4 ms·

> the NFT will be taken as the source of truth for representing the ownership of the claimed asset... I simply can’t see how that is possible for digital asset

> the NFT will be taken as the source of truth for representing the ownership of the claimed asset... I simply can’t see how that is possible for digital assets you can copy and paste and have two copies of the original asset; it only works for physical assets where there can only be one copy of the asset, ever. You’ve hit it on the head: what does it mean to own an image when ten other people also “own” a copy of it, and any of them can create more copies other people can “own”. It’s meaningless, unless you assert ownership entitles you to additional legal rights beyond what the token conveys... and in which case, how the hell is that different from the same thing with no crypto involved?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> You’ve hit it on the head: what does it mean to own an image when ten other people also “own” a copy of it, and any of them can create more copies other people can “own”. Also worth remembering: doing anything with a digital asset involves automatic creation of countless of copies. When you're viewing an image from your computer's storage, you already have at least three copies at that moment - one in storage, one in RAM, and one in video memory. There may be another one in your screen's buffer too. If you try to send it through the network, every switch and router along the way effectively creates its own temporary copy. This is to emphasize: ownership as a concept makes no sense in the world of bits. It doesn't exist. Ownership is defined by agreement between people; these days, usually through the legal framework.
TheColorYellow 6y ago
> unless you assert ownership entitles you to additional legal rights beyond what the token convey This is precisely the idea to a certain extent. The ledger serves as proof of ownership which then allows access to entitlements dictated by that ownership. This being done in a digital first way is another aspect as well (although not really conceptually mind blowing to me personally). > how the hell is that different from the same thing with no crypto involved? This goes back to what I said earlier about the characteristics of the underlying network driving the value. The differences can be in things like the peer-to-peer nature or the decentralized infrastructure which provides a degree of censorship resistance or improved accessibility. We're at the point where credible evidence of the value added by these characteristics is still being explored. You can certainly make some level of argument as to why the decentralized nature of these protocols is better than the traditional alternative, but even I'll admit its difficult to parse through the noise of speculation and hype for the arguments that may be worth a damn. The idea of distributing control, responsibility, costs, and other aspects of operating a system away from singular points of failure is an idea that seems worth investigating and to me this is what blockchain is doing. NFTs are a different flavor of exploration then that of cryptocurrencies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kmtrowbr 6y ago
Possession of the private key also allows you to create signatures which prove your ownership, while not revealing your private key. Artworks could be encrypted and only decryptable by such signatures. Client applications could be built to incorporate this. We have a big problem today in that our information technology's ability to infinitely create copies of digital artifacts seemingly breaks the incentive mechanism to create. I.e. art, news, authorship worked better when you could sell physically sell copies of your album, book, painting. This has resulted in a glut of low quality stuff. Think of the long term. It would be very good for society to solve this problem. With the distribution abilities of the internet, plus the ability to monetize adding incentives to create, we should see much more, and higher quality art. It would enable more of our economy to move online, which would be good for the environment. I.e. humans are mostly interested in social status. Today we show that status by creating and showing off possessions. But also we need jobs. What will people do for work in 2050? Perhaps we'll still be busily working to climb the pile of monkeys, but now with virtual goods. That's more sustainable than the current situation. For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. Part is a justifiable reaction against the hype. Another part I think is FOMO. But also, the crypto space is only partially about technology. It is very inefficient technology from a functionality point of view. But from an economic point of view, where the problem is coordinating human activity in the way that money does, I think there's a lot of potential there. At a certain point there is more risk in being a "permabear" than there is in taking a measured interest. The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all?
- acdha 6y ago
  > For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. … The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all? The negative reaction is _due_ to HN being a technology-heavy forum: the blockchain field is a marketing invention and divides into two camps: Merkle trees, which are useful but not new, and everything else, which is uncompetitively reinventing commonplace concepts with language designed to attract speculators’ money. For a decade, salespeople have been showing, repeating marketing points which don’t hold up to much thought, and hammering the “use your money to make me rich” message, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to get attention with the same spiel now. Put another way: after 12 years, huge amounts of money and attention, where’s anything clearly better than its predecessor? (For the user, not the seller) That’s considerably longer than it took for the web to have a huge impact on advertising, sales, dating, travel, banking, research, job hunting, etc. despite much lower barriers to adoption. Someone trying to invent a new DRM system to make signed prints isn’t remotely close.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> You’ve hit it on the head: what does it mean to own an image when ten other people also “own” a copy of it, and any of them can create more copies other people can “own”. Also worth remembering: doing anything with a digital asset involves automatic creation of countless of copies. When you're viewing an image from your computer's storage, you already have at least three copies at that moment - one in storage, one in RAM, and one in video memory. There may be another one in your screen's buffer too. If you try to send it through the network, every switch and router along the way effectively creates its own temporary copy. This is to emphasize: ownership as a concept makes no sense in the world of bits. It doesn't exist. Ownership is defined by agreement between people; these days, usually through the legal framework.

