4 ms·

There are blockchain storage projects; NFTs will probably move to on-chain storage at some point in the future. Even with this though, the data will likely nee

There are blockchain storage projects; NFTs will probably move to on-chain storage at some point in the future. Even with this though, the data will likely need to be cached somewhere more "traditional" though. Accessing on chain storage likely wouldn't be free.

alexeldeib 6y ago
I think it’s already technically possible? The gas fees would likely be exorbitant
- thebean11 6y ago
  Right I think it'd be way too expensive to store it on the Ethereum chain itself, and not good for the network if every node operator has to save a million basketball videos. There are projects though with "trustless" storage, where people are paid to store data offchain, and they periodically prove they still have the data available.
  - alexeldeib 6y ago
    Assuming you mean things like filecoin which is basically paid incentives + proofs on top of IPFS? Do you feel that is a viable solution longer term?
    - thebean11 6y ago
      Yeah I do think it's viable long term. The owner of the NFT would likely need to pay a small upkeep to keep the data stored though.
zepto 6y ago
I guess I don’t really understand why storage matters - see my other comment. Bits are bits - all that matters is nominal ownership of the bit pattern representing the artwork as attested to by the artists signature. There is no original version of the stored bits.
- thebean11 6y ago
  Agree with bits are bits, the point would be to not rely at all on centralized hosting of those bits. For example, if NBA TopShots shuts down and I didn't save my video clip it could be lost forever. The URLs currently stored on-chain point at something mutable, ideally they would point to something as immutable as the signature itself.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Sure - understood, but not backing up your valuable data seems like an entirely separate problem and really orthogonal to NFTs.
    - thebean11 6y ago
      Even with a good backup strategy you're still prone to the link going down, something you can't fix since you don't own the domain. That's pretty non-ideal IMO
      - zepto 6y ago
        My point is that the link is not very relevant. It’s just an interesting piece of metadata. Like a certificate of authenticity saying which gallery a piece of artwork was first shown in. You could even make the case that the original storage company ceasing to exist increases the historical value and rarity of the artwork since it becomes anchored to an era which is now past.
        thebean11 6y ago
        The link is super relevant when I'm trying to sell the NFT. Without it, you need some communication channel / hosting _outside_ of the blockchain to communicate what I'm trying to sell, it complicates things for a NFT market smart contract. I don't buy that a broken link on an NFT would make it worth more. In a year 99% of these NFT projects will be gone, broken links won't be anything special..

alexeldeib 6y ago

I think it’s already technically possible? The gas fees would likely be exorbitant

thebean11 6y ago
Right I think it'd be way too expensive to store it on the Ethereum chain itself, and not good for the network if every node operator has to save a million basketball videos. There are projects though with "trustless" storage, where people are paid to store data offchain, and they periodically prove they still have the data available.
- alexeldeib 6y ago
  Assuming you mean things like filecoin which is basically paid incentives + proofs on top of IPFS? Do you feel that is a viable solution longer term?
  - thebean11 6y ago
    Yeah I do think it's viable long term. The owner of the NFT would likely need to pay a small upkeep to keep the data stored though.

zepto 6y ago

I guess I don’t really understand why storage matters - see my other comment. Bits are bits - all that matters is nominal ownership of the bit pattern representing the artwork as attested to by the artists signature. There is no original version of the stored bits.

thebean11 6y ago
Agree with bits are bits, the point would be to not rely at all on centralized hosting of those bits. For example, if NBA TopShots shuts down and I didn't save my video clip it could be lost forever. The URLs currently stored on-chain point at something mutable, ideally they would point to something as immutable as the signature itself.
- zepto 6y ago
  Sure - understood, but not backing up your valuable data seems like an entirely separate problem and really orthogonal to NFTs.
  - thebean11 6y ago
    Even with a good backup strategy you're still prone to the link going down, something you can't fix since you don't own the domain. That's pretty non-ideal IMO
    - zepto 6y ago
      My point is that the link is not very relevant. It’s just an interesting piece of metadata. Like a certificate of authenticity saying which gallery a piece of artwork was first shown in. You could even make the case that the original storage company ceasing to exist increases the historical value and rarity of the artwork since it becomes anchored to an era which is now past.
      - thebean11 6y ago
        The link is super relevant when I'm trying to sell the NFT. Without it, you need some communication channel / hosting _outside_ of the blockchain to communicate what I'm trying to sell, it complicates things for a NFT market smart contract. I don't buy that a broken link on an NFT would make it worth more. In a year 99% of these NFT projects will be gone, broken links won't be anything special..