4 ms·
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 di
by 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 agoTechnically 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.