7 ms·

because NFTs are built in (and for) digital artifacts. In the digital world the actual "artifact" (the object of art) is digital. NFTs 'solve' this problem by n

by bsedlm 5y ago

because NFTs are built in (and for) digital artifacts. In the digital world the actual "artifact" (the object of art) is digital. NFTs 'solve' this problem by not caring about the fact that the artwork can (and will) be freely copied with no cost. Maybe it is better to think about NFTs as public official (blockchain-backed) certificates of donation (or support) rather than assets.

brutusborn 5y ago
If the NFTs don't care that the artwork can be copied, what is their use case? If I own the NFT for a digital file that other people have copies of, what do I actually use the NFT for? The only thing I can think is proof of authorship, but private key cryptograph already solves that. Edit: after reading some other replies I've come to the conclusion that NFTs provide a way to prove who put a file on the blockchain first. Thus the use case is trustless transfer of the ownership of this fact of "being first", which is where the scarcity of the NFT comes from and thus the value.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  I suppose their "utility" is that they can be traded.
  - web2sucks 5y ago
    And they can be used as collateral in defi smart contracts.
- zrail 5y ago
  The purpose of NFTs is to extract as much money out of people willing to trade them as possible before the whole thing falls apart. The end.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- moron4hire 5y ago
  My understanding is that people don't even mint whole files due to the cost of minting scaling with the size of the data, so they are minting links to the files, which you then have to hope always point to that file.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - twox2 5y ago
    There are plenty of projects that store either the art or verifiable metadata directly on chain.
    - moron4hire 5y ago
      This not being a universal property of NFTs undermines the entire system.
      - twox2 5y ago
        To some extent I can capitulate on that, but you are right in that this system does not solve for "caveat emptor".
- web2sucks 5y ago
  In-game items are a great use for NFTs because they provide ownership outside the game and can traded on 3rd party markets. For example, i purchased a plot of land on cryptovoxels. Each individual plot of land is linked to a unique NFT. When i log into the game with my ethereum account (web3), then i gain build access to the plots of land that i own the NFTs for.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    What do you own when the game is shut down?
  - acdha 5y ago
    How is that different from paying for it with a microtransaction? You still have no rights outside of what the developer implements[1] and when they shut down, your token’s value rapidly approaches zero. 1. For example, say they sell to one of the big companies and the new boss with an MBA in gamer milking decides that virtual land needs annual property taxes, utilities, and improvements purchased from the company store or it’ll be reclaimed or simply that they’re creating new, more desirable terrain which will devalue yours. They control the code and servers, so your options are paying, giving up, or trying to convince other players to build, operate, and adopt a clone. The blockchain’s heavy cost doesn’t appear to be providing anything significant.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    In a virtual world why the shit are you paying for a "plot of land"? It's not real land. There's not a finite amount. It's not made out of only the finest free range grass fed bits.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      A fool and his digital property are soon parted.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  Except that, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone else from putting the exact same data in another block in the chain, and claiming that is "first" instead. And unless you already know the first copy exists, there's no way to find it via the blockchain itself, and so no way to prove "first" without already knowing it's the first.
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    I only have a fairly basic understanding of crypto, so this may be a very naive view, but I thought it was the same as bitcoin, whereby the whole network eventually comes to a consensus on the order of transactions / blocks on the chain?
