3 ms·

> A lot of NFTs do use Google Drive or Imgur or whatever. However, I can promise you that one of the first things people do when making sure they are not rugged

> A lot of NFTs do use Google Drive or Imgur or whatever. However, I can promise you that one of the first things people do when making sure they are not rugged (crypto-term for scammed) is to make sure it’s not possible for the author to suddenly delete or change the image. I'm curious about this point; if the only thing stored on the chain is a URL (including Drive/Imgur) then there's no possible way to actually preclude the content from changing right? It actually does seem very weird that people aren't at least putting a #sha1= in the NFT URL to be able to verifiably know if the underlying content did change.

le-mark 5y ago
> to be able to verifiably know if the underlying content did change. Indeed that would seem to be the point of the entire exercise!
hakcermani 5y ago
seems simple enough right .. to add a ?h=HASH_OF_IMAGE in the URL .. maybe the real issue is that fact that the server pr the actual image itself can disappear ?
vmception 5y ago
I’ve seen all of the above. I’ve inspected NFT contracts and saw they were designed wrong with a direct link to a website that could go down And I still minted or bought them because the community or game was interesting I’ve also seen extremely clever completely onchain nfts. I like those.
superfad 5y ago
> I'm curious about this point; if the only thing stored on the chain is a URL (including Drive/Imgur) then there's no possible way to actually preclude the content from changing right? When you use something like IPFS the url is created from a hash of the file contents, so it is not possible to change the file without creating a new url.
- esrauch 5y ago
  Sure if it's IPFS. The article seemed to suggest that there were NFTs that were just Imgur urls and that a savvy purchaser of that NFT would somehow ensure the Imgur image couldn't be deleted or changed, which I don't believe is possible.

le-mark 5y ago

> to be able to verifiably know if the underlying content did change. Indeed that would seem to be the point of the entire exercise!

hakcermani 5y ago

seems simple enough right .. to add a ?h=HASH_OF_IMAGE in the URL .. maybe the real issue is that fact that the server pr the actual image itself can disappear ?

vmception 5y ago

I’ve seen all of the above. I’ve inspected NFT contracts and saw they were designed wrong with a direct link to a website that could go down And I still minted or bought them because the community or game was interesting I’ve also seen extremely clever completely onchain nfts. I like those.

superfad 5y ago

> I'm curious about this point; if the only thing stored on the chain is a URL (including Drive/Imgur) then there's no possible way to actually preclude the content from changing right? When you use something like IPFS the url is created from a hash of the file contents, so it is not possible to change the file without creating a new url.

esrauch 5y ago
Sure if it's IPFS. The article seemed to suggest that there were NFTs that were just Imgur urls and that a savvy purchaser of that NFT would somehow ensure the Imgur image couldn't be deleted or changed, which I don't believe is possible.