6 ms·

The timestamp and signature would disprove your claim, and evidence of your fraud would perpetually exist on the blockchain if someone wanted to hold you accoun

The timestamp and signature would disprove your claim, and evidence of your fraud would perpetually exist on the blockchain if someone wanted to hold you accountable.

willio58 5y ago
Yeah this is the thing. You can’t prove ownership if you copy paste a jpeg or a url. You prove ownership with the blockchain.
- neilalexander 5y ago
  The blockchain tells you that you "own" whatever was at the URL at the point of time that it was written onto the chain. There is no continuing or on-going guarantee that the content at the URL won't change after that. If there is no content hash in the receipt and the original URL is now defunct, how do you prove authenticity?
  - programmarchy 5y ago
    One way would be to store a hash of the content at that URL with the NFT, but there's actually a better way. IPFS supports the concept of immutability [1], so you could just use an IPFS URL with a content identifier. It also allows for revisions linked to the original content identifier. [1] https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/immutability/ https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/immutability/
    - neilalexander 5y ago
      While this coincidentally works for IPFS CIDs, it's not clear why hashes wouldn't be first-class fields in the NFT itself.
    - jordemort 5y ago
      Is it correct that things can disappear from IPFS, if nobody is continuing to bother to pin the content? It seems like you could get an immutable URL this way, but that there's still no guarantee that the URL will remain accessible.
      - neilalexander 5y ago
        Yes, that is correct. The IPFS nodes with the relevant content may go offline, people who are pinning the content may just decide to not pin it anymore for whatever reason and then eventually the content would just disappear from people's caches.
jordemort 5y ago
Sure, if I was foolish enough to do things with a key that could easily linked back to my real identity, and if the buyer was careful enough to check if my reprinted NFT was the "real" one. Would it be accurate to say that, from another perspective, the counterfeit NFTs I issued would stay on the blockchain in perpetuity, with no on-chain indications (aside, of course, from timestamp and key) of their fraudulent nature, and that they could be resold over and over to defraud additional careless buyers? Is there some sort of registry of fake/fraudulent NFTs or is it all caveat emptor, hope you read the right blogs?
- jordemort 5y ago
  What I'm particularly interested in here is stuff that proposes to use NFTs as avatars or something similar - if I go mint my own counterfeit ape and make it my avatar, are those apps going to happily display that I have "verified ownership" of it? Is there any recourse there aside from every app locking down to an explicitly allowed list of keys from "verified NFT producers," or every app playing whack-a-mole with the keys of known bad actors, or establishing some sort of off-chain database of content hashes and the keys that are supposed to own them?

The timestamp and signature would disprove your claim, and evidence of your fraud would perpetually exist on the blockchain if someone wanted to hold you accountable.

willio58 5y ago

Yeah this is the thing. You can’t prove ownership if you copy paste a jpeg or a url. You prove ownership with the blockchain.

neilalexander 5y ago
The blockchain tells you that you "own" whatever was at the URL at the point of time that it was written onto the chain. There is no continuing or on-going guarantee that the content at the URL won't change after that. If there is no content hash in the receipt and the original URL is now defunct, how do you prove authenticity?
- programmarchy 5y ago
  One way would be to store a hash of the content at that URL with the NFT, but there's actually a better way. IPFS supports the concept of immutability [1], so you could just use an IPFS URL with a content identifier. It also allows for revisions linked to the original content identifier. [1] https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/immutability/ https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/immutability/
  - neilalexander 5y ago
    While this coincidentally works for IPFS CIDs, it's not clear why hashes wouldn't be first-class fields in the NFT itself.
  - jordemort 5y ago
    Is it correct that things can disappear from IPFS, if nobody is continuing to bother to pin the content? It seems like you could get an immutable URL this way, but that there's still no guarantee that the URL will remain accessible.
    - neilalexander 5y ago
      Yes, that is correct. The IPFS nodes with the relevant content may go offline, people who are pinning the content may just decide to not pin it anymore for whatever reason and then eventually the content would just disappear from people's caches.

jordemort 5y ago

Sure, if I was foolish enough to do things with a key that could easily linked back to my real identity, and if the buyer was careful enough to check if my reprinted NFT was the "real" one. Would it be accurate to say that, from another perspective, the counterfeit NFTs I issued would stay on the blockchain in perpetuity, with no on-chain indications (aside, of course, from timestamp and key) of their fraudulent nature, and that they could be resold over and over to defraud additional careless buyers? Is there some sort of registry of fake/fraudulent NFTs or is it all caveat emptor, hope you read the right blogs?

jordemort 5y ago
What I'm particularly interested in here is stuff that proposes to use NFTs as avatars or something similar - if I go mint my own counterfeit ape and make it my avatar, are those apps going to happily display that I have "verified ownership" of it? Is there any recourse there aside from every app locking down to an explicitly allowed list of keys from "verified NFT producers," or every app playing whack-a-mole with the keys of known bad actors, or establishing some sort of off-chain database of content hashes and the keys that are supposed to own them?