Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

erickhun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 264 posts

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#101

Post by [deleted] »

sanmon3186 wrote: post #87
iamwil wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's best to think of NFTs as deeds to the art (or certificate of authenticity), rather than the art itself. I wrote this a little while back, and it might help you. https://interjectedfuture.com/nfts-unbundle-ownership-from-e... If NFTs as deed to art isn't convincing for you, check out ENS. https://ens.domains/ It's a name registrar that's a smart contract. Each ENS domain name is an NFT.

May be a dumb question but how can we certify that the same asset doesn’t exist as two or more NFTs on different block chains. There are tons of them and each can have its own monalisa.

[deleted]

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#102

Post by meheleventyone »

mrtksn wrote: post #89
meheleventyone wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to have some odd local definition of ownership you’ve already lost and know it! Compare it to physical art. If you buy physical art you take control of the object and can do what you like with it including keeping it locked up in a customs warehouse. If you buy a token you own the token not anything it points to. You can do what you like with the token but not what it points to. You own a link.

The stuff you describe about physical art is only valid within a jurisdiction that has legislated ownership of physical items. You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse. You can be custodian of it if the legal framework allows for that, it still can be yours of someone takes ot from you physically. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible that despite you…

Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction.

All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who don’t know you have a peculiar definition. This happens a lot in blockchain communities where ownership, trust, decentralisation and other terms end up being a lot more local in definition because the whole house of cards gets exposed if you actually look at things more neutrally. It’s a bit cult like in that respect and interestingly a lot of cults have odd ideas about ownership as well.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#103

Post by exclipy »

iamwil wrote: post #54

This isn't the whole story. Some NFTs are written to the blockchain. Avastars https://avastars.io/ is an NFT collection that's represented by an SVG. The SVGs are all written on-chain, back when it was cheaper to do so. https://nft.substack.com/p/the-art-of-avastars The original NFT, Cryptopunks is also written on-chain now. (It wasn't originally). https://www.larvalabs.com/blog/2021-8-18-18-0/on-chain-crypt... One o…

Did you read any of that code?

I looked at mooncatparser and it just hardcodes all possible 2-bit art as a big string array constant at the top of the JS file. Definitely not "on the blockchain". The part that's stored on the blockchain is the index into the big string array.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#104

Post by kerng »

There was a post on Embrace the Red a while ago. It also talks about how there is not even a hash required on-chain.

https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2021/broken-nft-standar...

It all is really up to whoever implements it to make decisions on how secure/verifiable/reliable an NFT is.

Storing the image itself on-chain actually makes most often not a lot of sense if you think about it, but at least a hash should be required in such cases.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#105

Post by meheleventyone »

sanmon3186 wrote: post #87
iamwil wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's best to think of NFTs as deeds to the art (or certificate of authenticity), rather than the art itself. I wrote this a little while back, and it might help you. https://interjectedfuture.com/nfts-unbundle-ownership-from-e... If NFTs as deed to art isn't convincing for you, check out ENS. https://ens.domains/ It's a name registrar that's a smart contract. Each ENS domain name is an NFT.

May be a dumb question but how can we certify that the same asset doesn’t exist as two or more NFTs on different block chains. There are tons of them and each can have its own monalisa.

You can’t even stop copies on the same chain AFAIK. It’s decentralised after all.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#106

Post by mrtksn »

meheleventyone wrote: post #102
mrtksn wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stuff you describe about physical art is only valid within a jurisdiction that has legislated ownership of physical items. You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse. You can be custodian of it if the legal framework allows for that, it still can be yours of someone takes ot from you physically. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible that despite you…

Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction. All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who d…

Yes, blockchain stuff don’t abide within the established definitions in the society. In fact, that’s the main value proposition of it. You own certain amount of coins or NFT not because the legal framework allows it but because the software that interprets the blockchain says so. it’s distributed nature makes it a societal construct within the society that uses that software.

To own anything in the blockchain in the traditional sense, there needs to be a legislation for it and I’m not aware of any. The point is though, it doesn’t matter.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#107

Post by renewiltord »

captn3m0 wrote: post #81
cloogshicer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I meant it solves the problem in digital space. But even in offline space, the artist or seller could transfer an NFT to your account. You could then verify its authenticity (or even before the transfer).

In the digital space, we have signed PDFs. So a comic book artist could easily generate 100 numbered PDFs, and sign them each. Anyone could verify it's authenticity using even Adobe Acrobat Reader, which has had this functionality for decades.

Yeah, but I can’t sell you the PDF because I can’t prove that I’m selling only to you. That makes the PDF useless to sell on.

An example of something is the fact that I am a vim donor and a neovim initial backer. I really like that I’m in backers.md. If they would have handed out NFTs for backing, I would have loved that too.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#108

Post by meowkit »

folli wrote: post #76
sbierwagen wrote: post #3

>ERC-721 is the standard that dictates how one should create an NFT. Each ERC721 NFT must have a tokenURI field, that is an external link to a JSON file stored on an external server ... You can notice the image field, which is a link to an image. Not just a link, a link to a link! And when that server goes down next year, all those JSON files will vanish.

I mean, as the article mentions, you could store the image on the chain. Or at least a Hash of the image to prevent a bait-and-switch. But it would cost too much of added gas fees and the average user wouldn't understand the difference.

> But it would cost too much of added gas fees and the average user wouldn't understand the difference.

Reminder that this a poor line of thinking.

The average user of a smartphone has no idea how it works. The average user of software has no idea how their apps work. The average user of a blockchain doesn't know how it works, and they won't need to. This stuff gets abstracted out and developed enough to hide these details over time.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#109

Post by Ekaros »

Bombthecat wrote: post #86
sbierwagen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most plausible conspiracy theories I've heard is that the big sales ($1 million plus) are wash trades, ("sell" an object to a confederate for 500 ETH, then they transfer the money right back via another route) and some classic money laundering Now of course there's a mountain of clueless suckers kicking off a regular tulip mania-style bubble. I wonder how many more weeks it will last.

Or: kids who started early with crypto with no idea of wealth and worth of a coin. When you habe thousands of coins. Giving out one isnt that expensive..

I think for some of them it is just next step in the crypto investment/gambling. The current hotness in making money by flipping tokens after ICOs... With all of the usual FOMO and so on...

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#110

Post by meheleventyone »

mrtksn wrote: post #106
meheleventyone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction. All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who d…

Yes, blockchain stuff don’t abide within the established definitions in the society. In fact, that’s the main value proposition of it. You own certain amount of coins or NFT not because the legal framework allows it but because the software that interprets the blockchain says so. it’s distributed nature makes it a societal construct within the society that uses that software. To own anything in the blockchain in the…

Actually the ownership of the coins and tokens does fit into established definitions. Hence why it slides into legal frameworks quite nicely and we see taxation, prosecutions and so on based on that ownership.

It’s just the ownership of what the NFT points to doesn’t.

Post reply on HN