I'm very surprised that those (the JSON and the picture) are not stored in a decentralised way e.g. IPFS or Swarm. So if I buy an expensive NFT, and the domain goes down, the NFT is now worthless? We should be on the lookout for any of these domains expiring, then we will buy them and upload Rick Astley GIFs
Most NFT projects are in fact stored on IPFS. You can put an IPFS URL in the tokenURI field.
However, if someone ever stops paying a 3rd party to actually pin the file in IPFS… poof
Just because you put a file in IPFS doesn’t mean IPFS actually retains it
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.
No it doesn’t but it seems like will eventually, that’s why it’s a debated topic the last few years and varies from locality to locality. Legislators may eventually legislate the NFT too.
> it's simply a note useful to figure out who owns what within the framework of the community Owning an NFT does not mean you own the underlying asset.
Define owning. Depending on your definition, it may mean or may not mean owning. In the NFT circles, the record on the chain indicating that you own something means you own something because ownership transfer will happen within the exact same framework. NFT is not a media to purchase rights of an artwork to print it t-shirts or something like that. These things happen within the legal framework of a jurisdiction tha…
I think ownership is about control. It can be direct, like owning a baseball card, or indirect, a legal contract with a company like Amazon to maintain servers. NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain. So the actual object for which we are trying to establish "ownership" can disappear against your wishes. It is not like owning a baseball card, more like owning a receipt of purchase.
This topic turned up a week ago. [0] Personally I like the analogy to baseball cards. From [0]: > Owning an NFT generally doesn't grant you copyrights over the underlying work of art. Owning a baseball card doesn't mean the athlete now works for you. They can both still have value as collectible items, if that's something that interests you. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29050802
However with a baseball card you do own the card. With an NFT you don't even own the digital item, nor is it intrinsically associated with a blockchain entry that you can prove ownership of. You basically own a link to a url which for some period of time will hopefully point at the jpg (or whatever it is).
With the baseball card you own a particular print of an image. Doesn't grant you any rights over the original image, there are many other copies of it, the image can be reproduced at will by anyone, etc. It's not that different. The card might be signed by the athlete, in wich case it gains value, but that signature might be a forgery, etc. Collectible NFTs is like owning just the autograph bit.
I hate to admit it but I’m still struggling to understand why people would pay so much for NFTs. I feel like I fully understand what they are and why most people want me to believe it has value but I still don’t agree. I’m waiting for my mind to change but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s frustrating because so many people I respect are leaving their high paying jobs to work in web3 startups around NFTs and I feel dumb f…
Think about collectables in the real world, and imagine how they could possibly work in the digital world. For example, people collect trading cards for various sports, and there is 1 owner per card who can trade/sell the card to others. How would you facilitate this idea in the digital world? Well you can't use a regular database, because it's easy for it to be hacked/shutdown, and if it's run by a third-party then…
Except, in many cases the value isn't derived from simply owning something when it is still publicly accessible and can be copied and reupload with many people claiming original ownership. Imagine Hollywood movies in the NFT space where anyone can access them for free and share then for Profit. , or the platform where they are hosted might shutdown. And while you might in some legal sense still have rights to something you'd no longer have access to something the courts haven't really got the involved yet so there is very little case law. It would be like going to judge and saying you own something, and someone else says but they share it for free on the Internet. It would be like movie studios bootlegging their own content
I hate to admit it but I’m still struggling to understand why people would pay so much for NFTs. I feel like I fully understand what they are and why most people want me to believe it has value but I still don’t agree. I’m waiting for my mind to change but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s frustrating because so many people I respect are leaving their high paying jobs to work in web3 startups around NFTs and I feel dumb f…
I think a lot of it is to just support artists. A kind of charity from universe for artist to continue doing what they are doing. People who are making big money on NFT are already established artists. With physical art, artist sells it once and has no idea where it is. With NFTs, artists can set up royalties for every sale. With block chain, if you can verify address of artist then as a buyer you can guarantee that you are buying original work and also ensures that all (or some during resale) money goes to artist.
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.
No it doesn’t but it seems like will eventually, that’s why it’s a debated topic the last few years and varies from locality to locality. Legislators may eventually legislate the NFT too.
Pull the other one! You can literally see legislation that impact NFTs going into US law this week and confiscations of crypto-currency from criminal cases as well.
The crypto crowd doesn’t like it but it’s not because the understanding of ownership of the coins and tokens is different. The art a token points to on the other hand.
Put it this way I absolutely think people that own an NFT own the token and owned the currency used to pay for it. I don’t in anyway think they own the art it’s supposed to represent.
Define owning. Depending on your definition, it may mean or may not mean owning. In the NFT circles, the record on the chain indicating that you own something means you own something because ownership transfer will happen within the exact same framework. NFT is not a media to purchase rights of an artwork to print it t-shirts or something like that. These things happen within the legal framework of a jurisdiction tha…
I think ownership is about control. It can be direct, like owning a baseball card, or indirect, a legal contract with a company like Amazon to maintain servers. NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain. So the actual object for which we are trying to establish "ownership" can disappear against your wishes. It is not like owning a baseball card, more like owning a receipt of purchase.
>NFTs fail on giving any control except on the blockchain
That's why you own the NFT, you trade the NFT, you transfer the NFT.
No it doesn’t but it seems like will eventually, that’s why it’s a debated topic the last few years and varies from locality to locality. Legislators may eventually legislate the NFT too.
Pull the other one! You can literally see legislation that impact NFTs going into US law this week and confiscations of crypto-currency from criminal cases as well. The crypto crowd doesn’t like it but it’s not because the understanding of ownership of the coins and tokens is different. The art a token points to on the other hand. Put it this way I absolutely think people that own an NFT own the token and owned the c…
Just as Afghanistan recently outlawed foreing currency use and that's Afghans' problem, this is also something US citizens should deal with. Spoiler alert: Most people in the world are not US citizens and don't live in the US.
The ownership of the underlying asset depends on what you understand by ownership.