3 ms·

NFT's really confuse me. Take the Mona Lisa for example: if the Louvre were ever to make their own NFT (perhaps with some embedded proof it was them creating

NFT's really confuse me. Take the Mona Lisa for example: if the Louvre were ever to make their own NFT (perhaps with some embedded proof it was them creating it), wouldn't the "stolen" one suddenly lose all value? I get NFTs from the perspective of "proof that you were first person able to claim a thing because you made it," and that having value. But claiming other peoples stuff seems like it's just going to correct itself.

octopaulus 5y ago
You're thinking too hard, nfts will never take as much effort as the old millennia painters put in
smt88 5y ago
NFTs can't embed proof that they were created by anyone. That's the core problem with all crypto: it can prove on-chain, digital events, but it can't prove anything in the real world. I can prove you owned an NFT and that I own it now, but I can't prove anything about that NFT's connection to the real, human world. Similarly, I can make a smart contract that says you have to give me 50% of your income, but I can't enforce it outside of the chain that the contract was deployed on. If someone pays you with a different currency, the contract immediately fails to enforce itself.
- the_snooze 5y ago
  >That's the core problem with all crypto: it can prove on-chain, digital events, but it can't prove anything in the real world. This is really the core problem with the cryptocurrency space. The whole "iT'S tRUSsLeSs" claim is complete nonsense as soon as you try to attach it to any meatspace system. And you need that bridge to the offline world to solve interesting problems.
- seph-reed 5y ago
  > NFTs can't embed proof that they were created by anyone NFT's aren inherent proof, but they can embed proof (if it exists). If I took a photo of an idable, signed and noterized document stating that "the owner of X NFT is the owner of Y real item," then made that photo into an NFT, that would be embedding proof.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > If I took a photo of an idable, signed and noterized document stating that "the owner of X NFT is the owner of Y real item," then made that photo into an NFT, that would be embedding proof. First of all, you're essentially talking about DRM. The signed and notarized contract is what determines ownership, not the NFT. It's centralized in (and can be modified by) the legal system. For example, that contract could be nullified or invalidated by a court opinion, and the NFT becomes meaningless. It's just a digital document with a paper trail. Think of it like this: does a Google Photo become more useful if A) it can only be on one computer at a time, and B) I have a log of every computer it's ever been on? I could also copy the embedded digital asset and put it into a different NFT. Then there would be two NFTs with the exact same "proof" in them. Which is the real one? The document can't specify which NFT it applies to because the NFT is minted after the document is signed.
    - seph-reed 5y ago
      > Then there would be two NFTs with the exact same "proof" in them. Which is the real one? The one that came first. Are you really that invested in claiming knowledge on this subject? If so, how could you not immediately grok that this would be the answer? > For example, that contract could be nullified or invalidated by a court opinion Or it could be not. In which case, it would be embedding proof. Your argument hinges on the idea that something is impossible yet requires special circumstances to make it so, while my argument is that something is possible and gives an imaginable scenario for it.
      - smt88 5y ago
        > The one that came first. Are you really that invested in claiming knowledge on this subject? If so, how could you not immediately grok that this would be the answer? Sorry, you're right. I was talking about something theoretical instead of something practical. In real life, it would make more sense for a fraudster to sell NFTs with their own forged contracts, e.g.: a photo of a signed, notarized paper document saying that the owner of the NFT owns ____ artwork. In that case, they could either sell their forged NFTs without waiting for the artwork's owner to create their own, or they could only forge NFTs of famous pieces and hope that they become NFTs. If, for example, you know that a certain painter's work is being sold as NFTs, one by one, then you could reasonably expect to create a confusing enough (though not identical) NFT with an earlier timestamp. The point, though, is that the NFT is a photo of a contract, not a contract. > Or it could be not. In which case, it would be embedding proof. Yes, but as a buyer, how do I know the difference? After the contract is nullified, the NFT could still be transacted. The NFT is unreliable, so, again, it's absolutely meaningless in terms of ownership.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
An NFT is just a string of characters that may or may not have relevance in the real world.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway744678 5y ago
Close enough, announced yesterday: https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/2bebd933495c4fe6aac535a5b2f27bf8 https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/2bebd933495c...
da_chicken 5y ago
You know how they say money only has value because people want it? It's like that, except nobody wants it.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
NFTs are simply part of the high-end art market getting rid of the art, as it is an unnecessary distraction from what's actually going on in that part of the market.

