12 ms·

> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely t

> NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures I'm not one to ever defend NFTs, but this is not right. Suppose I bought an extremely trendy natural number k ∈ ℤ and I have a signature σ from its inventor that says "doomrobo owns k". Suppose in a year the trend has passed and I'd like to sell k. How do I transfer ownership to someone else? Clearly sending σ doesn't suffice, since σ is public. Do I need a new signature? Ok different setup: σ is actually a signature from me and the inventor saying "the non-inventor pubkey that signed of this message is the owner of k". How do I transfer σ now? Do I send my signing secret key? Who makes sure I deleted my copy of the signing key?

galaxyLogic 5y ago
Good questions. Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow. What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digital asset?
- raesene9 5y ago
  In many cases you don't even need to modify it. Ownership of an NFT often does not provide copyright on the original image (https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2021/04/article_0007.html https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2021/04/article_0007.h... has some interesting details on what you do and don't get with an NFT). So if you made the original image, you can just mint a new NFT of that image and sell it. Heck you can mint as many NFTs as you like of any image you own the copyright of :)
  - kpommerenke 5y ago
    Why do I need to own the copyright to mint an NFT of the image?
    - raesene9 5y ago
      So, if you don't own the copyright and then mint an NFT, in theory the copyright holder could get the source image for your NFT taken down (depending on where it's hosted of course) That hasn't stopped loads of NFTs of copyrighted images being minted ofc.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  It is worse than that, there are no pixels! The NFT is a short string, usually a URL. It’s effectively a QR code! You can create as many copies as you like. The “value” of an NFT comes in somehow convincing people you are the official one. This needs a lot of clout: e.g. a sale by Sotherbys that is well known that people can trace back the NFT to. In a sense its like a digital antique when there are easy fakes. My way of thinking is an NFT is a shitcoin with supply 1 and smallest denomination 1.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    > My way of thinking is an NFT is a shitcoin with supply 1 and smallest denomination 1. Ah, see, I ususually skip over NFT nonsense because of the sheer number of WHY and WHO it brings up… but now and then it’s summed up nicely.
- corobo 5y ago
  > What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digital asset? That one seems like a classic supply and demand thing. Make too many, sell none Having said that, that does actually seem to be the business model in this wave. At least for the ones people are heavily pushing that get on on my radar. Maybe not hues but "accessories" (procedurally generated png layers, flattened)
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    It seems as if the only thing I get when I buy an NFT is the ability to prove that I did pay money for that NFT for a specific seller. But because anybody else can sell anybody else very similar NFTs it looks like the supply is infinite. The only differentiator then is who is the seller, right? But how can the value of a thing be different based on who sells it?
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      > But because anybody else can sell anybody else very similar NFTs it looks like the supply is infinite. People only want to pay for the NFT, because it is supposed to represent a desirable piece of art. The only person who has the moral authority to sell it is the artist. Anyone can create an NFT that "links" to some piece of art they found online, but if I am not the artist, why would anyone pay me for it? Additionally of course, there are artists whose work is more desired, so they command a premium over other artists.
      - galaxyLogic 5y ago
        I can see a way it could make sense. The NFT contains text that declares what the buyer of it gets. For instance they get the right to use the digital art on their website. And maybe a right to sell that right to someone else if they stop using it on their website. If I tried to create such an NFT from someone else's art that would be fraud if I don't own the copyright to that art. Is that how it works in practice? Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? And because the text of the NFT is in the blockchain which can not easily be forged, courts will accept that fact as evidence of a binding contract?
- jandrese 5y ago
  A NFT is just a digital receipt, and there's nothing that ties the receipt to the original creator or work except for a bit of text that the person creating the NFT has full control over. So they are effectively worthless for determining ownership, especially for copyright purposes. The "non-fungible" part refers only to the receipt, not the original work.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    > NFT is just a digital receipt Right but a receipt of what? A receipt, evidence, or proof, that a transaction took place. But a transaction of what? One party got money. What did the other party get? A proof that s/he paid the money. For what? For the proof that s/he paid the money ... for the proof that s/he paid the money for the proof that ... LOL. Makes me think that I should make an NFT out of Brooklyn Bridge. That might gain lots of fame and thus lots of value?
    - jandrese 5y ago
      It is proof that you added an entry to a blockchain. That's it. Your last sentence hit the nail straight on the head. You can in fact make a Brooklyn Bridge NFT and you would hardly be alone.
- stathibus 5y ago
  The photoshopping step is unnecessary. You can literally mint infinite NFTs of the same piece of digital art.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    > You can literally mint infinite NFTs of the same piece of digital art. That's what I fathomed. What I don't get is why would anybody pay anything for them
    - cfeduke 5y ago
      The use cases are more than art. Art is a part of the equation, sure, and we see these... incredibly inflated prices being paid for art as insane. Digital art. That can be replicated. In which ownership of the NFT may/may not convey ownership of the artwork. Of course this sounds absolutely nuts, and people can be forgiven for believing it is absolutely nuts and that's all there is to it. But consider a very successful real world use case: trading cards. As NFTs, these digital cards are limited by contract on their respective blockchain such that infinite copies cannot be printed - they are limited edition. Scraps of cardboard for this rookie or that player only have ever had value to people who collect them - now the same sort of thing exists in the digital realm, without the risk of losing the physical collection in a house fire. It's less the artwork that is valuable, but the NFT itself. Another valid use case is Patreon-like support of artists (especially in the music industry). As it is now, tens of thousands of people contribute money monthly to their favorite artists via platforms like Patreon often in exchange for perks like early releases to tracks or works in progress. NFTs can represent the same sort of thing, except that at some point in the future these early released tracks - or really - the possession of a fact of support for a band during their career as an NFT - has value amongst other fans. In some cases possessing these things can become backstage passes to a band at a concert. Much of the NFT space right now is a cash grab. That doesn't mean valid use cases won't emerge.