    - wccrawford 5y ago
      Sure, but if I post data to the blockchain (perhaps a URL to an XKCD comic) and someone else posts that exact same data another time, how would we even know each other posted it? At some point, it's practically impossible to search the entire block chain. Now suppose each of use are selling the 'first' post of that data. How does a buyer know that we're really the first? And so I'm saying that even claiming 'first' is practically impossible via blockchain. Even if someone knew about both of the instances above and could arbitrate between them, there might be a third, older instance yet.
      - brutusborn 5y ago
        Why is it impossible to search the block chain? Isn't this how bitcoin works: to accept a transaction, all transactions with the relevant accounts must be searched and summed to ensure there are enough funds?
Jensson 5y ago
There is nothing official about NFTs, and since they can be traded they aren't a donation log either. When I watch a youtube video they often display donors, that is official. If the artist himself posts about donors, then that is official. If the artist posts "these NFTs are official", then why couldn't the artist just post "these people donated" instead? It is the same thing, it is the same level of authority, the NFT itself doesn't make anything more valid or official or less likely to get corrupted or forgotten.
- bhaak 5y ago
  That's not machine readable and it needs action from the original artist. NFT can be exchanged without the original artist doing anything and the artist can still get a provision from that.
  - kibwen 5y ago
    > NFT can be exchanged without the original artist doing anything and the artist can still get a provision from that. Which only goes to prove that NFTs don't provide ownership. The doctrine of first sale limits the power of IP by giving consumers ownership. This mechanism eliminates the doctrine of first sale, giving even more power to IP holders and destroying the concept of ownership.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Why would you trade support for an artist? Do you really think that people want to trade support for an artist? Like "I don't really want to get credit for this artist any longer, so now I sell it for profit!"? How does that make sense? And then the next guy who paid me for it, why didn't he just support the artist directly instead of giving me a cut? It is all just stupid. > That's not machine readable and it needs action from the original artist. That is the whole point, I donate to the artist and the artist shows me gratitude by performing an action for me, like including my name in his videos!
    - iamacyborg 5y ago
      > It is all just stupid. Right. If you want to support an artist, you can just commision to produce a new original piece.
xondono 5y ago
Except they really don’t. The tokens are blockchain-backed, the digital artifact itself isn’t. To be what you define, I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact and then create a second token. The token should, in some way, behave like a hash, where the blockchain should complain that this digital asset has been accounted for already.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  > Except they really don’t. now that I've thought about it for a bit longer, I think you're right. > I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact no, because then the NFT would be exactly the same as the digital artifact, and they're not. that's the point I'm trying to make. I suppose they fact that NFTs can be traded is what's so weird about them (and why my own argument fails).
  - xondono 5y ago
    > no, because then the NFT would be exactly the same as the digital artifact I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact and then create a second token. You should be able to copy the digital asset, but the second part (creating a new token) should fail. Otherwise what’s the point?
- Dagonfly 5y ago
  Technically even the token isn't directly blockchain-backed. ERC-721 (the base standard) only requires a URI to a metadata file. That file may contain a link to the asset (JPG or whatever). So there are 2 indirections. Hopefully both are IPFS addresses. Of course, there are other NFT implementations that store metadata directly in the smart contract, but that requires a lot more gas.

