3 ms·

There’s a fixation on this “pointer” problem with NFTs. Most projects use IPFS, making this a non-issue. There are plenty of other critiques of NFTs - this is

by axg11 5y ago

There’s a fixation on this “pointer” problem with NFTs. Most projects use IPFS, making this a non-issue. There are plenty of other critiques of NFTs - this is not one of them.

simmerup 5y ago
Thanks, I'll look into IPFS.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Unless people on IPFS decide to stop storing your item. IPFS does not address incentives to store objects. It’s a protocol like HTTP - but that doesn’t mean you have any incentive to store people’s NFTs yet, just like how having HTTP doesn’t mean you have an incentive to host a website yet.
- detaro 5y ago
  Sure, but you can always maintain (and/or pay others to maintain) the things you care about on IPFS, and if the implementation points there directly (afaik not all do...) the pointer remains useful. Whereas if it points to a random HTTP url, you cant maintain that without the domain holder cooperating.
  - simmerup 5y ago
    My main concern with this is that files hosted in IPFS aren't necessarily immutable, so what you own according to the NFT isn't immutable either.
    - detaro 5y ago
      The "default" way of using IPFS is content-based addressing == immutable.
    - anshorei 5y ago
      IPFS uses file hashes. You're thinking of IPNS.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  If you own the NFT, you do. The way I understand IPFS, the address is based on the sha-256 hash of the content. If no one wants to host your object, or even if the object disappears from the network, you can put it back. Because it is based on a cryptographic hash of the content, no one can reuse the address for anything else, and putting it back won't change the address. This is unlike HTTP where you can lose your domain name, provider or change the referenced content. So as long as a single person has your object it will not disappear, and as long as a single person is willing to host it, it will stay available, that person can be the owner of the NFT.

by axg11 5y ago

There’s a fixation on this “pointer” problem with NFTs. Most projects use IPFS, making this a non-issue. There are plenty of other critiques of NFTs - this is not one of them.

simmerup 5y ago

Thanks, I'll look into IPFS.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Unless people on IPFS decide to stop storing your item. IPFS does not address incentives to store objects. It’s a protocol like HTTP - but that doesn’t mean you have any incentive to store people’s NFTs yet, just like how having HTTP doesn’t mean you have an incentive to host a website yet.

detaro 5y ago
Sure, but you can always maintain (and/or pay others to maintain) the things you care about on IPFS, and if the implementation points there directly (afaik not all do...) the pointer remains useful. Whereas if it points to a random HTTP url, you cant maintain that without the domain holder cooperating.
- simmerup 5y ago
  My main concern with this is that files hosted in IPFS aren't necessarily immutable, so what you own according to the NFT isn't immutable either.
  - detaro 5y ago
    The "default" way of using IPFS is content-based addressing == immutable.
  - anshorei 5y ago
    IPFS uses file hashes. You're thinking of IPNS.
GuB-42 5y ago
If you own the NFT, you do. The way I understand IPFS, the address is based on the sha-256 hash of the content. If no one wants to host your object, or even if the object disappears from the network, you can put it back. Because it is based on a cryptographic hash of the content, no one can reuse the address for anything else, and putting it back won't change the address. This is unlike HTTP where you can lose your domain name, provider or change the referenced content. So as long as a single person has your object it will not disappear, and as long as a single person is willing to host it, it will stay available, that person can be the owner of the NFT.