18 ms·

> Without a published chain of transactions, there is no guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple times. > Without a verified on-chain tran

> Without a published chain of transactions, there is no guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple times. > Without a verified on-chain transaction, there is a risk that either the buyer or the seller may be lying about the transaction price. I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record on the chain is what actually matters. I don't like NFTs, but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. People value status signaling tools. A lot. Image 99 of 1000 isn't a status signaling tool, showing you paid for the image is, the verifiable receipt is what matters. This article is like suggesting the signature on art is what matters, but what matters is the actual provenance.

stale2002 5y ago
> I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record on the chain is what actually matters. Sure, but you don't need a blockchain for that. It could be published anywhere. When it comes to publishing information, a blockchain is one of the least efficient ways of doing that. The blockchain doesn't change much in the equation here.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  It is inefficient but it absolutely provides things "anywhere" doesn't, with a much longer likelihood of surviving than "anywhere."
coolestguy 5y ago
It's like the author has absolutely 0 idea what the reason for blockchain is
meheleventyone 5y ago
Right but which chain and which NFT? NFTs on the blockchain suffer the same problems which is the point made in the article. There are multiple blockchains and no guarantee that a particular NFT is unique or even published by the actual author.
- bsedlm 5y ago
  > Right but which chain and which NFT? whichever them who you want to recognize your status know about.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Which is exactly the point made in the article and why the solution presented there meets the same criteria.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  That’s not really relevant for status signalling as long as John Doe can somehow be pointed to an easily accessible website showing Greg Moneybucket paid $10k for an image of a turd, regardless of what chain it is.
  - Bluecobra 5y ago
    $10k for an image of a turd is so little I forgotten how to count that low!
    - dralley 5y ago
      It's a steal compared to $40 million for 20% of a picture of a dog. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-09/twenty-percent-of-a-picture-of-a-dog https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-09/twenty...
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Right but no need for a blockchain as CSGO skins or more disturbingly Roblox demonstrate.
    - kevinventullo 5y ago
      I’m not an NFT person, but I think the counterargument is that those are both centralized.
seidoger 5y ago
> but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating I don't hate on NFT themselves, but the artificial scarcity bizzaro ponzi pump-and-dump cult aura around them.
CharlesW 5y ago
> This article is like suggesting the signature on art is what matters, but what matters is the actual provenance. And blockchains can't guarantee provenance either, although they can help ensure that the claimed provenance (probably) hasn't changed since the data was first added.
- Fomite 5y ago
  This. Blockchains can't guarantee provenance, or that art isn't stolen, etc. Just that the agreed upon story has remained consistent, whether or not it was true.
cma 5y ago
> Without a verified on-chain transaction, there is a risk that either the buyer or the seller may be lying about the transaction price. The chain doesn't really guarantee this anyway because a wallet is not a person. There are already examples of big wash sales.
Osmose 5y ago
You add in a centralized service that enforces these rules and feature-wise it is equivalent, except the service is in control. The leading service is the company that is most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. Whereas with a proof-of-work blockchain, whoever has 51% of the network's mining hash rate is in control, which is effectively who is the most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. Or a proof-of-stake blockchain, where whoever has 51% of the network's stake, which is effectively who is the most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc.
- k__ 5y ago
  Implying the most well funded is enough to get >50%, right? ;)
  - Osmose 5y ago
    If we've learned one thing from capitalism it's that it is _not that unlikely_ for a small group of people to get more than half of all the money. The structure still concentrates power.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  This is pretty reductive IMO. Instead of trying to sit and think about how it is an inefficient, slow version of the same databases we are used to using, try and steel man the argument a bit and think about what is unique and why some people value it. It will cost millions of dollars to maintain a one hour attack against a PoW chain. It is crazy inefficient, it is slow, but it provides a level of trust that is unique. A software license NFT that lives on a blockchain is a perfect example - would you rather have that or one that depends on a centralized company keeping their server's running (like Adobe's with CS3 and before)?
  - Osmose 5y ago
