4 ms·

>Without a published chain of transactions, there is no guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple times. That's a pretty glaring problem...

>Without a published chain of transactions, there is no guarantee that the artist hasn't sold the same item multiple times. That's a pretty glaring problem... and arguably the entire point of blockchain technology is to make tokens only spendable once.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
The only thing the distributed encrypted ledger does is tell you what wallet owns what token. It does not tell you if the artist has sold the piece multiple times.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Yes exactly. It can certify the owner...
  - XorNot 5y ago
    No it can't because it has no legal standing whatsoever to do so. No court and no law creates any legally binding standing for an NFT, because an NFT sale does not establish any sort of recognized contract between the parties - it does not even establish the the terms of use or ownership under which the NFT can be recognized. The nature of NFTs at most would lead to a recognition of the the token being legal property, if your wallet was stolen, but not whatever you think the property actually is.
- johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
  >It does not tell you if the artist has sold the piece multiple times. If you purchased a NON-FUNGIBLE-token, you can be sure that nobody else owns the same array of bytes which may or may not prove that you own a piece of art. There may be many prints of the same original work created in multiple NFTs as there are in the art world... but it's not possible to sell the same NFT twice... on the blockchain at least... without re-acquiring it first. Plenty of NFT sellers sell multiple issues/prints/copies of the same original artwork. I think digital prints in NFT format are ridiculous but I digress.
  - stagas 5y ago
    If you have the NFT signed by the artist's PGP key is the same thing though, no? You're the owner. Or the person you sign it to afterwards. What does the public blockchain offer in this case, except for fees?
    - qqii 5y ago
      A signature is simply that, a signature. It doesn't guarantee uniqueness and doesn't prevent you copying it any number of times. An identity + timestamping mechanism would guarantee uniqueness of ownership, and a blockchain performs this in a relatively decentralised and trustless manner.
      - stagas 5y ago
        The blockchain sounds very centralised if it's the only place I can participate to verify my ownership. Decentralised would be if there was no third party(in this case the blockchain) necessary for verifying ownership. Which it actually isn't, because all that is needed is the signature of the author and maybe a timestamp or some other metadata signed along.
        qqii 5y ago
        Of course! The blockchain is only decentralised compared to a centralised service such as Sotheby's and doesn't remove the third party entirely. The thing is unless you restrict the requirements of the artwork and the transaction not involving a third party actually restricts future guarentees that can be made to third parties. If the restrictions of never involving third parties (in proofs of ownership or otherwise) is acceptable, then there's no need for any schema bar making the transaction itself. The issue with removing the third party entirely (as the auther suggests) is the verifiability of the timestamp to any interested third parties. The simplest scenario is proof of existence of the artwork at time T. Without a timestamping mechanism there's nothing stopping the creator lying about when it was created, or when this transaction took place.
    - 317070 5y ago
breakfastduck 5y ago
Talk about missing the point. I don't really care for NFTs either way but the guarantee of being the sole owner is surely the only thing that gives them any value.
MrQuincle 5y ago
Just change one pixel
miracle2k 5y ago
By quoting this section, you allow sceptics to latch onto the "artists can mint multiple NFTs for the same piece of art" thing. But the author also says "resale is out of scope", but it really isn't. More than the artist selling a token multiple times (they legitimately are allowed to do so), we need to make sure that any owner seeking to transfer a token loses ownership. This system does not model ownership.

krainboltgreene 5y ago

The only thing the distributed encrypted ledger does is tell you what wallet owns what token. It does not tell you if the artist has sold the piece multiple times.

breakfastduck 5y ago
Yes exactly. It can certify the owner...
- XorNot 5y ago
  No it can't because it has no legal standing whatsoever to do so. No court and no law creates any legally binding standing for an NFT, because an NFT sale does not establish any sort of recognized contract between the parties - it does not even establish the the terms of use or ownership under which the NFT can be recognized. The nature of NFTs at most would lead to a recognition of the the token being legal property, if your wallet was stolen, but not whatever you think the property actually is.
johnnyApplePRNG 5y ago
>It does not tell you if the artist has sold the piece multiple times. If you purchased a NON-FUNGIBLE-token, you can be sure that nobody else owns the same array of bytes which may or may not prove that you own a piece of art. There may be many prints of the same original work created in multiple NFTs as there are in the art world... but it's not possible to sell the same NFT twice... on the blockchain at least... without re-acquiring it first. Plenty of NFT sellers sell multiple issues/prints/copies of the same original artwork. I think digital prints in NFT format are ridiculous but I digress.
- stagas 5y ago
  If you have the NFT signed by the artist's PGP key is the same thing though, no? You're the owner. Or the person you sign it to afterwards. What does the public blockchain offer in this case, except for fees?
  - qqii 5y ago
    A signature is simply that, a signature. It doesn't guarantee uniqueness and doesn't prevent you copying it any number of times. An identity + timestamping mechanism would guarantee uniqueness of ownership, and a blockchain performs this in a relatively decentralised and trustless manner.
    - stagas 5y ago
      The blockchain sounds very centralised if it's the only place I can participate to verify my ownership. Decentralised would be if there was no third party(in this case the blockchain) necessary for verifying ownership. Which it actually isn't, because all that is needed is the signature of the author and maybe a timestamp or some other metadata signed along.
      - qqii 5y ago
        Of course! The blockchain is only decentralised compared to a centralised service such as Sotheby's and doesn't remove the third party entirely. The thing is unless you restrict the requirements of the artwork and the transaction not involving a third party actually restricts future guarentees that can be made to third parties. If the restrictions of never involving third parties (in proofs of ownership or otherwise) is acceptable, then there's no need for any schema bar making the transaction itself. The issue with removing the third party entirely (as the auther suggests) is the verifiability of the timestamp to any interested third parties. The simplest scenario is proof of existence of the artwork at time T. Without a timestamping mechanism there's nothing stopping the creator lying about when it was created, or when this transaction took place.
  - 317070 5y ago

breakfastduck 5y ago

Talk about missing the point. I don't really care for NFTs either way but the guarantee of being the sole owner is surely the only thing that gives them any value.

MrQuincle 5y ago

Just change one pixel

miracle2k 5y ago

By quoting this section, you allow sceptics to latch onto the "artists can mint multiple NFTs for the same piece of art" thing. But the author also says "resale is out of scope", but it really isn't. More than the artist selling a token multiple times (they legitimately are allowed to do so), we need to make sure that any owner seeking to transfer a token loses ownership. This system does not model ownership.