8 ms·

> But there are a few drawbacks with this. > Without a published chain of transactions, there is no guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multipl

> But there are a few drawbacks with this. > Without a published chain of transactions, there is no guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple times. Then it doesn’t handle the most basic case.

DitheringIdiot 5y ago
The piece goes on to say that the same can be true for NFTs. An artist could just sell an identical work multiple times. I like this idea, it has the exact amount of usefulness of NFTs without the ecological issues.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  I don’t think the piece is accurate. An NFT is uniquely addressable by its contract address. Copying it would produce a new address, and it would be obvious the artist is trying to sell the same work again. This is why it is “non-fungible” and what makes it uniquely different from mere files, receipts and signatures.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    So you make another layer of PGP file where you first make a token/id that indicates you created the file (which ID doesn’t change between transactions). The problem is it still wouldn’t be obvious because nobody can verify anything.
  - DitheringIdiot 5y ago
    I’m sure you can generate a unique token for a non-unique artwork. I mean, I can just make an NFT now with a screenshot of someone else’s NFT.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      Yep - I can make an NFT of a CryptoPunk, but since the addressable hash of my contract will be different, probably nobody would see value in acquiring my tokens. Social consensus (and, by extension, tooling and network effects) have built around the original crypto punk contract address, which seems to give it value over any other copy contracts that might be deployed after the fact.
      - DitheringIdiot 5y ago
        So the real value of an NFT isn’t in the mechanism at all.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        The mechanism is extremely simple, see [1]. The value lies in the token which - much like art - is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. [1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d11248a72 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d112...
        lottin 5y ago
        Everything is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
        DitheringIdiot 5y ago
        So it’s replicating the worst thing about the art market — the speculation and nonsensical pricing. But without the best thing about the art market — actually owning a piece of art. With a thin veil of technobabble.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        That may be one view. Another view is that it allows artists across the globe a digital-first mechanism to distribute and earn revenue on their digital artwork. See Hicetnunc for example.
        lottin 5y ago
        This view is wrong. The NFT isn't the artwork. Distributing an NFT of the artwork achieves nothing in terms of distributing the artwork. Meanwhile getting paid in return for nothing is called "a donation", and you don't need an NFT for that either.
        5y ago
  - dkersten 5y ago
    So you have two unique NFT's claiming ownership of the same piece of art or tweet or whatever. Maybe on different blockchains, maybe not. Now what? Which one is the "real" one that conveys said ownership? How do you prove which one is the "real" one?
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      Usually whichever came first, or is still in circulation (hasn’t been burned), or whichever the distributor/artist says is the real one. Similar to a signed and authenticated physical artwork - if a newer copy turns up, which one is the authentic?
      - root_axis 5y ago
        When it comes to fake artwork you at least need to be skilled enough to produce a convincing fake, which isn't trivial. In the NFT world anyone can trivially mint an NFT for anything, at any time, so there's no way to prove that "the first one" is the "real" one without relying on a trusted authority outside the blockchain. Thus any need for a blockchain is completely obviated.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        Hence “or whichever the distributor/artist says is the real one.” This does not prove copyright; it merely proves ownership of a token. It still requires a strong social consensus that the token and its addressable hash was indeed distributed by the artist (as in the case of most NFTs that are trading for any significant sum). This is very much like a certificate of authenticity of an artwork as it also requires social consensus (fwiw, a cert is far easier to forge than, say, a CryptoPunk).
        root_axis 5y ago
        Sure. My point being that the blockchain adds nothing useful. Social consensus does all the heavy lifting, the cryptographic signature is an implementation detail, and the blockchain is wholly unnecessary.
timkam 5y ago
Generally (with NFTs), the supposed 1-1 mapping of art piece (or other artifact) and token happens on meta-level, right? So for sure, an artist can issue many tokens that represent the same art piece (and don't tell me the token is a hash of the image or whatever; it still can be sold on a different technology, or noise can be added to the image, et cetera). Because of this object-/meta-level mix up, it seems that NFTs guarantee pretty much nothing, they are just great at facilitating speculation, because the whole thing takes so little effort...
- drdeca 5y ago
  If the person/entity minting them commits to only using a particular address/public-key when minting (such that only ones from that address would be regarded as legitimate), then one can still check all the transactions they’ve made, and, well, if they mint tokens for other files which you don’t know what those files are, and have no way to retrieve them, then yes, you could be uncertain as to whether or not those are essentially the same image but with some noise added. If there is a list of what all those files are though (maybe the files are all available for download on the author’s website? Doesn’t have to be the author’s, just any source providing each file. Doesn’t need to be a trusted source either.), you could check that none of them are essentially the same. Though, the reliance on all the images being publicly available, does go against what it seems like the way many seem to want to use NFTs, and so for the use cases which are completely incompatible with all the images being publicly available (e.g. people who want to be the only person who has access to an image), your point is entirely valid, and there is presumably no way to achieve the use-case that those people seem to want. As for “what about on other technologies” I think this fits under the “the author should just make well-known all the [address+chain combos] they issue from, and instruct people to treat as illegitimate any which is issued from a [chain+address combo] that is outside of this well-known list as illegitimate” thing. It doesn’t seem like that serious of an issue? That being said, I don’t see much point to tokens like these. I’m just talking about "what can be done under different goals + assumptions" .
btoiled 5y ago
He argues just a few sentences further down that the same is true for on-chain NFTs.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  No, he is mixing up two distinct things. One is trusting the artist (to be honest and manage their career, in the widest sense). The other is trusting that out of hundreds of people who owned this artwork before, everyone deleted their signature file. This model does not track ownership and therefore does not solve the usecase that an NFT is solving.