    > try and steel man the argument a bit and think about what is unique and why some people value it. You were saying that the verifiable provenance is part the value, and I'm saying that that provenance is just as trustworthy as if a centralized service provided it because my trust that what they're asserting (that person X owns token Y) is true depends on how vulnerable they are to tampering, and all these systems are ultimately controlled by traditional factors like how much money you have access to, who you know, etc.
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> suggesting the signature on art is what matters, but what matters is the actual provenance. an entry in the blockchain is literally a signature though... a piece of art is yours if it's hanging in your living room. much easier IMO
romeros 5y ago
>> I don't like NFTs, but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. Oh! The anti-NFT crowd does get it. Unfortunately, only too well. And the thing is that there is nothing there to actually get it. >> the verifiable receipt is what matters No, this is just a marketing strategy to fool gullible and naïve people into aping into NFT. Nobody ever had a problem with verifiable receipts when attending concerts or buying a car or eating at a restaurant. NFT is a solution simply looking for non-problems to solve to justify its existence. NFT is simply put 100% speculative asset. The only reason it got a big hype is because people want to spend 0.00001 Eth and sell it for 100 Ethers and then they don't have to work for the rest of their lives. There is a suicide hotline that gets posts after every crypto crash. Inevitably the same thing is going to happen once the NFT market crashes (100% guaranteed) and regular people lose most of their savings for worthless jpeg that nobody else wants to buy.
- exdsq 5y ago
  Hey, I have a ticket to your favorite band. I’m selling it for $25 and you really want to buy it from me, but you don’t know me - this is our first contact! How do you buy it from me?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    Reputation of the provenance and authenticity of goods is an entirely different problem.
    - exdsq 5y ago
      Sure! The tricky bit here, in my mind is: 1. How do you know the ticket is valid? 2a. How do you know I send the ticket after you pay me? 2b. How do I know you send the money after I send the ticket? 3. How do you know I don't send the ticket to someone else too, if it's digital?
kurthr 5y ago
I think the article mentions this exactly, since buyer/seller kiting is trivial even on a blockchain: "There's nothing to stop me buying an NFT for 100ETH and the seller immediately returning that to me in cash."
- duskwuff 5y ago
  Not only is it trivial, but a number of smart contracts support "flash loans", allowing users to receive a temporary loan of a large amount of cryptocurrency so long as it can be proven that it will be paid back immediately through other contracts. They're a common tool in smart contract exploits.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    Tiny nitpick: aiui, it isn’t so much “if it can prove that it will pay it back immediately” so much as, if it doesn’t pay it back immediately, then all the changes in the transaction don’t end up actually happening, with the only consequence being that some gas fees were spent. So, it is as if the loan is retroactively revoked if it isn’t paid back within the same transaction.
gfodor 5y ago
It’s more than that. By it being on chain, it’s part of a permanent durable public ledger, meaning it can be consumed and verified now and in the future by any third party for any reason, without any orchestration, as long as that person has an internet connection.
- lottin 5y ago
  ...and as long as that blockchain in particular is still in operation. Maintaining a blockchain is not cheap, therefore there is very real possibility that at some point in the future nobody is interested in maintaining it.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    If only one person was interested in maintaining it, it would become rather cheap for them to continue mining blocks for it though, of course , it wouldn’t really be secure at that point, as it would be relatively cheap to make a fork that outpaces them (assuming proof of work. In proof of stake I suppose they would become the only one with any stake?). So, I’m not sure quite how this impacts your point?
    - lottin 5y ago
      If you're the only one mining, the blockchain can't perform its function. At this is point you're better off storing the data on a USB stick.
      - drdeca 5y ago
        The function of being secure against attacks? Yes. The function of continuing to handle transactions? It can do that fine I suppose.
  - kayamon 5y ago
    There's only one real blockchain; the longest one. That's the whole point of the blockchain. It's a global solution. If someone's trying to sell you on parallel blockchains they're trying to scam you.
SilasX 5y ago
>I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record on the chain is what actually matters. I don't like NFTs, but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. Are you sure it’s not the pro-NFT people that don’t get it? It came out recently that the ecosystem around NFTs is all set up to trust OpenSea’s version of truth, regardless of what’s on the blockchain, and so it can be revoked at will. https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1454863786783875075 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1454863786783875075
throwhauser 5y ago
