6 ms·

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_

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.
        root_axis 5y ago
        > We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. "Double spend" is a cryptocurrency problem, NFTs do not have this problem since unlike "currencies" the goal is to create a "non fungible" record of ownership for an off-chain asset; a chain of digital signatures satisfies this need, the double spend issue is not relevant to the stated use-case.
        quickthrower2 5y ago
        The genesis of this discussion is “NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures”. I basically said “how to avoid double spend in digital signatures”, someone replied “but you can clone NFTs!”. I said “yes but that is different”. You are correct double spend is not a problem with NFT because they piggy back on crypto layers. However double spend is a problem with just digital signatures that “retroactively obsoleted” NFTs. Since there are multiple people commenting and steering the thread in different directions I feel this is being filibustered. So ill stop replying. Im exhausted!
        root_axis 5y ago
        > However double spend is a problem with just digital signatures that “retroactively obsoleted” NFTs. As I already stated, this is not true. Nobody can stop an author from minting two different blockchain NFTs pointing to the same content, there's no difference between that and "double spending" a digital signature NFT. At the end of the day, the only thing the NFT does is prove "the author authorized this verbal statement of ownership", a digitally signed text file does exactly the same thing.
        jboy55 5y ago
        I think what you are missing is that for NFT adherents, they don't care about the original content, just the NFT. btw, I own an NFT that represents all natural numbers, therefore all possible NFTs.
        saurik 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
    Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy? So if the original is from a trust/known entity (like an IRL company or suitably famous artist) this doesn't work. The list of trusted entities could be centralized, crowd-sourced, hand-managed, or anything else; let people decide who they trust to make those determinations and let them switch between them at will.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      > Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy? The problem being described above is the possibility of the trusted author minting multiple digital signature NFTs for the same content. A reseller can't create a copy because they can't sign a message conferring ownership from the trusted source without their private key.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        But at least you can check the blockchain for all the content the author has created.
        root_axis 5y ago
        The author could use a unique private key for each blockchain NFT if they wanted to avoid that.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The problem of how to associate a NFT with a physical object is a different one from the transfer/spending problem. I think that is the "minting" problem. An artist simply signing stuff does not even prove that a physical object corresponding to the token exists. I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government). Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies right now, so I have to leave it at that. The reason why a "government signature on the deed" would achieve the same thing is because we trust on the government to keep a proper ledger. And the government asks for a lot of money for a transfer.
  - codesternews 5y ago
    There is some project. NFT Replicas - https://nftreplicas.net/ https://nftreplicas.net/ Nothing is stopping any one to mint another NFT with same content.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      Indeed, but NFT enthusiasts would say that the replicas are not valid because they were not originally minted by the trusted author, of course, nothing is stopping the author from minting multiple NFTs of the same content so the point is moot.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Why would you want the minter to be prevented from minting multiple NFRs of the same content? The content is totally moot! It’s the ownership of the scarce token which the author claims uniquely represents the content that people are valuing. Obviously if the author is minting multiple tokens and claiming they all uniquely represent the same piece of content, most likely no one is going to value those tokens much. None of this strikes me as odd or troublesome. It’s how all collectibles have worked long before NFTs.
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      Minty's "Useless Man" could have been about NFTs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAOaNS1tqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAOaNS1tqM (May be NSFW depending on who you work for...)
  - aboodman 5y ago
    > will be dated more recently than the other How does the receiver of such a transfer know that the transfer is final? There's no way for them to know that an "earlier" transfer of same item won't show up days later.
    - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
      Right. This is, by the way, the sole innovation of Bitcoin. Describing a mechanism to establish a sequential order of transactions with finality.
    - easrng 5y ago
      Timestamping servers. Something like RFC 3161 or WebPKI's Certificate Trust logs.
      - aboodman 5y ago
        That doesn't help you know the transfer is final, it just gives you a timestamp that the transfer occurred at which somebody reputable has attested to. You can't know that the owner didn't sign a transfer to some other buyer with an earlier timestamp.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Well, no, only the minter can do the first step: > "$doomrobo_public_key owns $k as of $date" signed with the minter's private key If you mean the minter could sign multiple owners of $k, of course that’s true, but that’s like saying that a painter could paint the same thing twice or sell printed copies of their paintings. Of course they can, and if they claim that each one is unique they’re likely to find that people don’t value their stuff much.
    - FireInsight 5y ago
      It's not the same as selling printed copies or painting multiple painting. It's verifying that two different people 'own' the same painting but neither of them has guaranteed rights to it.
- k-kr 5y ago
  You can require edition number / total copies in the original signed claim. Beyond that, you take it to the courts, which is the same thing you would need to do if the same resource was reminded on blockchain. The blockchain may only make it easier to detect a double mint.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  You just invent a thing called notaries. You'll have to go back in time to do it since they already exist but that's besides the point. Anyways, a notary puts their reputation/legal liability on the line and counter signs your transaction. Since they've been granted license by a real legal entity with guns and jails they commit to verifying a transaction occurred at X time. Monies for the transaction can be put into escrow with a third party (you'll need to go back in time to invent that too). When the notary notifies the escrow holder of the signatures they can release the monies. When you have a legal system to enforce contracts and people put their own money or legal liability on the line two parties don't need to trust one another to conduct transactions. People buy expensive shit all the time. They don't need to trust each other with the money or valuables because they involve third parties that proffer up (staking if you will) liability to let the two parties conduct transactions. The blockchain model replaces the staked liability with "expensive" proof of whatever. The only problem is monied entities can these proof systems. They can afford to run a majority of miners, stake the most (or spam stake offerings), or whatever otherwise supposedly expensive resource. They're only expensive resources if you naively assume all mining will be done by randos in their bedrooms. Blockchains are just a way to do something almost no one needs in a slow expensive way.
  - z3t4 5y ago
    dish and washing machines are slow and expensive (use a lot of electricity). But in turn you save some time.
    - giantrobot 5y ago
      Dish and washing machines are not slow. They cut out whole portions of the task of washing dishes or clothes.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
No it doesn't, because you can simply keep selling the "old" version with the signature that say that you are the owner. It is digital, so you can make an an endless number of copies.
- root_axis 5y ago
  You can do the exact same thing with a blockchain NFT - there's absolutely no difference in terms of outcome. Each "sale" generates a unique digital signature NFT because the public key of the person buying is incorporated as part of the cryptographic signature.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible. Of course it depends on the implementation, how do you identify an object? Leonardo could still create one NFT saying "this is ownership of my painting of the woman that always looks at the beholder" and another saying "this is ownership of my painting "Mona Lisa" and it would perhaps not be immediately clear that they are the same painting. Nevertheless, that is the "minting" problem and not the "spending" (or transfer) problem. Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies at this point, sorry.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      > Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible Just use a different private key for each sale.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The private key identifies the artist, so that is not a solution.
        stale2002 5y ago

