4 ms·

As someone who likes NFTs in theory, the "it's just a url" problem is a real stumbling block for me, because it's a point of fragility for the asset. If the NF

As someone who likes NFTs in theory, the "it's just a url" problem is a real stumbling block for me, because it's a point of fragility for the asset. If the NFT is just a URL, and there's nothing within the NFT itself that provably links it to a specific work of media, and ideally a signature from the original artist, then there's no way to be absolutely certain that the piece of media currently vended by the URL is in fact the same piece of media vended 10 years ago when it was minted. You could have a situation where people mint NFTs as "shell art" that they trade back and forth to create some kind of established history of value, and then stick in some new piece of art at a later date with a false history of value. Or the URL host could go under or get corrupted by bad actors and start vending the wrong data, and still, you'd have no way to prove what the original digital media was. That's honestly a blocker for me. Now, if the NFT actually included a hash of the media AND a digital signature of the artist that could be externally verified, then I might be interested.

Gigachad 5y ago
The thing is, the whole thing depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying any of it. If you see someone with a monkey profile picture, you aren't going to download some specialized software and finding it in the blockchain, verifying that the twitter user is in control of the wallet holding the token and finding the artists keys to check the signature is valid and then auditing other chains and other tokens to check that the same picture was not sold multiple times which would involve scraping the URLs and doing image comparisons. All to verify that this twitter user actually did spend this money for a monkey picture.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  The value of an original Picasso depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying it. Most arguments against NFTs could be levied just as effectively against the premium value of original physical art. Or do you hold the view that art as an asset in general is a scam?
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    There are only a very limited number of paintings that people actually care about being genuine. And mostly they have long histories. The vast vast majority of paintings are only worth their effort for someone to create again today. NFTs will almost all be entirely worthless in a years time. Almost anything sold as a collectors item becomes worthless after the first sale.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      Yes, and the exact same will be true of NFTs. Just like physical art, the vast majority that ever gets produced is garbage that won't be preserved. It takes decades and centuries to really weed out the truly valuable gems from the chaff. That's why "investing" in NFTs (or any art for that matter) is a sucker's game or a game for rich people who have the time and resources to promote their favorite patronized artist and keep their work elevated in our collective consciousness.
  - mam4 5y ago
    yes, and the art market is also equally known for money laundering
- gilmore606 5y ago
  No, but these people will participate on social sites which run software to do all that for you, so they get to see a little 'Authentic!' badge on their monkey picture, and everyone else sees it too. They will also try desperately to get everyone else to use these sites, so they will have people around to be impressed by their Authentic! monkey picture. I suppose in the worst-of-all-possible-futures, Twitter and Facebook adopt this scheme and verify your monkey pictures for your adoring fans too. What I can't understand is why anyone with a soul thinks this is a world we should move toward.
  - JetSpiegel 5y ago
    And what stops the social site from sell Authentic badges for a fee smaller that the NFT price? Or letting people upload an avatar that is visually indistinguishable from the authenticated one?

Gigachad 5y ago

The thing is, the whole thing depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying any of it. If you see someone with a monkey profile picture, you aren't going to download some specialized software and finding it in the blockchain, verifying that the twitter user is in control of the wallet holding the token and finding the artists keys to check the signature is valid and then auditing other chains and other tokens to check that the same picture was not sold multiple times which would involve scraping the URLs and doing image comparisons. All to verify that this twitter user actually did spend this money for a monkey picture.

anonporridge 5y ago
The value of an original Picasso depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying it. Most arguments against NFTs could be levied just as effectively against the premium value of original physical art. Or do you hold the view that art as an asset in general is a scam?
- Gigachad 5y ago
  There are only a very limited number of paintings that people actually care about being genuine. And mostly they have long histories. The vast vast majority of paintings are only worth their effort for someone to create again today. NFTs will almost all be entirely worthless in a years time. Almost anything sold as a collectors item becomes worthless after the first sale.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Yes, and the exact same will be true of NFTs. Just like physical art, the vast majority that ever gets produced is garbage that won't be preserved. It takes decades and centuries to really weed out the truly valuable gems from the chaff. That's why "investing" in NFTs (or any art for that matter) is a sucker's game or a game for rich people who have the time and resources to promote their favorite patronized artist and keep their work elevated in our collective consciousness.
- mam4 5y ago
  yes, and the art market is also equally known for money laundering
gilmore606 5y ago
No, but these people will participate on social sites which run software to do all that for you, so they get to see a little 'Authentic!' badge on their monkey picture, and everyone else sees it too. They will also try desperately to get everyone else to use these sites, so they will have people around to be impressed by their Authentic! monkey picture. I suppose in the worst-of-all-possible-futures, Twitter and Facebook adopt this scheme and verify your monkey pictures for your adoring fans too. What I can't understand is why anyone with a soul thinks this is a world we should move toward.
- JetSpiegel 5y ago
  And what stops the social site from sell Authentic badges for a fee smaller that the NFT price? Or letting people upload an avatar that is visually indistinguishable from the authenticated one?