5 ms·

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

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
        The only difference between a fungible token and a non-fungible token is its fungibility: everything else is the same. The stated use case for both is "I want to know for certain who owns something". A chain of digital signatures fails to satisfy that need. Please stop being so assertive about something you clearly don't know anything about: there are tons of useful complaints about how people are using NFTs, but this is not one of them.
        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.

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
      The only difference between a fungible token and a non-fungible token is its fungibility: everything else is the same. The stated use case for both is "I want to know for certain who owns something". A chain of digital signatures fails to satisfy that need. Please stop being so assertive about something you clearly don't know anything about: there are tons of useful complaints about how people are using NFTs, but this is not one of them.
      - 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.