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.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        > We were talking about how you were going to solve double spends without a chain. "Double spend" is a cryptocurrency problem, NFTs do not have this problem since unlike "currencies" the goal is to create a "non fungible" record of ownership for an off-chain asset; a chain of digital signatures satisfies this need, the double spend issue is not relevant to the stated use-case.
        quickthrower2 5y ago
        The genesis of this discussion is “NFTs are a scam and are retroactively obsoleted by digital signatures”. I basically said “how to avoid double spend in digital signatures”, someone replied “but you can clone NFTs!”. I said “yes but that is different”. You are correct double spend is not a problem with NFT because they piggy back on crypto layers. However double spend is a problem with just digital signatures that “retroactively obsoleted” NFTs. Since there are multiple people commenting and steering the thread in different directions I feel this is being filibustered. So ill stop replying. Im exhausted!
        root_axis 5y ago
        > However double spend is a problem with just digital signatures that “retroactively obsoleted” NFTs. As I already stated, this is not true. Nobody can stop an author from minting two different blockchain NFTs pointing to the same content, there's no difference between that and "double spending" a digital signature NFT. At the end of the day, the only thing the NFT does is prove "the author authorized this verbal statement of ownership", a digitally signed text file does exactly the same thing.
        jboy55 5y ago
        I think what you are missing is that for NFT adherents, they don't care about the original content, just the NFT. btw, I own an NFT that represents all natural numbers, therefore all possible NFTs.
        saurik 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
  Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy? So if the original is from a trust/known entity (like an IRL company or suitably famous artist) this doesn't work. The list of trusted entities could be centralized, crowd-sourced, hand-managed, or anything else; let people decide who they trust to make those determinations and let them switch between them at will.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > Wouldn't the author be different if you just minted a copy? The problem being described above is the possibility of the trusted author minting multiple digital signature NFTs for the same content. A reseller can't create a copy because they can't sign a message conferring ownership from the trusted source without their private key.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      But at least you can check the blockchain for all the content the author has created.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        The author could use a unique private key for each blockchain NFT if they wanted to avoid that.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The problem of how to associate a NFT with a physical object is a different one from the transfer/spending problem. I think that is the "minting" problem. An artist simply signing stuff does not even prove that a physical object corresponding to the token exists. I like to think of other use cases, like real estate or stock options. If you talk about a plot of land, it seems feasible to find a unique identifier (you could even involve the government). Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies right now, so I have to leave it at that. The reason why a "government signature on the deed" would achieve the same thing is because we trust on the government to keep a proper ledger. And the government asks for a lot of money for a transfer.
- codesternews 5y ago
  There is some project. NFT Replicas - https://nftreplicas.net/ https://nftreplicas.net/ Nothing is stopping any one to mint another NFT with same content.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    Indeed, but NFT enthusiasts would say that the replicas are not valid because they were not originally minted by the trusted author, of course, nothing is stopping the author from minting multiple NFTs of the same content so the point is moot.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Why would you want the minter to be prevented from minting multiple NFRs of the same content? The content is totally moot! It’s the ownership of the scarce token which the author claims uniquely represents the content that people are valuing. Obviously if the author is minting multiple tokens and claiming they all uniquely represent the same piece of content, most likely no one is going to value those tokens much. None of this strikes me as odd or troublesome. It’s how all collectibles have worked long before NFTs.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    Minty's "Useless Man" could have been about NFTs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAOaNS1tqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqAOaNS1tqM (May be NSFW depending on who you work for...)