> ...the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. People value status signaling tools. The fact that it's even possible to not "get it" means that NFTs are not an effective status signaling tool. If it has to be explained, the status signal was not received. Lamborghinis, yachts, and large diamonds inspire a visceral reaction; there's nothing to explain.
- GDC7 5y ago
  bingo
- kobasa 5y ago
  You're giving a visceral reaction right now. Being able to flex by buying a jpg for hundreds of thousands and having people on boards like this lose their minds over it is part of the appeal, you're feeding the beast without even realizing it.
root_axis 5y ago
> matters is the actual provenance. As the article points out, the blockchain doesn't prove provenance either, that's because anyone can mint an NFT for anything. There's no proof that what's on the blockchain came from the original artist, you must rely on some external trusted authority (like their website, or twitter) to verify the authenticity of the NFT. The artist can just print the PGP NFT on their website and completely eliminate the need for a blockchain altogether. The "Pro-NFT" crowd cannot accept this simple technical truth because it is devastating to the NFT hype train.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  The article is a symptom of arrogance of a certain technical crowd which has fully invested themselves into the "nothing new logic", simply refuses to consider that they might be missing something, and as a result ends up totally off-field. The proposed scheme does not track ownership. The trick is to proof that I /no longer/ own a token. It's about having a ledger of ownership. The only thing the blockchain does is provide shared state, a ledger. To rip out the one thing that matters in this, then claim you have the same thing, takes se kind of hubris.
  - shagie 5y ago
    The reoccurring question is "how do you map the real world and its laws back into this?" If I've got a photograph that I took, how do I sell the right to print a copy of it? How do I make sure that only one copy of it gets printed? Alternatively, if I sell a NFT, what does that mean in the world of copyrights and intellectual property that can be enforced by the courts? Until that linkage from the real world to the blockchain is made, much of this "mining and selling NFTs" reminds me of my days of playing on MUDs and creating objects to populate a game with that have since lost every iota of value since that MUD does not exist anymore. Even then, people did tricks and exploits to get it so that they'd have more people in the room that the other clan did so that they gained control of the artifact (yes, we had 51% attacks back then too). And there's my skepticism on this all. Until I can see the block chain data moving back into the real world, it's no more interesting than another news story on a game site about how many titans were made or destroyed in EvE. Sure, people spent real money to create in game assets - but it doesn't mean anything more outside of the game except as a headline to a journalist. Let's see that venue that sells seats at concerts as NFTs that can be transfered as a competitor to Ticketmaster (I'm honestly interested in the permeant public ledger of everyone attends political rallies). Lets see the season tickets get managed by a NFT ( https://zonecoverage.com/2021/packers/the-insanity-of-the-packers-season-ticket-waitlist/ https://zonecoverage.com/2021/packers/the-insanity-of-the-pa... ). Until then, all I see are tulips, beanie babies, and EvE titans. But at least the tulips grow in my garden, and my niece and nephew played with some old beanie babies and people trading EvE titans know exactly what they're trading.
lottin 5y ago
> but what matters is the actual provenance The actual provenance cannot be established with NFTs or by cryptographic signatures alone, because anyone can generate a pair of keys and pretend to be someone else.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  Sure it can. I can show that Bored Ape #99 came from the same contract as Bored Ape #98.
  - acdha 5y ago
    How do you show that the person who created Bored Ape #99 was the person listed and that they signed a contract giving legal rights to the holder of the NFT? All the blockchain is showing you is that someone who held a particular key paid to publish a record. The ways you'd need to establish actual provenance work with or without a blockchain: even a tweet from the artist's account carries more weight.
vizzah 5y ago
The published records on the chain proves that you own #1186 ape or kitten or whatever. It doesn't even prove the hash of the picture or any other property of the image. Look at Opensea.io - NFTs for sale there are just numbers in the contracts of their issuers. These numbers correspond to images uploaded to the marketplace in the marked order. A hacker can swap images at the marketplace and suddenly the ape you own is no longer cool and top. But you still own #1186 token on the blockchain, it's just what it's pointing to is different now. This is such an unbelievable stupidity, if you don't want to use word "scam".
southerntofu 5y ago
Blockchain does not ensure provenance. [0] As a reseller, publishing your PGP signatures on a git repository provides the same level of authenticity: you can't prove where it came from, and you can't silently erase past transactions to the eyes of people who have a copy of the chain/repo. [0] https://www.davidrevoy.com/article864/dream-cats-nfts-don-t-buy-them https://www.davidrevoy.com/article864/dream-cats-nfts-don-t-...

