6 ms·

> Yep. It is a GUI ontop of their smart contracts (public access backend code). You don't have to use their GUI. So what happens if someone just copies the JPG

by mbesto 5y ago

> Yep. It is a GUI ontop of their smart contracts (public access backend code). You don't have to use their GUI. So what happens if someone just copies the JPG and puts on their web host? Isn't that essentially what OpenSea is...a hosted service for the JPG.

vmception 5y ago
You'd have to be conflating about half a dozen different concepts to write that sentence. I can't help you. If you want to learn, you can.
- mbesto 5y ago
  So then explain it instead of the personal attack. You guys seem fun.
  - vmception 5y ago
    > So what happens if someone just copies the JPG and puts on their web host? Isn't that essentially what OpenSea is...a hosted service for the JPG. The question then is whose problem is that? “What happens” to who? There are about 6 or 7 distinct parties in the NFT market, so which person are you thinking about? Who would care and why? What does the rehoster get out of it? That’s a good start
    - mbesto 5y ago
      Random example I found on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/MichaelReeves/comments/js1ib8/someone_stole_my_art/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MichaelReeves/comments/js1ib8/someo... Now let's say instead of Reddit he posted it on OpenSea. The person that owns it OpenSea then lists the image on Redbubble for financial gain. Who then owns it? Clearly the person who owns it on OpenSea? How do we know the person that posted it on Redbubble isn't the true owner and bblaineC isn't the scammer?
      - vmception 5y ago
        Wait, did someone suggest to you that NFT's were a solution to this millennium old reality? Because they aren't. In both scenarios like on Reddit or your NFT version of the scenario, it is up to the consumer to discern (the person that buys a piece of work). These are consumer protection issues before NFTs and after NFTs. People buy non-original work, thats not an NFT problem. People might or might not be able to resell things they buy, whether it is an original or not, that's not an NFT problem. Its not news. Other people try to make it news when NFT's are in the same sentence, but its not clear why. Sometimes when people sell plagiarized work, they receive money, also not news. Its weird I have to even write that, but I guess I have seen people advertise NFTs as something they are not. So try not to be confused by that. The NFT version of this scenario simply makes prior possession, price history of the prior possession, and royalties to the NFT creator, apparent and makes all of that persevere even after the unauthorized listing on the next site is "taken down" or removes it from their GUI due to reports (there is a scenario where the NFT is the plagiarized one, or a second NFT is created that is the plagiarized one. as opposed to just a raster image uploaded onto a pay-for-photos website). The NFT (both the first and second NFT) would still be tradable as there is no way to actually remove it (some implementations can modify the image shown by the NFT, the NFT itself will still exist because the NFT is just a wrapper, more akin to a picture frame). People like that. In the art world, prior possession required lawyers and courts to only partially ascertain and recreate consensus on, price history was also impossible to get with a whole crop of appraisers and insurers involved to recreate consensus on guesswork, and royalties are practically nonexistent except to the most luckiest and privileged content creators who still have to hope they don't need to bring a legal team to ensure payment. NFT's automate all of those things, and that's a massive tweak to a large market that I can see has been a very misunderstand large market. NFT's won't solve a copyright and license dispute. In the scenario where both uploads are NFTs, you could check with the artist. Again because its up to the consumer or collector to figure out if the thing they want to buy/consume is authentic and NFT's aren't there to solve that. NFT's help after consensus on provenance has been reached once. It helps that consensus persevere. Something the art world has lacked for several millennium.
        mbesto 5y ago
dvt 5y ago
All the blockchain holds is that a certain address (0x12345678) owns a certain token ID (42) minted from a certain contract (0xDEADBEEF). That's all. It proves provenance. What the metadata contains, where it's hosted, etc. is irrelevant. So while it's true that OS hosts the JPEG of your NFT, for example (it actually caches it), the point is about proving ownership of a specific token identifier, not just a pretty picture.
- mbesto 5y ago
  Ok so lets say the same JPG exists on two sets of blockchains. One is 0x12345678 and the other one is 99x12345678. How do I prove that I own the JPG?
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Which one did the creator use? That's the one that has legitimacy and value. Legitimacy is basically a coordination game, where you get the best payoff by making the same choice as everyone else. To really dig into this, read this piece by Vitalik: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html
    - mbesto 5y ago
      > Which one did the creator use? That's the one that has legitimacy and value. This is exactly the crux. How do I prove who is the original creator? Vitalik's concept of legitimacy is based on EVERYONE participating. Which is simply not the case right now. To use his example: > Elon selling Elon's tweet is the real thing, and Jeff doing the same is not. Once again, millions of dollars of value are being controlled and allocated, not by individuals or cryptographic keys, but by social conceptions of legitimacy. > But they could also be a missed opportunity: there is little social value in helping Elon Musk earn yet another $1 million by selling his tweet when, as far as we can tell, the money is just going to himself (and, to his credit, he eventually decided not to sell). If NFTs simply become a casino that largely benefits already-wealthy celebrities, that would be a far less interesting outcome. Of course. But what if all of the edgelords that love Elon (and happen to also have much of the control of share of wallets for ETH) decide he should make the $1M? Vitalik's view would be "well that's what the public decided". However it assumes that EVERYONE is an active participant with full knowledge of the situation. And finally he admits himself: > There are definitely more ideas, but this is an area that certainly deserves more active coordination and thought. > But this goes far beyond just Ethereum itself. NFTs are one example of a large pool of capital that depends on concepts of legitimacy. The NFT industry could be a significant boon to artists, charities and other public goods providers far beyond our own virtual corner of the world, but this outcome is not predetermined; it depends on active coordination and support. He's actually just regurgitating the ideas of a direct democracy vs a representative democracy. If the public is not fully engaged and fully informed, then this whole theory essentially breaks down.
alexb_ 5y ago
NFTs are stupid and awful ideas, but I suggest actually reading up about how they work so you can more accurately shit on them instead of repeating things you read on twitter.
- mbesto 5y ago
  Or how about it was a genuine question and you don't have to be rude. No wonder crypto gets a bad rap.
- jker 5y ago
  It seems like the person you're responding to is raising a legitimate criticism of NFTs, or at least, criticism of the touted benefits of them: an NFT provides absolutely no value to its owner unless there's some kind of enforcement of the "property" rights it suggests. If I own an NFT of a JPEG, there's nothing to stop anyone else from simply right-click-downloading that JPEG and hosting it somewhere else. At that point, my NFT is just me shouting "dibs!" to a room full of people who don't care.
  - alexb_ 5y ago
    >unless there's some kind of enforcement of the "property" rights it suggests. That's the entire point of a blockchain. It's valuable because other people agree that it is. Of course, the actual JPEG can be copied, but that doesn't mean your blockchain ownership of it does. You are kind of shouting dibs, but the difference is that a lot of people care. And as long as someone cares enough to pay you money for your dibs, then it has value.