TheColorYellow 6y ago

> unless you assert ownership entitles you to additional legal rights beyond what the token convey This is precisely the idea to a certain extent. The ledger serves as proof of ownership which then allows access to entitlements dictated by that ownership. This being done in a digital first way is another aspect as well (although not really conceptually mind blowing to me personally). > how the hell is that different from the same thing with no crypto involved? This goes back to what I said earlier about the characteristics of the underlying network driving the value. The differences can be in things like the peer-to-peer nature or the decentralized infrastructure which provides a degree of censorship resistance or improved accessibility. We're at the point where credible evidence of the value added by these characteristics is still being explored. You can certainly make some level of argument as to why the decentralized nature of these protocols is better than the traditional alternative, but even I'll admit its difficult to parse through the noise of speculation and hype for the arguments that may be worth a damn. The idea of distributing control, responsibility, costs, and other aspects of operating a system away from singular points of failure is an idea that seems worth investigating and to me this is what blockchain is doing. NFTs are a different flavor of exploration then that of cryptocurrencies.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kmtrowbr 6y ago

Possession of the private key also allows you to create signatures which prove your ownership, while not revealing your private key. Artworks could be encrypted and only decryptable by such signatures. Client applications could be built to incorporate this. We have a big problem today in that our information technology's ability to infinitely create copies of digital artifacts seemingly breaks the incentive mechanism to create. I.e. art, news, authorship worked better when you could sell physically sell copies of your album, book, painting. This has resulted in a glut of low quality stuff. Think of the long term. It would be very good for society to solve this problem. With the distribution abilities of the internet, plus the ability to monetize adding incentives to create, we should see much more, and higher quality art. It would enable more of our economy to move online, which would be good for the environment. I.e. humans are mostly interested in social status. Today we show that status by creating and showing off possessions. But also we need jobs. What will people do for work in 2050? Perhaps we'll still be busily working to climb the pile of monkeys, but now with virtual goods. That's more sustainable than the current situation. For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. Part is a justifiable reaction against the hype. Another part I think is FOMO. But also, the crypto space is only partially about technology. It is very inefficient technology from a functionality point of view. But from an economic point of view, where the problem is coordinating human activity in the way that money does, I think there's a lot of potential there. At a certain point there is more risk in being a "permabear" than there is in taking a measured interest. The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all?

acdha 6y ago
> For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. … The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all? The negative reaction is _due_ to HN being a technology-heavy forum: the blockchain field is a marketing invention and divides into two camps: Merkle trees, which are useful but not new, and everything else, which is uncompetitively reinventing commonplace concepts with language designed to attract speculators’ money. For a decade, salespeople have been showing, repeating marketing points which don’t hold up to much thought, and hammering the “use your money to make me rich” message, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to get attention with the same spiel now. Put another way: after 12 years, huge amounts of money and attention, where’s anything clearly better than its predecessor? (For the user, not the seller) That’s considerably longer than it took for the web to have a huge impact on advertising, sales, dating, travel, banking, research, job hunting, etc. despite much lower barriers to adoption. Someone trying to invent a new DRM system to make signed prints isn’t remotely close.