octopaulus 5y ago

You're thinking too hard, nfts will never take as much effort as the old millennia painters put in

smt88 5y ago

NFTs can't embed proof that they were created by anyone. That's the core problem with all crypto: it can prove on-chain, digital events, but it can't prove anything in the real world. I can prove you owned an NFT and that I own it now, but I can't prove anything about that NFT's connection to the real, human world. Similarly, I can make a smart contract that says you have to give me 50% of your income, but I can't enforce it outside of the chain that the contract was deployed on. If someone pays you with a different currency, the contract immediately fails to enforce itself.

the_snooze 5y ago
>That's the core problem with all crypto: it can prove on-chain, digital events, but it can't prove anything in the real world. This is really the core problem with the cryptocurrency space. The whole "iT'S tRUSsLeSs" claim is complete nonsense as soon as you try to attach it to any meatspace system. And you need that bridge to the offline world to solve interesting problems.
seph-reed 5y ago
> NFTs can't embed proof that they were created by anyone NFT's aren inherent proof, but they can embed proof (if it exists). If I took a photo of an idable, signed and noterized document stating that "the owner of X NFT is the owner of Y real item," then made that photo into an NFT, that would be embedding proof.
- smt88 5y ago
  > If I took a photo of an idable, signed and noterized document stating that "the owner of X NFT is the owner of Y real item," then made that photo into an NFT, that would be embedding proof. First of all, you're essentially talking about DRM. The signed and notarized contract is what determines ownership, not the NFT. It's centralized in (and can be modified by) the legal system. For example, that contract could be nullified or invalidated by a court opinion, and the NFT becomes meaningless. It's just a digital document with a paper trail. Think of it like this: does a Google Photo become more useful if A) it can only be on one computer at a time, and B) I have a log of every computer it's ever been on? I could also copy the embedded digital asset and put it into a different NFT. Then there would be two NFTs with the exact same "proof" in them. Which is the real one? The document can't specify which NFT it applies to because the NFT is minted after the document is signed.
  - seph-reed 5y ago
    > Then there would be two NFTs with the exact same "proof" in them. Which is the real one? The one that came first. Are you really that invested in claiming knowledge on this subject? If so, how could you not immediately grok that this would be the answer? > For example, that contract could be nullified or invalidated by a court opinion Or it could be not. In which case, it would be embedding proof. Your argument hinges on the idea that something is impossible yet requires special circumstances to make it so, while my argument is that something is possible and gives an imaginable scenario for it.
    - smt88 5y ago
      > The one that came first. Are you really that invested in claiming knowledge on this subject? If so, how could you not immediately grok that this would be the answer? Sorry, you're right. I was talking about something theoretical instead of something practical. In real life, it would make more sense for a fraudster to sell NFTs with their own forged contracts, e.g.: a photo of a signed, notarized paper document saying that the owner of the NFT owns ____ artwork. In that case, they could either sell their forged NFTs without waiting for the artwork's owner to create their own, or they could only forge NFTs of famous pieces and hope that they become NFTs. If, for example, you know that a certain painter's work is being sold as NFTs, one by one, then you could reasonably expect to create a confusing enough (though not identical) NFT with an earlier timestamp. The point, though, is that the NFT is a photo of a contract, not a contract. > Or it could be not. In which case, it would be embedding proof. Yes, but as a buyer, how do I know the difference? After the contract is nullified, the NFT could still be transacted. The NFT is unreliable, so, again, it's absolutely meaningless in terms of ownership.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

An NFT is just a string of characters that may or may not have relevance in the real world.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwaway744678 5y ago

Close enough, announced yesterday: https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/2bebd933495c4fe6aac535a5b2f27bf8 https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/2bebd933495c...

da_chicken 5y ago

You know how they say money only has value because people want it? It's like that, except nobody wants it.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

NFTs are simply part of the high-end art market getting rid of the art, as it is an unnecessary distraction from what's actually going on in that part of the market.