2 ms·

That's why usually NFTs point to IPFS addresses which are just hashes of the content and it doesn't matter where they are hosted.

• ineedasername 5y ago
  Seems like a very lossy form of compression. Not to mention that hashes usually aren't reversible. Not a great stand in for the real thing, especially when the real thing might be a widely available jpeg. There's really something I don't understand about how an NFT, apart from cryptographic foundation, is different enough from, say, a UUID in a traditional database. Also it would be funny if there was a (very highly unlikely) hash collision between two different valuable NFTs.
  • dlubarov 5y ago
    Whoever owns an NFT can prevent the pre-image from being lost by just personally storing it. If they wanted to ensure the pre-image is easily accessible to others, they could additionally host it on IPFS.
    • ineedasername 5y ago
      What if the NFT is for a physical object? (and one that may or may not exist any longer?) I mean, clearly hashing wouldn't seem to apply there. But it still leaves the question of whether there's a substantial difference between a traditional database entry. I may be overlooking something because I don't see the problem solved by NFTs. I see the use for them as part of an artistic statement, but not a general use function.