stale2002 5y ago

> I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record on the chain is what actually matters. Sure, but you don't need a blockchain for that. It could be published anywhere. When it comes to publishing information, a blockchain is one of the least efficient ways of doing that. The blockchain doesn't change much in the equation here.

eightysixfour 5y ago
It is inefficient but it absolutely provides things "anywhere" doesn't, with a much longer likelihood of surviving than "anywhere."

coolestguy 5y ago

It's like the author has absolutely 0 idea what the reason for blockchain is

meheleventyone 5y ago

Right but which chain and which NFT? NFTs on the blockchain suffer the same problems which is the point made in the article. There are multiple blockchains and no guarantee that a particular NFT is unique or even published by the actual author.

bsedlm 5y ago
> Right but which chain and which NFT? whichever them who you want to recognize your status know about.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Which is exactly the point made in the article and why the solution presented there meets the same criteria.
Aeolun 5y ago
That’s not really relevant for status signalling as long as John Doe can somehow be pointed to an easily accessible website showing Greg Moneybucket paid $10k for an image of a turd, regardless of what chain it is.
- Bluecobra 5y ago
  $10k for an image of a turd is so little I forgotten how to count that low!
  - dralley 5y ago
    It's a steal compared to $40 million for 20% of a picture of a dog. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-09/twenty-percent-of-a-picture-of-a-dog https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-09/twenty...
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Right but no need for a blockchain as CSGO skins or more disturbingly Roblox demonstrate.
  - kevinventullo 5y ago
    I’m not an NFT person, but I think the counterargument is that those are both centralized.

seidoger 5y ago

> but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating I don't hate on NFT themselves, but the artificial scarcity bizzaro ponzi pump-and-dump cult aura around them.

CharlesW 5y ago

> This article is like suggesting the signature on art is what matters, but what matters is the actual provenance. And blockchains can't guarantee provenance either, although they can help ensure that the claimed provenance (probably) hasn't changed since the data was first added.

Fomite 5y ago
This. Blockchains can't guarantee provenance, or that art isn't stolen, etc. Just that the agreed upon story has remained consistent, whether or not it was true.

cma 5y ago

> Without a verified on-chain transaction, there is a risk that either the buyer or the seller may be lying about the transaction price. The chain doesn't really guarantee this anyway because a wallet is not a person. There are already examples of big wash sales.

Osmose 5y ago

You add in a centralized service that enforces these rules and feature-wise it is equivalent, except the service is in control. The leading service is the company that is most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. Whereas with a proof-of-work blockchain, whoever has 51% of the network's mining hash rate is in control, which is effectively who is the most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc. Or a proof-of-stake blockchain, where whoever has 51% of the network's stake, which is effectively who is the most well-funded, well-connected, innovative, etc.

k__ 5y ago
Implying the most well funded is enough to get >50%, right? ;)
- Osmose 5y ago
  If we've learned one thing from capitalism it's that it is _not that unlikely_ for a small group of people to get more than half of all the money. The structure still concentrates power.
eightysixfour 5y ago
This is pretty reductive IMO. Instead of trying to sit and think about how it is an inefficient, slow version of the same databases we are used to using, try and steel man the argument a bit and think about what is unique and why some people value it. It will cost millions of dollars to maintain a one hour attack against a PoW chain. It is crazy inefficient, it is slow, but it provides a level of trust that is unique. A software license NFT that lives on a blockchain is a perfect example - would you rather have that or one that depends on a centralized company keeping their server's running (like Adobe's with CS3 and before)?
- Osmose 5y ago
  > try and steel man the argument a bit and think about what is unique and why some people value it. You were saying that the verifiable provenance is part the value, and I'm saying that that provenance is just as trustworthy as if a centralized service provided it because my trust that what they're asserting (that person X owns token Y) is true depends on how vulnerable they are to tampering, and all these systems are ultimately controlled by traditional factors like how much money you have access to, who you know, etc.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