      - stathibus 5y ago
        None of these are valid use cases. All of what you describe is solved already much more simply and cheaply without blockchain.
- krrrh 5y ago
  Walter Benjamin talked about this problem in 1935 [0]. It's particularly an issue with photography as an art form. For instance Jeff Wall's masters are all stored as RAW digital files and displayed as light boxes [1]. Theoretically he could produce an unlimited number of editions of each work, and theoretically anyone working at a record label who had received a copy of the hq file could do the same [2]. What prevents this and maintains the value of the work is that there are legal and social norms enforced through a vast network of institutions (galleries, museums, collectors, art fairs) that ensure that there will never be more than 1 actual edition of the work, or 2 or 3, whatever it is the number never changes after it is set, and minting more editions would be professional suicide, and the network of institutions would never allow or recognize it even if an artist tried it. Lawrence Lessig's book Code developed the argument that any combination of social norms, legal structures/enforcement, and code or infrastructure can function as law, and sanction or foster certain behaviour and markets. "Code is law" was a clever observation and a bit of a revelation, but the NFT crowd seem to believe that it's enough or that it has more value than the social norms and contract law of the existing art world. It's engineering mindset hubris. There's an attempt now to work social norms into the NFT space and enforce etiquette around "right-clicking", but convincing collectors of paintings that they could continue to collect photography was less of a challenge than convincing generations raised on BitTorrent, DRM wars, and authorless memes to introduce false scarcity into online digital abundance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_... [1] https://artblart.com/tag/transparency-in-light-box/ https://artblart.com/tag/transparency-in-light-box/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyed_Room:_B-Sides_and_Rarities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyed_Room:_B-Sides_an...
- makeee 5y ago
  This isn't any different than an artist offering a limited run of physical prints and then going back on their word. There's generally some level of trust between the buyer and the artist and if they break that trust then they hurt demand for their work. I've been following the NFT space for years and I haven't seen this issue crop up much at all.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    I can understand that trust and reputation has something to do with it but I wonder with digital art it becomes a question of how much do I need to modify my copy of the original to make it a new piece of art. And if NFT does not give you the copyright I might sell the copyright or license it to 3rd parties who could not care less about you having an NFT somehow "associated" with it. I guess the key is what does it mean for an NFT to be "associated" with anything. It's mind-boggling
- tshaddox 5y ago
  What prevents a musical artist from publishing a bunch of unoriginal filler after having a major hit? Is this really a serious threat to the concept of publishing music?
  - boomlinde 5y ago
    Copies of music recordings aren't typically sold under the pretense that they're unique. If your favorite artist produced a record and sold you a copy, guaranteeing that it the only copy that'll ever be made, you might be inclined to pay more for it. Let's say you buy it, because you believe this might be the only opportunity to own this music. If your favorite artist then proceeded to sell other records with the same music but with an additional 100 ms of silence at the end of each track, you'd feel tricked. It's a terrible analogy from the start, don't blame me.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      > Copies of music recordings aren't typically sold under the pretense that they're unique. My point is that if you buy a new record from an artist you generally expect it to be original music that’s the product of creativity. But a lot of artists release things that are perceived by many to be very derivative, unoriginal, and not creative.
      - namose 5y ago
        There’s a limit to artists’ ability to do this. It’s called copyright law and it’s enforced by a central authority. Unfortunately no such central authority exists in the NFT space, so it’s perfectly within anyone’s rights and abilities to copy an artwork and sell it as their own.
        galaxyLogic 5y ago
        When you say "sell an artwork" do you mean sell all rights to it or license its copying for personal use etc? Copyright and contract law still applies. But how does it apply to NFTs?
root_axis 5y ago
The NFT would contain "$doomrobo_public_key owns $k as of $date" signed with the minter's private key. When you decide to sell someone the NFT you append "$new_owner_public_key owns $k as of $date" to the NFT and sign it with your private key: this establishes a secure and verifiable chain of ownership.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  You can send two of those assignment signatures to two different parties simultaneously. Is there a way in your system to avoid the double send?
  - root_axis 5y ago
    You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.
    - quickthrower2 5y ago
      Thats not the same thing.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        I just explained why it is. A one line response of "nuh uh" is not convincing.
        quickthrower2 5y ago
        Its an analogy and diverts from the original point. We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. You point about minting another is an interesting point but its not a double spend so we veer off the topic. If we take your point then its the same as saying anyone can create a new crypto and call it Bitcoin. If I have an OG Bitcoin and you have a fake one then you can steel my real one. No you cant. The reason is that people discern what Bitcoin is vs. other coins. NFT cooy/paste is a problem but it is a distinct and different problem to double spend.
jboy55 5y ago
You bought a NFT on some blockchain that exists now, you didn't buy the number. I can sell that same number to someone else, and I could print a big picture of it on fancy paper in a nice frame and afix a hologram seal of authenticity. You owning the NFT of that number doesn't give you any rights to that sale, just as my framed picture doesn't give me any rights over the NFT.
chrischen 5y ago
You create a new signature signing a message saying you transferred this. The important bit here is some public immutable record. If this happened on Ethereum, and Ethereum ceased to exist, then your NFT would cease too. If you used say a archive.org snapshot then your NFT would live as long as archive.org servers are up.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