by mbesto 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

You'd have to be conflating about half a dozen different concepts to write that sentence. I can't help you. If you want to learn, you can.

mbesto 5y ago
So then explain it instead of the personal attack. You guys seem fun.
- vmception 5y ago
  > So what happens if someone just copies the JPG and puts on their web host? Isn't that essentially what OpenSea is...a hosted service for the JPG. The question then is whose problem is that? “What happens” to who? There are about 6 or 7 distinct parties in the NFT market, so which person are you thinking about? Who would care and why? What does the rehoster get out of it? That’s a good start
  - mbesto 5y ago
    Random example I found on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/MichaelReeves/comments/js1ib8/someone_stole_my_art/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MichaelReeves/comments/js1ib8/someo... Now let's say instead of Reddit he posted it on OpenSea. The person that owns it OpenSea then lists the image on Redbubble for financial gain. Who then owns it? Clearly the person who owns it on OpenSea? How do we know the person that posted it on Redbubble isn't the true owner and bblaineC isn't the scammer?
    - vmception 5y ago
      Wait, did someone suggest to you that NFT's were a solution to this millennium old reality? Because they aren't. In both scenarios like on Reddit or your NFT version of the scenario, it is up to the consumer to discern (the person that buys a piece of work). These are consumer protection issues before NFTs and after NFTs. People buy non-original work, thats not an NFT problem. People might or might not be able to resell things they buy, whether it is an original or not, that's not an NFT problem. Its not news. Other people try to make it news when NFT's are in the same sentence, but its not clear why. Sometimes when people sell plagiarized work, they receive money, also not news. Its weird I have to even write that, but I guess I have seen people advertise NFTs as something they are not. So try not to be confused by that. The NFT version of this scenario simply makes prior possession, price history of the prior possession, and royalties to the NFT creator, apparent and makes all of that persevere even after the unauthorized listing on the next site is "taken down" or removes it from their GUI due to reports (there is a scenario where the NFT is the plagiarized one, or a second NFT is created that is the plagiarized one. as opposed to just a raster image uploaded onto a pay-for-photos website). The NFT (both the first and second NFT) would still be tradable as there is no way to actually remove it (some implementations can modify the image shown by the NFT, the NFT itself will still exist because the NFT is just a wrapper, more akin to a picture frame). People like that. In the art world, prior possession required lawyers and courts to only partially ascertain and recreate consensus on, price history was also impossible to get with a whole crop of appraisers and insurers involved to recreate consensus on guesswork, and royalties are practically nonexistent except to the most luckiest and privileged content creators who still have to hope they don't need to bring a legal team to ensure payment. NFT's automate all of those things, and that's a massive tweak to a large market that I can see has been a very misunderstand large market. NFT's won't solve a copyright and license dispute. In the scenario where both uploads are NFTs, you could check with the artist. Again because its up to the consumer or collector to figure out if the thing they want to buy/consume is authentic and NFT's aren't there to solve that. NFT's help after consensus on provenance has been reached once. It helps that consensus persevere. Something the art world has lacked for several millennium.
      - mbesto 5y ago

