12 ms·

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

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.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        > 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). A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        "A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain." Only because the government keeps track of who owns what in a centralized database. Typically they also ask for pretty high transferal fees.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Huh? If you can’t verify that the public key is the author’s then you wouldn’t consider the message to be signed by the author.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        Why wouldn't you be able to verify the public key?
        miracle2k 5y ago
        You seem to be suggesting that a problem with NFTs is that the artist can mint multiple copies of their artwork, possibly using secret additional private keys. The answer is that this is not a problem, because the whole point is knowing who the creator of the NFT is, and beeple trying to create additional copies using a secret wallet but not telling anyone will be treated by the market the same as me minting a copy of a beeple piece.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

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.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      > 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). A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        "A deed digitally signed by the government's private key satisfies this need without a blockchain." Only because the government keeps track of who owns what in a centralized database. Typically they also ask for pretty high transferal fees.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Huh? If you can’t verify that the public key is the author’s then you wouldn’t consider the message to be signed by the author.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      Why wouldn't you be able to verify the public key?
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        You seem to be suggesting that a problem with NFTs is that the artist can mint multiple copies of their artwork, possibly using secret additional private keys. The answer is that this is not a problem, because the whole point is knowing who the creator of the NFT is, and beeple trying to create additional copies using a secret wallet but not telling anyone will be treated by the market the same as me minting a copy of a beeple piece.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]