Good questions. Let's say I create a piece of digital art and create an NFT out of it. The NFT somehow starts increasing in value. Then I copy my original digital art-asset and perhaps use a Photo-Shop filter to make it have a different hue. I turn that into another NFT. And I keep on doing this for all colors of the rainbow. What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digital asset?

raesene9 5y ago
In many cases you don't even need to modify it. Ownership of an NFT often does not provide copyright on the original image (https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2021/04/article_0007.html https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2021/04/article_0007.h... has some interesting details on what you do and don't get with an NFT). So if you made the original image, you can just mint a new NFT of that image and sell it. Heck you can mint as many NFTs as you like of any image you own the copyright of :)
- kpommerenke 5y ago
  Why do I need to own the copyright to mint an NFT of the image?
  - raesene9 5y ago
    So, if you don't own the copyright and then mint an NFT, in theory the copyright holder could get the source image for your NFT taken down (depending on where it's hosted of course) That hasn't stopped loads of NFTs of copyrighted images being minted ofc.
quickthrower2 5y ago
It is worse than that, there are no pixels! The NFT is a short string, usually a URL. It’s effectively a QR code! You can create as many copies as you like. The “value” of an NFT comes in somehow convincing people you are the official one. This needs a lot of clout: e.g. a sale by Sotherbys that is well known that people can trace back the NFT to. In a sense its like a digital antique when there are easy fakes. My way of thinking is an NFT is a shitcoin with supply 1 and smallest denomination 1.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  > My way of thinking is an NFT is a shitcoin with supply 1 and smallest denomination 1. Ah, see, I ususually skip over NFT nonsense because of the sheer number of WHY and WHO it brings up… but now and then it’s summed up nicely.
corobo 5y ago
> What prevents me from creating new NFTs with the same or slightly modified underlying digital asset? That one seems like a classic supply and demand thing. Make too many, sell none Having said that, that does actually seem to be the business model in this wave. At least for the ones people are heavily pushing that get on on my radar. Maybe not hues but "accessories" (procedurally generated png layers, flattened)
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  It seems as if the only thing I get when I buy an NFT is the ability to prove that I did pay money for that NFT for a specific seller. But because anybody else can sell anybody else very similar NFTs it looks like the supply is infinite. The only differentiator then is who is the seller, right? But how can the value of a thing be different based on who sells it?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    > But because anybody else can sell anybody else very similar NFTs it looks like the supply is infinite. People only want to pay for the NFT, because it is supposed to represent a desirable piece of art. The only person who has the moral authority to sell it is the artist. Anyone can create an NFT that "links" to some piece of art they found online, but if I am not the artist, why would anyone pay me for it? Additionally of course, there are artists whose work is more desired, so they command a premium over other artists.
    - galaxyLogic 5y ago
      I can see a way it could make sense. The NFT contains text that declares what the buyer of it gets. For instance they get the right to use the digital art on their website. And maybe a right to sell that right to someone else if they stop using it on their website. If I tried to create such an NFT from someone else's art that would be fraud if I don't own the copyright to that art. Is that how it works in practice? Do NFTs (typically) include immutable text which clearly spells out what rights are transferred to the buyer of the NFT? And because the text of the NFT is in the blockchain which can not easily be forged, courts will accept that fact as evidence of a binding contract?
jandrese 5y ago
A NFT is just a digital receipt, and there's nothing that ties the receipt to the original creator or work except for a bit of text that the person creating the NFT has full control over. So they are effectively worthless for determining ownership, especially for copyright purposes. The "non-fungible" part refers only to the receipt, not the original work.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  > NFT is just a digital receipt Right but a receipt of what? A receipt, evidence, or proof, that a transaction took place. But a transaction of what? One party got money. What did the other party get? A proof that s/he paid the money. For what? For the proof that s/he paid the money ... for the proof that s/he paid the money for the proof that ... LOL. Makes me think that I should make an NFT out of Brooklyn Bridge. That might gain lots of fame and thus lots of value?
  - jandrese 5y ago
    It is proof that you added an entry to a blockchain. That's it. Your last sentence hit the nail straight on the head. You can in fact make a Brooklyn Bridge NFT and you would hardly be alone.
stathibus 5y ago
The photoshopping step is unnecessary. You can literally mint infinite NFTs of the same piece of digital art.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  > You can literally mint infinite NFTs of the same piece of digital art. That's what I fathomed. What I don't get is why would anybody pay anything for them
  - cfeduke 5y ago
