10 ms·
Or, there’s an idea, just generate a random string, bundle it with the artwork and sign the whole damn thing using good old RSA. Achieves the exact same goal,
by andreskytt 6y ago
Or, there’s an idea, just generate a random string, bundle it with the artwork and sign the whole damn thing using good old RSA. Achieves the exact same goal, uses a fraction of energy and no fancy tech.
- anonymoushn 6y agoYeah, you could plausibly just transfer these things by having each owner sign an attestation of the new owner's public key. But since it looks like this junk will happen on a publicly accessible slow computer/database, I'm just hoping it happens on e.g. Solana instead of Ethereum.
- kolinko 6y agoSigning attestation by itself wouldn’t work because of double spending. You would need either a centralised database of who owns what or a blockchain.
- anonporridge 6y agoUh...no? These can trivially be copied (double spent), which means they're just as scarce as any digital data. Valueless without some significant proof of violence and hyper censorship ability enforcing copyright protection. The primary revolution of bitcoin was the invention of self enforcing digital scarcity.
- quickthrower2 6y agoSome company can run a DB to record spends. Why trust a third party? Well with any crypto linked to real world outcomes you need it trust a third party. Be that tether or some NFT hustler.
- anonporridge 6y agoBecause if I'm a rich person wanting to spend stupid amounts of money on some 'original' work of digital art, I don't want to trust a third party store the ownership records that could easily be corrupted. The ownership record in a public blockchain can't be corrupted.
- lottin 6y agoRich people entrust their entire wealth to third parties to manage it for them. Why wouldn't they trust a third party to keep some ridiculous record of ownership?
- anonporridge 6y agoBecause the entire ethos of the cryptocurrency space is about dematerializing trust from large, complex networks of humans with various carrot/stick incentives keeping them honest to trust based on cryptography and game theory dynamics of open distributed systems that can't be successfully cheated without a massive accumulation of power.
- lottin 6y agoWhat do you mean dematerializing trust, can you put an example? As far as I know, trust is not made of matter, I don't know how it could possibly be dematerialized.
- j4yav 6y agoCan’t the subject of NFTs also be trivially copied? All you really have is a token that refers to a particular file and proves that you own a token that refers to that file. Everyone else is free to ignore the token and copy the original file at any time. Is there something that you can only do via the token? Are there special events or access for token holders? I could see something like that being independently valuable, and interesting.
- lottin 6y agoIt's an "emperor has no clothes" kind of thing. A big farce, that's all it is.
- klipt 6y agoThe artist can sign a message including your public key. The message is verifiable using the artist's public key. If other people copy it, they're just copying the proof that it belongs to you. If you want to sell it to someone else, you sign a message saying you give it to them and so on, forming a "chain" of signed transactions.
- arnarbi 6y agoAny owner can sign as many receipts of sale as they want.
- klipt 6y agoCan't an artist also mint as many NFTs as they want?
- elefanten 6y agoWhat stops an original owner (of the to-be-digitized asset) from selling an NFT on the same thing multiple times? Perhaps on multiple different platforms?
- supermatt 6y agoNothing, but they can only sign the "first" once
- drusepth 6y agoIf the NFT is just a pointer to a digital good, can't they have multiple "first" NFTs all referring to the same digital good?
- cbovis 6y agoYes and no. If they minted multiple within the same block then yes. If not, then proof of first minted NFT could be verified by block height.
- 6y ago
- root_axis 6y agoThe ownership of the NFT itself is verified through public-key cryptography, the blockchain adds nothing of value.
- lottin 6y ago> The primary revolution of bitcoin was the invention of self enforcing digital scarcity. I thought DRM already invented that.
- TimTheTinker 6y agoECC (curve 25519) would be preferable.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y agoIf the artist signs the NFT to you, then you can't track resales. It will always be signed as belonging to the original person who bought it. So basically this "alternative" to NFTs would be impossible to trade. It blows my mind that people still don't understand stuff this basic.
- bottled_poe 6y agoAnd how valuable is that capability?
- kristofferR 6y agoIt's what you're paying for.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y agoThat's up to you. It could easily replace steam for me. Or digital audio purchases.
- lottin 6y agoThe only reason for tracking resales is to prevent double-spending, in other words, to create a false illusion of scarcity. The whole thing is a charade.
- HeadsUpHigh 6y agoWe already have artificial scarcity. It's called steam. You buy a game in steam, you can't resell it. This allows you to resell the things you buy.
- HellDunkel 6y agoIt cant be artifial scarcity when there is endless supply.
- lottin 6y agoYou can't resell a game in steam because Valve doesn't let you, not because the game is being made artificially scarce. Which it is, but this is not the reason you can't resell it. The point is that reselling an NFT doesn't require a central ledger. The central ledger is necessary to prevent the same token from being sold multiple times by the same seller. In other words, to create the illusion that the seller doesn't have something (and therefore can't sell it) when in fact they actually have it.