4 ms·

There is a ton of useless hype and noise in crypto/blockchain/web3, and this is what the average person is probably exposed to. There are also some new and int

There is a ton of useless hype and noise in crypto/blockchain/web3, and this is what the average person is probably exposed to. There are also some new and interesting paradigms however, that enable different systems and possibilities on the web than what we can achieve with our traditional, centralized walled gardens and payment services. See here for an idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28816818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28816818

acdha 5y ago
That’s just describing things we already have better, cheaper, and more sustainable versions of. Digital artwork is not magic: someone holds the copyright and needs to pay for hosting. NFTs don’t help the first problem because blockchains are too inefficient; IPFS helps only if you find value in paying for your hosting using that protocol rather than something else — nobody is hosting DRMed content for free so it’s just a question of what storage characteristics fit your budget. Since blockchains are inefficient, more expensive, and require you to maintain a complex operating network coordinated with other people just to use them, that’s unlikely to be a preservation success. Rights is similar: NFTs are a distraction by people trying to get you to buy their Ethereum. What actually matters is a legal statement transferring ownership – if you have an NFT and the artist says they didn’t sell the rights, you’ll get laughed out of court but the reverse is true if you have any statement from the artist saying they did – we don’t need PKI, even, a witnessed email or note will suffice. That’s important for the discussion about forking: just as nobody is offering truly free hosting, whatever “the community” says is noise — what matters is what a court accepts, and a community which tries to ignore that will get DMCAed off of the internet.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  NFT isn’t attempting to solve DRM or copyright. Likewise, when an artist sells you a signed print, they are not giving you any copyright over the art - nor should they. Not sure what you are arguing about hosting. IPFS is already working well for many NFT projects, because the artist + collectors have an economic incentive to continue to host and maintain the media pointed to by the blockchain tokens.
  - acdha 5y ago
    You described a vision where “the assets still live on the blockchain, and a new platform can easily emerge on top of the same data if there is enough interest” — that requires copyright and hosting to be work. If the assets aren’t on the blockchain and copyright is handled elsewhere as well, we are left with the question of what value the blockchain is providing other than the opportunity to create a market for Ethereum. Also, you may perhaps be aware that NFTs don’t usually convey ownership but a high percentage of the discussion confuses that. Whether or not that’s an intentional sales tactic there are a lot of people who’ve been confused on that point and left wondering why the price is so high for a link to content owned by someone else hosted somewhere else.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      The vision already exists. Assets on ArtBlocks for example are hosted on the chain itself, and several sites exist to display, facilitate, organize, etc the tokens. Similar things are happening off-chain (see Hicetnunc) with ipfs. Ownership in the context of NFT is not about ownership of the artistic intellectual property. Further reading: https://nathanielstern.com/text/2021/custodianship-copyright-and-provenance-on-the-non-monetary-value-of-nfts/ https://nathanielstern.com/text/2021/custodianship-copyright...
      - acdha 5y ago
        > The vision already exists. Assets on ArtBlocks for example are hosted on the chain itself, and several sites exist to display, facilitate, organize, etc the tokens. Similar things are happening off-chain (see Hicetnunc) with ipfs. How does pricing compare to the existing options? On-chain hosting already limits you to public works, which many people are not going to be comfortable with, but this usually comes down to cost and reliability. > Ownership in the context of NFT is not about ownership of the artistic intellectual property. I'm aware but that's not how most of the marketing sounds and it also gets into the question of value. If an NFT doesn't convey real rights and requires paying more for hosting (which is also separate in the case of almost all NFTs currently), the ceiling for long-term value is pretty low.

acdha 5y ago

That’s just describing things we already have better, cheaper, and more sustainable versions of. Digital artwork is not magic: someone holds the copyright and needs to pay for hosting. NFTs don’t help the first problem because blockchains are too inefficient; IPFS helps only if you find value in paying for your hosting using that protocol rather than something else — nobody is hosting DRMed content for free so it’s just a question of what storage characteristics fit your budget. Since blockchains are inefficient, more expensive, and require you to maintain a complex operating network coordinated with other people just to use them, that’s unlikely to be a preservation success. Rights is similar: NFTs are a distraction by people trying to get you to buy their Ethereum. What actually matters is a legal statement transferring ownership – if you have an NFT and the artist says they didn’t sell the rights, you’ll get laughed out of court but the reverse is true if you have any statement from the artist saying they did – we don’t need PKI, even, a witnessed email or note will suffice. That’s important for the discussion about forking: just as nobody is offering truly free hosting, whatever “the community” says is noise — what matters is what a court accepts, and a community which tries to ignore that will get DMCAed off of the internet.

mattdesl 5y ago
NFT isn’t attempting to solve DRM or copyright. Likewise, when an artist sells you a signed print, they are not giving you any copyright over the art - nor should they. Not sure what you are arguing about hosting. IPFS is already working well for many NFT projects, because the artist + collectors have an economic incentive to continue to host and maintain the media pointed to by the blockchain tokens.
- acdha 5y ago
  You described a vision where “the assets still live on the blockchain, and a new platform can easily emerge on top of the same data if there is enough interest” — that requires copyright and hosting to be work. If the assets aren’t on the blockchain and copyright is handled elsewhere as well, we are left with the question of what value the blockchain is providing other than the opportunity to create a market for Ethereum. Also, you may perhaps be aware that NFTs don’t usually convey ownership but a high percentage of the discussion confuses that. Whether or not that’s an intentional sales tactic there are a lot of people who’ve been confused on that point and left wondering why the price is so high for a link to content owned by someone else hosted somewhere else.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    The vision already exists. Assets on ArtBlocks for example are hosted on the chain itself, and several sites exist to display, facilitate, organize, etc the tokens. Similar things are happening off-chain (see Hicetnunc) with ipfs. Ownership in the context of NFT is not about ownership of the artistic intellectual property. Further reading: https://nathanielstern.com/text/2021/custodianship-copyright-and-provenance-on-the-non-monetary-value-of-nfts/ https://nathanielstern.com/text/2021/custodianship-copyright...
    - acdha 5y ago
      > The vision already exists. Assets on ArtBlocks for example are hosted on the chain itself, and several sites exist to display, facilitate, organize, etc the tokens. Similar things are happening off-chain (see Hicetnunc) with ipfs. How does pricing compare to the existing options? On-chain hosting already limits you to public works, which many people are not going to be comfortable with, but this usually comes down to cost and reliability. > Ownership in the context of NFT is not about ownership of the artistic intellectual property. I'm aware but that's not how most of the marketing sounds and it also gets into the question of value. If an NFT doesn't convey real rights and requires paying more for hosting (which is also separate in the case of almost all NFTs currently), the ceiling for long-term value is pretty low.