    The use cases are more than art. Art is a part of the equation, sure, and we see these... incredibly inflated prices being paid for art as insane. Digital art. That can be replicated. In which ownership of the NFT may/may not convey ownership of the artwork. Of course this sounds absolutely nuts, and people can be forgiven for believing it is absolutely nuts and that's all there is to it. But consider a very successful real world use case: trading cards. As NFTs, these digital cards are limited by contract on their respective blockchain such that infinite copies cannot be printed - they are limited edition. Scraps of cardboard for this rookie or that player only have ever had value to people who collect them - now the same sort of thing exists in the digital realm, without the risk of losing the physical collection in a house fire. It's less the artwork that is valuable, but the NFT itself. Another valid use case is Patreon-like support of artists (especially in the music industry). As it is now, tens of thousands of people contribute money monthly to their favorite artists via platforms like Patreon often in exchange for perks like early releases to tracks or works in progress. NFTs can represent the same sort of thing, except that at some point in the future these early released tracks - or really - the possession of a fact of support for a band during their career as an NFT - has value amongst other fans. In some cases possessing these things can become backstage passes to a band at a concert. Much of the NFT space right now is a cash grab. That doesn't mean valid use cases won't emerge.
    - stathibus 5y ago
      None of these are valid use cases. All of what you describe is solved already much more simply and cheaply without blockchain.
krrrh 5y ago
Walter Benjamin talked about this problem in 1935 [0]. It's particularly an issue with photography as an art form. For instance Jeff Wall's masters are all stored as RAW digital files and displayed as light boxes [1]. Theoretically he could produce an unlimited number of editions of each work, and theoretically anyone working at a record label who had received a copy of the hq file could do the same [2]. What prevents this and maintains the value of the work is that there are legal and social norms enforced through a vast network of institutions (galleries, museums, collectors, art fairs) that ensure that there will never be more than 1 actual edition of the work, or 2 or 3, whatever it is the number never changes after it is set, and minting more editions would be professional suicide, and the network of institutions would never allow or recognize it even if an artist tried it. Lawrence Lessig's book Code developed the argument that any combination of social norms, legal structures/enforcement, and code or infrastructure can function as law, and sanction or foster certain behaviour and markets. "Code is law" was a clever observation and a bit of a revelation, but the NFT crowd seem to believe that it's enough or that it has more value than the social norms and contract law of the existing art world. It's engineering mindset hubris. There's an attempt now to work social norms into the NFT space and enforce etiquette around "right-clicking", but convincing collectors of paintings that they could continue to collect photography was less of a challenge than convincing generations raised on BitTorrent, DRM wars, and authorless memes to introduce false scarcity into online digital abundance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_... [1] https://artblart.com/tag/transparency-in-light-box/ https://artblart.com/tag/transparency-in-light-box/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyed_Room:_B-Sides_and_Rarities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyed_Room:_B-Sides_an...
makeee 5y ago
This isn't any different than an artist offering a limited run of physical prints and then going back on their word. There's generally some level of trust between the buyer and the artist and if they break that trust then they hurt demand for their work. I've been following the NFT space for years and I haven't seen this issue crop up much at all.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  I can understand that trust and reputation has something to do with it but I wonder with digital art it becomes a question of how much do I need to modify my copy of the original to make it a new piece of art. And if NFT does not give you the copyright I might sell the copyright or license it to 3rd parties who could not care less about you having an NFT somehow "associated" with it. I guess the key is what does it mean for an NFT to be "associated" with anything. It's mind-boggling
tshaddox 5y ago
What prevents a musical artist from publishing a bunch of unoriginal filler after having a major hit? Is this really a serious threat to the concept of publishing music?
- boomlinde 5y ago
  Copies of music recordings aren't typically sold under the pretense that they're unique. If your favorite artist produced a record and sold you a copy, guaranteeing that it the only copy that'll ever be made, you might be inclined to pay more for it. Let's say you buy it, because you believe this might be the only opportunity to own this music. If your favorite artist then proceeded to sell other records with the same music but with an additional 100 ms of silence at the end of each track, you'd feel tricked. It's a terrible analogy from the start, don't blame me.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > Copies of music recordings aren't typically sold under the pretense that they're unique. My point is that if you buy a new record from an artist you generally expect it to be original music that’s the product of creativity. But a lot of artists release things that are perceived by many to be very derivative, unoriginal, and not creative.
    - namose 5y ago
      There’s a limit to artists’ ability to do this. It’s called copyright law and it’s enforced by a central authority. Unfortunately no such central authority exists in the NFT space, so it’s perfectly within anyone’s rights and abilities to copy an artwork and sell it as their own.
      - galaxyLogic 5y ago
        When you say "sell an artwork" do you mean sell all rights to it or license its copying for personal use etc? Copyright and contract law still applies. But how does it apply to NFTs?