by bsedlm 5y ago

brutusborn 5y ago

If the NFTs don't care that the artwork can be copied, what is their use case? If I own the NFT for a digital file that other people have copies of, what do I actually use the NFT for? The only thing I can think is proof of authorship, but private key cryptograph already solves that. Edit: after reading some other replies I've come to the conclusion that NFTs provide a way to prove who put a file on the blockchain first. Thus the use case is trustless transfer of the ownership of this fact of "being first", which is where the scarcity of the NFT comes from and thus the value.

bsedlm 5y ago
I suppose their "utility" is that they can be traded.
- web2sucks 5y ago
  And they can be used as collateral in defi smart contracts.
zrail 5y ago
The purpose of NFTs is to extract as much money out of people willing to trade them as possible before the whole thing falls apart. The end.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moron4hire 5y ago
My understanding is that people don't even mint whole files due to the cost of minting scaling with the size of the data, so they are minting links to the files, which you then have to hope always point to that file.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- twox2 5y ago
  There are plenty of projects that store either the art or verifiable metadata directly on chain.
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    This not being a universal property of NFTs undermines the entire system.
    - twox2 5y ago
      To some extent I can capitulate on that, but you are right in that this system does not solve for "caveat emptor".
web2sucks 5y ago
In-game items are a great use for NFTs because they provide ownership outside the game and can traded on 3rd party markets. For example, i purchased a plot of land on cryptovoxels. Each individual plot of land is linked to a unique NFT. When i log into the game with my ethereum account (web3), then i gain build access to the plots of land that i own the NFTs for.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  What do you own when the game is shut down?
- acdha 5y ago
  How is that different from paying for it with a microtransaction? You still have no rights outside of what the developer implements[1] and when they shut down, your token’s value rapidly approaches zero. 1. For example, say they sell to one of the big companies and the new boss with an MBA in gamer milking decides that virtual land needs annual property taxes, utilities, and improvements purchased from the company store or it’ll be reclaimed or simply that they’re creating new, more desirable terrain which will devalue yours. They control the code and servers, so your options are paying, giving up, or trying to convince other players to build, operate, and adopt a clone. The blockchain’s heavy cost doesn’t appear to be providing anything significant.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  In a virtual world why the shit are you paying for a "plot of land"? It's not real land. There's not a finite amount. It's not made out of only the finest free range grass fed bits.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    A fool and his digital property are soon parted.
wccrawford 5y ago
Except that, so far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone else from putting the exact same data in another block in the chain, and claiming that is "first" instead. And unless you already know the first copy exists, there's no way to find it via the blockchain itself, and so no way to prove "first" without already knowing it's the first.
- brutusborn 5y ago
  I only have a fairly basic understanding of crypto, so this may be a very naive view, but I thought it was the same as bitcoin, whereby the whole network eventually comes to a consensus on the order of transactions / blocks on the chain?
  - wccrawford 5y ago
    Sure, but if I post data to the blockchain (perhaps a URL to an XKCD comic) and someone else posts that exact same data another time, how would we even know each other posted it? At some point, it's practically impossible to search the entire block chain. Now suppose each of use are selling the 'first' post of that data. How does a buyer know that we're really the first? And so I'm saying that even claiming 'first' is practically impossible via blockchain. Even if someone knew about both of the instances above and could arbitrate between them, there might be a third, older instance yet.
    - brutusborn 5y ago
      Why is it impossible to search the block chain? Isn't this how bitcoin works: to accept a transaction, all transactions with the relevant accounts must be searched and summed to ensure there are enough funds?

Jensson 5y ago

There is nothing official about NFTs, and since they can be traded they aren't a donation log either. When I watch a youtube video they often display donors, that is official. If the artist himself posts about donors, then that is official. If the artist posts "these NFTs are official", then why couldn't the artist just post "these people donated" instead? It is the same thing, it is the same level of authority, the NFT itself doesn't make anything more valid or official or less likely to get corrupted or forgotten.

bhaak 5y ago
That's not machine readable and it needs action from the original artist. NFT can be exchanged without the original artist doing anything and the artist can still get a provision from that.
- kibwen 5y ago
  > NFT can be exchanged without the original artist doing anything and the artist can still get a provision from that. Which only goes to prove that NFTs don't provide ownership. The doctrine of first sale limits the power of IP by giving consumers ownership. This mechanism eliminates the doctrine of first sale, giving even more power to IP holders and destroying the concept of ownership.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Why would you trade support for an artist? Do you really think that people want to trade support for an artist? Like "I don't really want to get credit for this artist any longer, so now I sell it for profit!"? How does that make sense? And then the next guy who paid me for it, why didn't he just support the artist directly instead of giving me a cut? It is all just stupid. > That's not machine readable and it needs action from the original artist. That is the whole point, I donate to the artist and the artist shows me gratitude by performing an action for me, like including my name in his videos!
  - iamacyborg 5y ago
    > It is all just stupid. Right. If you want to support an artist, you can just commision to produce a new original piece.

xondono 5y ago

Except they really don’t. The tokens are blockchain-backed, the digital artifact itself isn’t. To be what you define, I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact and then create a second token. The token should, in some way, behave like a hash, where the blockchain should complain that this digital asset has been accounted for already.

bsedlm 5y ago
> Except they really don’t. now that I've thought about it for a bit longer, I think you're right. > I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact no, because then the NFT would be exactly the same as the digital artifact, and they're not. that's the point I'm trying to make. I suppose they fact that NFTs can be traded is what's so weird about them (and why my own argument fails).
- xondono 5y ago
  > no, because then the NFT would be exactly the same as the digital artifact I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact and then create a second token. You should be able to copy the digital asset, but the second part (creating a new token) should fail. Otherwise what’s the point?
Dagonfly 5y ago
Technically even the token isn't directly blockchain-backed. ERC-721 (the base standard) only requires a URI to a metadata file. That file may contain a link to the asset (JPG or whatever). So there are 2 indirections. Hopefully both are IPFS addresses. Of course, there are other NFT implementations that store metadata directly in the smart contract, but that requires a lot more gas.