17 ms·

Friend of mine wanted to know what a NFT is and I wrote down a URL and gave it to him on a piece of paper. That's an NFT. You can sell that paper, use it if you

Friend of mine wanted to know what a NFT is and I wrote down a URL and gave it to him on a piece of paper. That's an NFT. You can sell that paper, use it if you want but what ever is at the other end of the URL isn't yours and you can't guarantee it will be there or be consistent between the times you go. But by god you have a piece of paper.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago
"And then everyone clapped." This is not what an NFT is.
- je_bailey 5y ago
  Then you don't understand NFTs
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    I really encourage you to read EIP-721 and EIP-1155, then think a bit more creatively about the use-cases of non fungible, transferrable data, the possession of which is easily cryptographically verifiable.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Despite the common saying, possession and ownership often aren't the same thing.
      - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
        What?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        You said "non fungible, transferrable data, the possession of which is easily cryptographically verifiable", but NFT advocates talk about ownership a lot. I can possess all the bored ape JPEGs. So can anyone else in the world who can right-click or screenshot or download a .zip of them.
        rattlesnakedave 5y ago
        Yeah, but the ones who have their ownership verified on the blockchain are the owners. I’m not sure what the misunderstanding is. I can save any kind of art from the internet, but I obviously don’t own it unless I purchase the rights to it. NFTs are just a distributed way of managing that purchase and transfer.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Yeah, but the ones who have their ownership verified on the blockchain are the owners. Not legally, they aren't. I can take someone else's photo, put it up on OpenSea as a NFT, and it'll go through. I didn't own it. You don't own it. The original photographer still holds every bit of legal ownership, regardless of our possession of JPEG copies of it.
        rattlesnakedave 5y ago
        Sure. That’s not even close to the common case though. That’s a stretch edge case.
        dpark 5y ago
        Is it not? If you buy an ugly ape, does the creator actually transfer copyright? If not, you literally don’t own anything more than a piece of metadata. You don’t own the url (because the person who owns the domain does). You don’t own the jpeg (because that’s a nonsense notion). You don’t own the copyright. You literally just own a bit of metadata that references a url.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - koffiezet 5y ago
      > the possession of which is easily cryptographically verifiable Too bad for NFTs that "possession" is a legal problem, not a technological-one. If a court and government doesn't recognise that cryptographic verification, you're out of luck.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
shantnutiwari 5y ago
thats a great analogy! I now know what to say if someone asks me the same question
- capableweb 5y ago
  It's a great way to highlight that you don't actually understand NFTs. If you're actually against NFTs (like many of us), then please don't use that explanation, it'll make it look like you don't actually understand NFTs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- NoahRoseWood 5y ago
  It's not true. Some NFTs work that way, but not all
capableweb 5y ago
You're doing everyone, including us who are against NFTs in general, a huge disservice by explaining it that way, as that's not what NFTs are... Edit: I should have added my own explanation as it's not as obvious to everyone else what an NFT is. If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). NFTs have nothing to do with URLs (although some NFTs do have URLs inside of them), the main point is to have something with a unique ID that is unique within that specific blockchain.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  It's a little ironic to complain about a bad explanation without giving an explanation as to why it is one. (To be fair, a better analogy would involve OP setting fire to a rainforest somewhere as part of the process.)
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Yes, I agree. Added a more truthful explanation to what an NFT actually is.
    - felixgallo 5y ago
      Your explanation is nonsensical. > If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). This is where the entire argument falls apart trivially. The problem is that NFTs are just random pieces of paper containing a pointer. They're not guaranteed to be the only pointer, the content on them can be copied, they're not actually scarce resources, and everyone can (and does) fool everyone else about whether or not they have the same paper and/or the same pointer. Additionally with NFTs, the pointer is often to some random centralized resource holder/single server in the 'centralized fiat' world of trust, and quite frequently that turns out to be a $5 VPS running apache that someone stops paying the bill for.
nik_s 5y ago
I'm not sure I agree with your explanation. Most NFTs are like a title to a house. Like a title to a house, you can: 1. Prove you own it; 2. Sell it to someone. Unlike the title to a house: 1. The party certifying your ownership is not the government, but the consensus rules of a blockchain; 2. The thing you own is not physical, but digital in nature; 3. Your ownership does not prevent anyone from copying the file itself for their own uses. Regarding your point that the object you own might not be consistent: because of the cost relative of storing data on a blockchain, the actual digital thing you own isn't usually stored on the blockchain, but a hash of that file (e.g. [1]). Unless hashing is broken, this is cryptographic proof that the object does remain consistent. [1] https://github.com/larvalabs/cryptopunks/blob/master/contracts/CryptoPunksMarket.sol#L5 https://github.com/larvalabs/cryptopunks/blob/master/contrac... Edit: perhaps the notion of an entry ticket to a concert would have been a better analogy than a title to a house.
- jhugg 5y ago
  Ah but the government will enforce my claim on the house if I’m holding (rightfully) the title. And if someone steals the title, it doesn’t mean they own my house.
  - nik_s 5y ago
    You can also say that blockchains have mechanisms that prevent a government from coercing third parties from handing over your NFTs to someone else. I'll agree that the analogy wasn't perfect though - I added an edit for another analogy (still as imperfect as it may be).
    - jhugg 5y ago
      The government can still use the JPEG though.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  > Most NFTs are like a title to a house NFTs are like a title to a house that you wrote with a crayon. There is no legal grounds for ownership, its just bunch of people claiming they own something and some other saying they agree. You can convince whole china + india that you are king of england, but goodluck with actually sitting on the english throne.
falcolas 5y ago
And if you get it notarized, its an even better analogy. You know, like titles.
- nradov 5y ago
  Legally speaking, notarization doesn't count for much or provide any ironclad guarantees. For real estate titles what counts is the centralized county registry.
  - apocolyps6 5y ago
    What ironclad guarantees does the NFT provide?
    - nradov 5y ago
      None
hcks 5y ago
This isn't what an NFT is. To be complete, at least, there should also be a distributed and secure worldwide ledger to which anybody can access that says that you gave this exact piece of paper to your friend on that date.
- yayr 5y ago
  that. Plus you can add a secret to the paper that allows unlocking the content at the URL, which normal users would not have. That secret can only be decrypted by the owner of the paper.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > Plus you can add a secret to the paper that allows unlocking the content at the URL, which normal users would not have. That secret can only be decrypted by the owner of the paper. You cannot do this with an NFT unless the server that the NFT is hosted on supports it (and has awareness of the blockchain). Then it becomes centralized to that server. You couldn't do it with IPFS.
    - yayr 5y ago
      you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. The encryption of the secret has to happen of chain, so that the secret is still secure. So typically that would be done by the provider of the NFT and thus is not decentralised. Essentially, this would eliminate the need to put the secret on the chain at all. Only the proof of ownership would be on chain.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- boopboopbadoop 5y ago
  You’re right. The example should have both OP’s friend and OP with a similarly useless piece of paper.
aqme28 5y ago
I think this is a good example of an NFT. To the detractors: can you explain what an NFT is without saying blockchain or distributed ledger? An NFT doesn't need those to be an NFT.
- chillacy 5y ago
  I would add the analogy a bit more: 1. The paper has an authenticated watermark which cannot he forged by any known technology 2. The paper can teleport a shadow copy of itself anywhere in the world: it can be inspected by practically anyone in the world, without the shadow copy being traded as the real thing
stiltzkin 5y ago
Now your friend is going to spread misinformation.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago

