3 ms·

NFTs are trusting a single authority, which is the consensus of all of the nodes/miners of the blockchain. Sure, if you go to opensea and try to find the owner

by judge2020 5y ago

NFTs are trusting a single authority, which is the consensus of all of the nodes/miners of the blockchain. Sure, if you go to opensea and try to find the owner of a NFT, they could lie and become an accomplice in a double-spend scheme; but in general you could also download and watch the entire transaction chain and search through it locally (with trusted and auditable OSS) to verify ownership and transfers.

acdha 5y ago
> NFTs are trusting a single authority, which is the consensus of all of the nodes/miners of the blockchain. That's only for the in-chain history. To actually be able to trust that the NFT is what it's represented as, you also need outside third-parties. For example, many artists are having to deal with NFTs fraudulently claiming to represent their work or benefit the artist, which is not something you can validate using only information on the blockchain. Once you have a way to confirm the authenticity of the NFT, you also don't need the blockchain because the actual trust is coming from the artist's own statement.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Well yes, but the technology behind NFTs is explicitly just for solving the problem of double-spend/duplication. The authenticity is always provided off-chain since identity and reputation is still managed off-chain, so while "is this NFT real or impersonating an existing contract" is off-chain, the "who is currently owner" question is answered on-chain and requires no further trust or approval of the original artist.
  - acdha 5y ago
    But again only for the NFT, not the actual work of art.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Assuming the artist only makes one copy, then it does constitute ownership of the work of art. You might not have copyright over it - an artists selling a painting today doesn't give up copyright (unless they sign it away at sale) - but you effectively own the work of art as if it were a painting. In either situation, you're hoping the original artist doesn't go and recreate it to sell it again.
      - acdha 5y ago
        Not without a legal contract. If you don’t have an explicit assignment of ownership, an NFT won’t give it to you. If you do, the NFT isn’t adding anything.
        judge2020 5y ago
        You don't need an explicit contract, you can purchase something from someone locally with cash and own the item you purchased - it's a legal assignment of ownership in that there was a verbal agreement to purchase something at a specified price. With NFTs, the purchase is even stronger than a verbal agreement since the 'legal contract' is the agreement to sell the NFT as a specified price in digital currency. Once again, ownership doesn't have to mean owning the intellectual property, with an NFT you 'own' the combination of bytes that you purchased, even if you don't have exclusive rights to those bytes and even if the original seller can keep making more of the exact same thing you purchased. It's like how you might 'own' a pair of sneakers - chances are those sneakers weren't produced for your exclusive use and tens of thousands of people also own a pair that looks just like yours, but you have every right to sell your pair and transfer ownership to someone else.
        acdha 5y ago
        Again, the NFT itself is not adding anything. If you have possession of a physical object or an agreement from someone else transferring rights to you, you don't need an NFT. If you have an NFT, you still need the documentation showing that the person who sold you the NFT had the legal rights to transfer the referenced object as well as the NFT — otherwise you've paid for a receipt for “Bridge, Brooklyn x1”.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  That seems like a totally different sense of “trust” though, and not one that you could reasonably expect any blockchain or traditional market to solve. Like, yes, you do need to make some small effort to make sure that you’re buying what you are intending to buy, but I can’t imagine that being difficult to do, especially if you’re buying a piece of art from an artist you follow closely.
  - acdha 5y ago
    It’s more that the NFT doesn’t add anything: what matters happens elsewhere so why pay a ton of money for something which gives you no benefits?
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      They’re collectibles, so…you would pay a ton of money for them if you really like collecting those things, or if you want to speculate that the value will increase.
      - acdha 5y ago
        They're only collectibles when they convey legal rights — otherwise you're bidding up a receipt, possibly one of many. Speculation has generated some activity but it's not enough to sustain the market without some kind of value.
        tshaddox 5y ago
        Huh? What legal right would you like to have with an NFT that you do not have?

acdha 5y ago

> NFTs are trusting a single authority, which is the consensus of all of the nodes/miners of the blockchain. That's only for the in-chain history. To actually be able to trust that the NFT is what it's represented as, you also need outside third-parties. For example, many artists are having to deal with NFTs fraudulently claiming to represent their work or benefit the artist, which is not something you can validate using only information on the blockchain. Once you have a way to confirm the authenticity of the NFT, you also don't need the blockchain because the actual trust is coming from the artist's own statement.

judge2020 5y ago
Well yes, but the technology behind NFTs is explicitly just for solving the problem of double-spend/duplication. The authenticity is always provided off-chain since identity and reputation is still managed off-chain, so while "is this NFT real or impersonating an existing contract" is off-chain, the "who is currently owner" question is answered on-chain and requires no further trust or approval of the original artist.
- acdha 5y ago
  But again only for the NFT, not the actual work of art.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Assuming the artist only makes one copy, then it does constitute ownership of the work of art. You might not have copyright over it - an artists selling a painting today doesn't give up copyright (unless they sign it away at sale) - but you effectively own the work of art as if it were a painting. In either situation, you're hoping the original artist doesn't go and recreate it to sell it again.
    - acdha 5y ago
      Not without a legal contract. If you don’t have an explicit assignment of ownership, an NFT won’t give it to you. If you do, the NFT isn’t adding anything.
      - judge2020 5y ago
        You don't need an explicit contract, you can purchase something from someone locally with cash and own the item you purchased - it's a legal assignment of ownership in that there was a verbal agreement to purchase something at a specified price. With NFTs, the purchase is even stronger than a verbal agreement since the 'legal contract' is the agreement to sell the NFT as a specified price in digital currency. Once again, ownership doesn't have to mean owning the intellectual property, with an NFT you 'own' the combination of bytes that you purchased, even if you don't have exclusive rights to those bytes and even if the original seller can keep making more of the exact same thing you purchased. It's like how you might 'own' a pair of sneakers - chances are those sneakers weren't produced for your exclusive use and tens of thousands of people also own a pair that looks just like yours, but you have every right to sell your pair and transfer ownership to someone else.
        acdha 5y ago
        Again, the NFT itself is not adding anything. If you have possession of a physical object or an agreement from someone else transferring rights to you, you don't need an NFT. If you have an NFT, you still need the documentation showing that the person who sold you the NFT had the legal rights to transfer the referenced object as well as the NFT — otherwise you've paid for a receipt for “Bridge, Brooklyn x1”.
tshaddox 5y ago
That seems like a totally different sense of “trust” though, and not one that you could reasonably expect any blockchain or traditional market to solve. Like, yes, you do need to make some small effort to make sure that you’re buying what you are intending to buy, but I can’t imagine that being difficult to do, especially if you’re buying a piece of art from an artist you follow closely.
- acdha 5y ago
  It’s more that the NFT doesn’t add anything: what matters happens elsewhere so why pay a ton of money for something which gives you no benefits?
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    They’re collectibles, so…you would pay a ton of money for them if you really like collecting those things, or if you want to speculate that the value will increase.
    - acdha 5y ago
      They're only collectibles when they convey legal rights — otherwise you're bidding up a receipt, possibly one of many. Speculation has generated some activity but it's not enough to sustain the market without some kind of value.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Huh? What legal right would you like to have with an NFT that you do not have?