), it's a pretty simple verification system
| that is using entirely onchain data for validation.
| basch wrote:
| The authors name next to the creation? The source of trust is
| the authors signature, and societies consensus that the
| author is who they say they are.
| Qworg wrote:
| The thousands of stolen artworks from DeviantArt being
| turned into NFTs beg to differ.
| basch wrote:
| The author of the hyperlink, not the photo.
|
| The NFT is the hyperlink, not what it links to.
| notahacker wrote:
| Ah yes, they're not scammers masquerading as the artist,
| they're authors of genuine artisanal hyperlinks,
| flawlessly typed with the same hands they lovingly Ctrl/C
| Ctrl/Vd the image to the handcrafted hyperlink endpoint.
| eropple wrote:
| The kicker that amazes me is that when artists register
| their incredulity and their offense about this (and
| OpenSea seems to tacitly be A-OK with the whole
| practice), the randos pile into their mentions asking why
| they won't _work with_ the people misappropriating their
| work in this way.
|
| Can't imagine why not. Can't at all. Nope.
| [deleted]
| makk wrote:
| Web 2 was "if you don't know what the product is, you are the
| product."
|
| Web 3 is "if you don't know what is being owned, you are being
| owned."
|
| Not saying that disparagingly. Just is.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-23 23:00 UTC)