"And then everyone clapped." This is not what an NFT is.

je_bailey 5y ago
Then you don't understand NFTs
- rattlesnakedave 5y ago
  I really encourage you to read EIP-721 and EIP-1155, then think a bit more creatively about the use-cases of non fungible, transferrable data, the possession of which is easily cryptographically verifiable.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Despite the common saying, possession and ownership often aren't the same thing.
    - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
      What?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        You said "non fungible, transferrable data, the possession of which is easily cryptographically verifiable", but NFT advocates talk about ownership a lot. I can possess all the bored ape JPEGs. So can anyone else in the world who can right-click or screenshot or download a .zip of them.
        rattlesnakedave 5y ago
        Yeah, but the ones who have their ownership verified on the blockchain are the owners. I’m not sure what the misunderstanding is. I can save any kind of art from the internet, but I obviously don’t own it unless I purchase the rights to it. NFTs are just a distributed way of managing that purchase and transfer.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Yeah, but the ones who have their ownership verified on the blockchain are the owners. Not legally, they aren't. I can take someone else's photo, put it up on OpenSea as a NFT, and it'll go through. I didn't own it. You don't own it. The original photographer still holds every bit of legal ownership, regardless of our possession of JPEG copies of it.
        rattlesnakedave 5y ago
        Sure. That’s not even close to the common case though. That’s a stretch edge case.
        dpark 5y ago
        Is it not? If you buy an ugly ape, does the creator actually transfer copyright? If not, you literally don’t own anything more than a piece of metadata. You don’t own the url (because the person who owns the domain does). You don’t own the jpeg (because that’s a nonsense notion). You don’t own the copyright. You literally just own a bit of metadata that references a url.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - koffiezet 5y ago
    > the possession of which is easily cryptographically verifiable Too bad for NFTs that "possession" is a legal problem, not a technological-one. If a court and government doesn't recognise that cryptographic verification, you're out of luck.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

shantnutiwari 5y ago

thats a great analogy! I now know what to say if someone asks me the same question

capableweb 5y ago
It's a great way to highlight that you don't actually understand NFTs. If you're actually against NFTs (like many of us), then please don't use that explanation, it'll make it look like you don't actually understand NFTs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
NoahRoseWood 5y ago
It's not true. Some NFTs work that way, but not all

capableweb 5y ago

You're doing everyone, including us who are against NFTs in general, a huge disservice by explaining it that way, as that's not what NFTs are... Edit: I should have added my own explanation as it's not as obvious to everyone else what an NFT is. If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). NFTs have nothing to do with URLs (although some NFTs do have URLs inside of them), the main point is to have something with a unique ID that is unique within that specific blockchain.

