4 ms·

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 mi

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.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    The entire point of the distributed ledger is to help secure a stronger social consensus and build a traceable record of value transfer. Forking or copying a CryptoPunk (or Fidenza, to use an art related comparison) will not do much to sway the consensus that has formed around its contract address and transaction history.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      You don't need the distributed ledger to build a traceable record of value transfer though, the PGP NFT itself can be signed with an amendment documenting each transfer.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        Eventually you will need a public ledger (to support hundreds of thousands of these signatures), and the choice of making it centralized (mutable) or decentralized (very difficult to change). This is how you end up with a public distributed ledger aka blockchain.

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.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  The entire point of the distributed ledger is to help secure a stronger social consensus and build a traceable record of value transfer. Forking or copying a CryptoPunk (or Fidenza, to use an art related comparison) will not do much to sway the consensus that has formed around its contract address and transaction history.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    You don't need the distributed ledger to build a traceable record of value transfer though, the PGP NFT itself can be signed with an amendment documenting each transfer.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      Eventually you will need a public ledger (to support hundreds of thousands of these signatures), and the choice of making it centralized (mutable) or decentralized (very difficult to change). This is how you end up with a public distributed ledger aka blockchain.