> suggesting the signature on art is what matters, but what matters is the actual provenance. an entry in the blockchain is literally a signature though... a piece of art is yours if it's hanging in your living room. much easier IMO

romeros 5y ago

>> I don't like NFTs, but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. Oh! The anti-NFT crowd does get it. Unfortunately, only too well. And the thing is that there is nothing there to actually get it. >> the verifiable receipt is what matters No, this is just a marketing strategy to fool gullible and naïve people into aping into NFT. Nobody ever had a problem with verifiable receipts when attending concerts or buying a car or eating at a restaurant. NFT is a solution simply looking for non-problems to solve to justify its existence. NFT is simply put 100% speculative asset. The only reason it got a big hype is because people want to spend 0.00001 Eth and sell it for 100 Ethers and then they don't have to work for the rest of their lives. There is a suicide hotline that gets posts after every crypto crash. Inevitably the same thing is going to happen once the NFT market crashes (100% guaranteed) and regular people lose most of their savings for worthless jpeg that nobody else wants to buy.

exdsq 5y ago
Hey, I have a ticket to your favorite band. I’m selling it for $25 and you really want to buy it from me, but you don’t know me - this is our first contact! How do you buy it from me?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- GauntletWizard 5y ago
  Reputation of the provenance and authenticity of goods is an entirely different problem.
  - exdsq 5y ago
    Sure! The tricky bit here, in my mind is: 1. How do you know the ticket is valid? 2a. How do you know I send the ticket after you pay me? 2b. How do I know you send the money after I send the ticket? 3. How do you know I don't send the ticket to someone else too, if it's digital?

kurthr 5y ago

I think the article mentions this exactly, since buyer/seller kiting is trivial even on a blockchain: "There's nothing to stop me buying an NFT for 100ETH and the seller immediately returning that to me in cash."

duskwuff 5y ago
Not only is it trivial, but a number of smart contracts support "flash loans", allowing users to receive a temporary loan of a large amount of cryptocurrency so long as it can be proven that it will be paid back immediately through other contracts. They're a common tool in smart contract exploits.
- drdeca 5y ago
  Tiny nitpick: aiui, it isn’t so much “if it can prove that it will pay it back immediately” so much as, if it doesn’t pay it back immediately, then all the changes in the transaction don’t end up actually happening, with the only consequence being that some gas fees were spent. So, it is as if the loan is retroactively revoked if it isn’t paid back within the same transaction.

gfodor 5y ago

It’s more than that. By it being on chain, it’s part of a permanent durable public ledger, meaning it can be consumed and verified now and in the future by any third party for any reason, without any orchestration, as long as that person has an internet connection.

lottin 5y ago
...and as long as that blockchain in particular is still in operation. Maintaining a blockchain is not cheap, therefore there is very real possibility that at some point in the future nobody is interested in maintaining it.
- drdeca 5y ago
  If only one person was interested in maintaining it, it would become rather cheap for them to continue mining blocks for it though, of course , it wouldn’t really be secure at that point, as it would be relatively cheap to make a fork that outpaces them (assuming proof of work. In proof of stake I suppose they would become the only one with any stake?). So, I’m not sure quite how this impacts your point?
  - lottin 5y ago
    If you're the only one mining, the blockchain can't perform its function. At this is point you're better off storing the data on a USB stick.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      The function of being secure against attacks? Yes. The function of continuing to handle transactions? It can do that fine I suppose.
- kayamon 5y ago
  There's only one real blockchain; the longest one. That's the whole point of the blockchain. It's a global solution. If someone's trying to sell you on parallel blockchains they're trying to scam you.

SilasX 5y ago

>I mean, this is kind of the whole point - the published record on the chain is what actually matters. I don't like NFTs, but the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. Are you sure it’s not the pro-NFT people that don’t get it? It came out recently that the ecosystem around NFTs is all set up to trust OpenSea’s version of truth, regardless of what’s on the blockchain, and so it can be revoked at will. https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1454863786783875075 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1454863786783875075

throwhauser 5y ago

> ...the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. People value status signaling tools. The fact that it's even possible to not "get it" means that NFTs are not an effective status signaling tool. If it has to be explained, the status signal was not received. Lamborghinis, yachts, and large diamonds inspire a visceral reaction; there's nothing to explain.