DitheringIdiot 5y ago

The piece goes on to say that the same can be true for NFTs. An artist could just sell an identical work multiple times. I like this idea, it has the exact amount of usefulness of NFTs without the ecological issues.

mattdesl 5y ago
I don’t think the piece is accurate. An NFT is uniquely addressable by its contract address. Copying it would produce a new address, and it would be obvious the artist is trying to sell the same work again. This is why it is “non-fungible” and what makes it uniquely different from mere files, receipts and signatures.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  So you make another layer of PGP file where you first make a token/id that indicates you created the file (which ID doesn’t change between transactions). The problem is it still wouldn’t be obvious because nobody can verify anything.
- DitheringIdiot 5y ago
  I’m sure you can generate a unique token for a non-unique artwork. I mean, I can just make an NFT now with a screenshot of someone else’s NFT.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    Yep - I can make an NFT of a CryptoPunk, but since the addressable hash of my contract will be different, probably nobody would see value in acquiring my tokens. Social consensus (and, by extension, tooling and network effects) have built around the original crypto punk contract address, which seems to give it value over any other copy contracts that might be deployed after the fact.
    - DitheringIdiot 5y ago
      So the real value of an NFT isn’t in the mechanism at all.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        The mechanism is extremely simple, see [1]. The value lies in the token which - much like art - is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. [1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d11248a72 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d112...
        lottin 5y ago
        Everything is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
        DitheringIdiot 5y ago
        So it’s replicating the worst thing about the art market — the speculation and nonsensical pricing. But without the best thing about the art market — actually owning a piece of art. With a thin veil of technobabble.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        That may be one view. Another view is that it allows artists across the globe a digital-first mechanism to distribute and earn revenue on their digital artwork. See Hicetnunc for example.
        lottin 5y ago
        This view is wrong. The NFT isn't the artwork. Distributing an NFT of the artwork achieves nothing in terms of distributing the artwork. Meanwhile getting paid in return for nothing is called "a donation", and you don't need an NFT for that either.
        5y ago
- dkersten 5y ago
  So you have two unique NFT's claiming ownership of the same piece of art or tweet or whatever. Maybe on different blockchains, maybe not. Now what? Which one is the "real" one that conveys said ownership? How do you prove which one is the "real" one?
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    Usually whichever came first, or is still in circulation (hasn’t been burned), or whichever the distributor/artist says is the real one. Similar to a signed and authenticated physical artwork - if a newer copy turns up, which one is the authentic?
    - root_axis 5y ago
      When it comes to fake artwork you at least need to be skilled enough to produce a convincing fake, which isn't trivial. In the NFT world anyone can trivially mint an NFT for anything, at any time, so there's no way to prove that "the first one" is the "real" one without relying on a trusted authority outside the blockchain. Thus any need for a blockchain is completely obviated.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        Hence “or whichever the distributor/artist says is the real one.” This does not prove copyright; it merely proves ownership of a token. It still requires a strong social consensus that the token and its addressable hash was indeed distributed by the artist (as in the case of most NFTs that are trading for any significant sum). This is very much like a certificate of authenticity of an artwork as it also requires social consensus (fwiw, a cert is far easier to forge than, say, a CryptoPunk).
        root_axis 5y ago
        Sure. My point being that the blockchain adds nothing useful. Social consensus does all the heavy lifting, the cryptographic signature is an implementation detail, and the blockchain is wholly unnecessary.

timkam 5y ago

Generally (with NFTs), the supposed 1-1 mapping of art piece (or other artifact) and token happens on meta-level, right? So for sure, an artist can issue many tokens that represent the same art piece (and don't tell me the token is a hash of the image or whatever; it still can be sold on a different technology, or noise can be added to the image, et cetera). Because of this object-/meta-level mix up, it seems that NFTs guarantee pretty much nothing, they are just great at facilitating speculation, because the whole thing takes so little effort...

drdeca 5y ago
If the person/entity minting them commits to only using a particular address/public-key when minting (such that only ones from that address would be regarded as legitimate), then one can still check all the transactions they’ve made, and, well, if they mint tokens for other files which you don’t know what those files are, and have no way to retrieve them, then yes, you could be uncertain as to whether or not those are essentially the same image but with some noise added. If there is a list of what all those files are though (maybe the files are all available for download on the author’s website? Doesn’t have to be the author’s, just any source providing each file. Doesn’t need to be a trusted source either.), you could check that none of them are essentially the same. Though, the reliance on all the images being publicly available, does go against what it seems like the way many seem to want to use NFTs, and so for the use cases which are completely incompatible with all the images being publicly available (e.g. people who want to be the only person who has access to an image), your point is entirely valid, and there is presumably no way to achieve the use-case that those people seem to want. As for “what about on other technologies” I think this fits under the “the author should just make well-known all the [address+chain combos] they issue from, and instruct people to treat as illegitimate any which is issued from a [chain+address combo] that is outside of this well-known list as illegitimate” thing. It doesn’t seem like that serious of an issue? That being said, I don’t see much point to tokens like these. I’m just talking about "what can be done under different goals + assumptions" .

btoiled 5y ago

He argues just a few sentences further down that the same is true for on-chain NFTs.

miracle2k 5y ago
No, he is mixing up two distinct things. One is trusting the artist (to be honest and manage their career, in the widest sense). The other is trusting that out of hundreds of people who owned this artwork before, everyone deleted their signature file. This model does not track ownership and therefore does not solve the usecase that an NFT is solving.