dvt 5y ago

All the blockchain holds is that a certain address (0x12345678) owns a certain token ID (42) minted from a certain contract (0xDEADBEEF). That's all. It proves provenance. What the metadata contains, where it's hosted, etc. is irrelevant. So while it's true that OS hosts the JPEG of your NFT, for example (it actually caches it), the point is about proving ownership of a specific token identifier, not just a pretty picture.

mbesto 5y ago
Ok so lets say the same JPG exists on two sets of blockchains. One is 0x12345678 and the other one is 99x12345678. How do I prove that I own the JPG?
- DennisP 5y ago
  Which one did the creator use? That's the one that has legitimacy and value. Legitimacy is basically a coordination game, where you get the best payoff by making the same choice as everyone else. To really dig into this, read this piece by Vitalik: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > Which one did the creator use? That's the one that has legitimacy and value. This is exactly the crux. How do I prove who is the original creator? Vitalik's concept of legitimacy is based on EVERYONE participating. Which is simply not the case right now. To use his example: > Elon selling Elon's tweet is the real thing, and Jeff doing the same is not. Once again, millions of dollars of value are being controlled and allocated, not by individuals or cryptographic keys, but by social conceptions of legitimacy. > But they could also be a missed opportunity: there is little social value in helping Elon Musk earn yet another $1 million by selling his tweet when, as far as we can tell, the money is just going to himself (and, to his credit, he eventually decided not to sell). If NFTs simply become a casino that largely benefits already-wealthy celebrities, that would be a far less interesting outcome. Of course. But what if all of the edgelords that love Elon (and happen to also have much of the control of share of wallets for ETH) decide he should make the $1M? Vitalik's view would be "well that's what the public decided". However it assumes that EVERYONE is an active participant with full knowledge of the situation. And finally he admits himself: > There are definitely more ideas, but this is an area that certainly deserves more active coordination and thought. > But this goes far beyond just Ethereum itself. NFTs are one example of a large pool of capital that depends on concepts of legitimacy. The NFT industry could be a significant boon to artists, charities and other public goods providers far beyond our own virtual corner of the world, but this outcome is not predetermined; it depends on active coordination and support. He's actually just regurgitating the ideas of a direct democracy vs a representative democracy. If the public is not fully engaged and fully informed, then this whole theory essentially breaks down.

alexb_ 5y ago

NFTs are stupid and awful ideas, but I suggest actually reading up about how they work so you can more accurately shit on them instead of repeating things you read on twitter.

mbesto 5y ago
Or how about it was a genuine question and you don't have to be rude. No wonder crypto gets a bad rap.
jker 5y ago
It seems like the person you're responding to is raising a legitimate criticism of NFTs, or at least, criticism of the touted benefits of them: an NFT provides absolutely no value to its owner unless there's some kind of enforcement of the "property" rights it suggests. If I own an NFT of a JPEG, there's nothing to stop anyone else from simply right-click-downloading that JPEG and hosting it somewhere else. At that point, my NFT is just me shouting "dibs!" to a room full of people who don't care.
- alexb_ 5y ago
  >unless there's some kind of enforcement of the "property" rights it suggests. That's the entire point of a blockchain. It's valuable because other people agree that it is. Of course, the actual JPEG can be copied, but that doesn't mean your blockchain ownership of it does. You are kind of shouting dibs, but the difference is that a lot of people care. And as long as someone cares enough to pay you money for your dibs, then it has value.