ceejayoz 5y ago
It's a little ironic to complain about a bad explanation without giving an explanation as to why it is one. (To be fair, a better analogy would involve OP setting fire to a rainforest somewhere as part of the process.)
- capableweb 5y ago
  Yes, I agree. Added a more truthful explanation to what an NFT actually is.
  - felixgallo 5y ago
    Your explanation is nonsensical. > If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). This is where the entire argument falls apart trivially. The problem is that NFTs are just random pieces of paper containing a pointer. They're not guaranteed to be the only pointer, the content on them can be copied, they're not actually scarce resources, and everyone can (and does) fool everyone else about whether or not they have the same paper and/or the same pointer. Additionally with NFTs, the pointer is often to some random centralized resource holder/single server in the 'centralized fiat' world of trust, and quite frequently that turns out to be a $5 VPS running apache that someone stops paying the bill for.

nik_s 5y ago

I'm not sure I agree with your explanation. Most NFTs are like a title to a house. Like a title to a house, you can: 1. Prove you own it; 2. Sell it to someone. Unlike the title to a house: 1. The party certifying your ownership is not the government, but the consensus rules of a blockchain; 2. The thing you own is not physical, but digital in nature; 3. Your ownership does not prevent anyone from copying the file itself for their own uses. Regarding your point that the object you own might not be consistent: because of the cost relative of storing data on a blockchain, the actual digital thing you own isn't usually stored on the blockchain, but a hash of that file (e.g. [1]). Unless hashing is broken, this is cryptographic proof that the object does remain consistent. [1] https://github.com/larvalabs/cryptopunks/blob/master/contracts/CryptoPunksMarket.sol#L5 https://github.com/larvalabs/cryptopunks/blob/master/contrac... Edit: perhaps the notion of an entry ticket to a concert would have been a better analogy than a title to a house.

jhugg 5y ago
Ah but the government will enforce my claim on the house if I’m holding (rightfully) the title. And if someone steals the title, it doesn’t mean they own my house.
- nik_s 5y ago
  You can also say that blockchains have mechanisms that prevent a government from coercing third parties from handing over your NFTs to someone else. I'll agree that the analogy wasn't perfect though - I added an edit for another analogy (still as imperfect as it may be).
  - jhugg 5y ago
    The government can still use the JPEG though.
me_me_me 5y ago
> Most NFTs are like a title to a house NFTs are like a title to a house that you wrote with a crayon. There is no legal grounds for ownership, its just bunch of people claiming they own something and some other saying they agree. You can convince whole china + india that you are king of england, but goodluck with actually sitting on the english throne.

falcolas 5y ago

And if you get it notarized, its an even better analogy. You know, like titles.

nradov 5y ago
Legally speaking, notarization doesn't count for much or provide any ironclad guarantees. For real estate titles what counts is the centralized county registry.
- apocolyps6 5y ago
  What ironclad guarantees does the NFT provide?
  - nradov 5y ago
    None

hcks 5y ago

This isn't what an NFT is. To be complete, at least, there should also be a distributed and secure worldwide ledger to which anybody can access that says that you gave this exact piece of paper to your friend on that date.

yayr 5y ago
that. Plus you can add a secret to the paper that allows unlocking the content at the URL, which normal users would not have. That secret can only be decrypted by the owner of the paper.
- smt88 5y ago
  > Plus you can add a secret to the paper that allows unlocking the content at the URL, which normal users would not have. That secret can only be decrypted by the owner of the paper. You cannot do this with an NFT unless the server that the NFT is hosted on supports it (and has awareness of the blockchain). Then it becomes centralized to that server. You couldn't do it with IPFS.
  - yayr 5y ago
    you're right. Thanks for pointing that out. The encryption of the secret has to happen of chain, so that the secret is still secure. So typically that would be done by the provider of the NFT and thus is not decentralised. Essentially, this would eliminate the need to put the secret on the chain at all. Only the proof of ownership would be on chain.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boopboopbadoop 5y ago
You’re right. The example should have both OP’s friend and OP with a similarly useless piece of paper.

aqme28 5y ago

I think this is a good example of an NFT. To the detractors: can you explain what an NFT is without saying blockchain or distributed ledger? An NFT doesn't need those to be an NFT.

chillacy 5y ago
I would add the analogy a bit more: 1. The paper has an authenticated watermark which cannot he forged by any known technology 2. The paper can teleport a shadow copy of itself anywhere in the world: it can be inspected by practically anyone in the world, without the shadow copy being traded as the real thing

stiltzkin 5y ago

Now your friend is going to spread misinformation.