GDC7 5y ago
bingo
kobasa 5y ago
You're giving a visceral reaction right now. Being able to flex by buying a jpg for hundreds of thousands and having people on boards like this lose their minds over it is part of the appeal, you're feeding the beast without even realizing it.

root_axis 5y ago

> matters is the actual provenance. As the article points out, the blockchain doesn't prove provenance either, that's because anyone can mint an NFT for anything. There's no proof that what's on the blockchain came from the original artist, you must rely on some external trusted authority (like their website, or twitter) to verify the authenticity of the NFT. The artist can just print the PGP NFT on their website and completely eliminate the need for a blockchain altogether. The "Pro-NFT" crowd cannot accept this simple technical truth because it is devastating to the NFT hype train.

miracle2k 5y ago
The article is a symptom of arrogance of a certain technical crowd which has fully invested themselves into the "nothing new logic", simply refuses to consider that they might be missing something, and as a result ends up totally off-field. The proposed scheme does not track ownership. The trick is to proof that I /no longer/ own a token. It's about having a ledger of ownership. The only thing the blockchain does is provide shared state, a ledger. To rip out the one thing that matters in this, then claim you have the same thing, takes se kind of hubris.
- shagie 5y ago
  The reoccurring question is "how do you map the real world and its laws back into this?" If I've got a photograph that I took, how do I sell the right to print a copy of it? How do I make sure that only one copy of it gets printed? Alternatively, if I sell a NFT, what does that mean in the world of copyrights and intellectual property that can be enforced by the courts? Until that linkage from the real world to the blockchain is made, much of this "mining and selling NFTs" reminds me of my days of playing on MUDs and creating objects to populate a game with that have since lost every iota of value since that MUD does not exist anymore. Even then, people did tricks and exploits to get it so that they'd have more people in the room that the other clan did so that they gained control of the artifact (yes, we had 51% attacks back then too). And there's my skepticism on this all. Until I can see the block chain data moving back into the real world, it's no more interesting than another news story on a game site about how many titans were made or destroyed in EvE. Sure, people spent real money to create in game assets - but it doesn't mean anything more outside of the game except as a headline to a journalist. Let's see that venue that sells seats at concerts as NFTs that can be transfered as a competitor to Ticketmaster (I'm honestly interested in the permeant public ledger of everyone attends political rallies). Lets see the season tickets get managed by a NFT ( https://zonecoverage.com/2021/packers/the-insanity-of-the-packers-season-ticket-waitlist/ https://zonecoverage.com/2021/packers/the-insanity-of-the-pa... ). Until then, all I see are tulips, beanie babies, and EvE titans. But at least the tulips grow in my garden, and my niece and nephew played with some old beanie babies and people trading EvE titans know exactly what they're trading.

lottin 5y ago

> but what matters is the actual provenance The actual provenance cannot be established with NFTs or by cryptographic signatures alone, because anyone can generate a pair of keys and pretend to be someone else.

eightysixfour 5y ago
Sure it can. I can show that Bored Ape #99 came from the same contract as Bored Ape #98.
- acdha 5y ago
  How do you show that the person who created Bored Ape #99 was the person listed and that they signed a contract giving legal rights to the holder of the NFT? All the blockchain is showing you is that someone who held a particular key paid to publish a record. The ways you'd need to establish actual provenance work with or without a blockchain: even a tweet from the artist's account carries more weight.

vizzah 5y ago

The published records on the chain proves that you own #1186 ape or kitten or whatever. It doesn't even prove the hash of the picture or any other property of the image. Look at Opensea.io - NFTs for sale there are just numbers in the contracts of their issuers. These numbers correspond to images uploaded to the marketplace in the marked order. A hacker can swap images at the marketplace and suddenly the ape you own is no longer cool and top. But you still own #1186 token on the blockchain, it's just what it's pointing to is different now. This is such an unbelievable stupidity, if you don't want to use word "scam".

southerntofu 5y ago

Blockchain does not ensure provenance. [0] As a reseller, publishing your PGP signatures on a git repository provides the same level of authenticity: you can't prove where it came from, and you can't silently erase past transactions to the eyes of people who have a copy of the chain/repo. [0] https://www.davidrevoy.com/article864/dream-cats-nfts-don-t-buy-them https://www.davidrevoy.com/article864/dream-cats-nfts-don-t-...