- aboodman 5y ago
  > will be dated more recently than the other How does the receiver of such a transfer know that the transfer is final? There's no way for them to know that an "earlier" transfer of same item won't show up days later.
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    Right. This is, by the way, the sole innovation of Bitcoin. Describing a mechanism to establish a sequential order of transactions with finality.
  - easrng 5y ago
    Timestamping servers. Something like RFC 3161 or WebPKI's Certificate Trust logs.
    - aboodman 5y ago
      That doesn't help you know the transfer is final, it just gives you a timestamp that the transfer occurred at which somebody reputable has attested to. You can't know that the owner didn't sign a transfer to some other buyer with an earlier timestamp.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Well, no, only the minter can do the first step: > "$doomrobo_public_key owns $k as of $date" signed with the minter's private key If you mean the minter could sign multiple owners of $k, of course that’s true, but that’s like saying that a painter could paint the same thing twice or sell printed copies of their paintings. Of course they can, and if they claim that each one is unique they’re likely to find that people don’t value their stuff much.
  - FireInsight 5y ago
    It's not the same as selling printed copies or painting multiple painting. It's verifying that two different people 'own' the same painting but neither of them has guaranteed rights to it.
k-kr 5y ago
You can require edition number / total copies in the original signed claim. Beyond that, you take it to the courts, which is the same thing you would need to do if the same resource was reminded on blockchain. The blockchain may only make it easier to detect a double mint.
giantrobot 5y ago
You just invent a thing called notaries. You'll have to go back in time to do it since they already exist but that's besides the point. Anyways, a notary puts their reputation/legal liability on the line and counter signs your transaction. Since they've been granted license by a real legal entity with guns and jails they commit to verifying a transaction occurred at X time. Monies for the transaction can be put into escrow with a third party (you'll need to go back in time to invent that too). When the notary notifies the escrow holder of the signatures they can release the monies. When you have a legal system to enforce contracts and people put their own money or legal liability on the line two parties don't need to trust one another to conduct transactions. People buy expensive shit all the time. They don't need to trust each other with the money or valuables because they involve third parties that proffer up (staking if you will) liability to let the two parties conduct transactions. The blockchain model replaces the staked liability with "expensive" proof of whatever. The only problem is monied entities can these proof systems. They can afford to run a majority of miners, stake the most (or spam stake offerings), or whatever otherwise supposedly expensive resource. They're only expensive resources if you naively assume all mining will be done by randos in their bedrooms. Blockchains are just a way to do something almost no one needs in a slow expensive way.
- z3t4 5y ago
  dish and washing machines are slow and expensive (use a lot of electricity). But in turn you save some time.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    Dish and washing machines are not slow. They cut out whole portions of the task of washing dishes or clothes.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

No it doesn't, because you can simply keep selling the "old" version with the signature that say that you are the owner. It is digital, so you can make an an endless number of copies.

root_axis 5y ago
You can do the exact same thing with a blockchain NFT - there's absolutely no difference in terms of outcome. Each "sale" generates a unique digital signature NFT because the public key of the person buying is incorporated as part of the cryptographic signature.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible. Of course it depends on the implementation, how do you identify an object? Leonardo could still create one NFT saying "this is ownership of my painting of the woman that always looks at the beholder" and another saying "this is ownership of my painting "Mona Lisa" and it would perhaps not be immediately clear that they are the same painting. Nevertheless, that is the "minting" problem and not the "spending" (or transfer) problem. Edit: HN does not allow me any more replies at this point, sorry.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    > Every sale is on the blockchain, so if somebody creates multiple sales of the same item, it would immediately be visible Just use a different private key for each sale.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      The private key identifies the artist, so that is not a solution.
      - stale2002 5y ago