root_axis 5y ago

The NFT would contain "$doomrobo_public_key owns $k as of $date" signed with the minter's private key. When you decide to sell someone the NFT you append "$new_owner_public_key owns $k as of $date" to the NFT and sign it with your private key: this establishes a secure and verifiable chain of ownership.

quickthrower2 5y ago
You can send two of those assignment signatures to two different parties simultaneously. Is there a way in your system to avoid the double send?
- root_axis 5y ago
  You can do the same thing with blockchain NFTs, just mint another blockchain NFT with the same content. You can say "well, the NFT that was minted first is the true original" but the same is true of the "double sent" digital signature NFT, one will be dated more recently than the other, which affords one identical guarantees of authenticity to the blockchain NFT.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    Thats not the same thing.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      I just explained why it is. A one line response of "nuh uh" is not convincing.
      - quickthrower2 5y ago
        Its an analogy and diverts from the original point. We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. You point about minting another is an interesting point but its not a double spend so we veer off the topic. If we take your point then its the same as saying anyone can create a new crypto and call it Bitcoin. If I have an OG Bitcoin and you have a fake one then you can steel my real one. No you cant. The reason is that people discern what Bitcoin is vs. other coins. NFT cooy/paste is a problem but it is a distinct and different problem to double spend.

jboy55 5y ago

You bought a NFT on some blockchain that exists now, you didn't buy the number. I can sell that same number to someone else, and I could print a big picture of it on fancy paper in a nice frame and afix a hologram seal of authenticity. You owning the NFT of that number doesn't give you any rights to that sale, just as my framed picture doesn't give me any rights over the NFT.

chrischen 5y ago

You create a new signature signing a message saying you transferred this. The important bit here is some public immutable record. If this happened on Ethereum, and Ethereum ceased to exist, then your NFT would cease too. If you used say a archive.org snapshot then your NFT would live as long as archive.org servers are up.