4 ms·

> it certifies ... that there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). How many "b

> it certifies ... that there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). How many "brand of certificates" are there now, and what is the barrier to entry? I suspect 1) several and 2) low. Also, how is "there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates" technically enforced?

cachvico 6y ago
Correct. Although there is only one brand that has sold a Tweet NFT for $3mil. The enforcement, interestingly, is more traditional; the owners of the "Valuables by CENT" trademark can use existing legal structures to prevent anyone else using that name. Meanwhile the NFT is digitally linked to the Valuables by CENT smart contract on Ethereum, which will presumably have an 'author' property attached to it, set to the string "Valuables by CENT".
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  > The enforcement, interestingly, is more traditional; Ah, so they pinkie swear not to do it a second time?
  - cachvico 6y ago
    It would be equivalent of Sotheby's starting a second brand competing with themselves, but yes.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
      Sotheby's was founded in 1744 (1). They have a track record, a _brand_ to maintain. Your average blockchain was founded recently, and have a lot less to lose taking the money and running, or popping up again under a new name, for a second go at the same shtick. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotheby%27s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotheby%27s
a1369209993 6y ago
> Also, how is "there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates" technically enforced? A Merkle chain[0] append-only ledger contains a transaction minting the certificate, and the consistency rules for that Merkle chain mean that any extension of the chain which mints another such certificate is not valid (the same as a extension that spends money from a account with no money in it is not valid). 0: technically a blockchain specifically, but that's not actually relevant

cachvico 6y ago

Correct. Although there is only one brand that has sold a Tweet NFT for $3mil. The enforcement, interestingly, is more traditional; the owners of the "Valuables by CENT" trademark can use existing legal structures to prevent anyone else using that name. Meanwhile the NFT is digitally linked to the Valuables by CENT smart contract on Ethereum, which will presumably have an 'author' property attached to it, set to the string "Valuables by CENT".

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> The enforcement, interestingly, is more traditional; Ah, so they pinkie swear not to do it a second time?
- cachvico 6y ago
  It would be equivalent of Sotheby's starting a second brand competing with themselves, but yes.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
    Sotheby's was founded in 1744 (1). They have a track record, a _brand_ to maintain. Your average blockchain was founded recently, and have a lot less to lose taking the money and running, or popping up again under a new name, for a second go at the same shtick. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotheby%27s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotheby%27s

a1369209993 6y ago

> Also, how is "there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates" technically enforced? A Merkle chain[0] append-only ledger contains a transaction minting the certificate, and the consistency rules for that Merkle chain mean that any extension of the chain which mints another such certificate is not valid (the same as a extension that spends money from a account with no money in it is not valid). 0: technically a blockchain specifically, but that's not actually relevant