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

151–160 of 264 posts

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

#151

Post by captn3m0 »

renewiltord wrote: post #107
captn3m0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The artist could publish a git repo with all the signatures? We already solved this problem with Cert Transparency in PKI.

None of this needs a energy-hungry blockchain.

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

#152

Post by koonsolo »

todd3834 wrote: post #17

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…

This is how I understand it: Baseball cards sell for millions of dollars.

Do those cards provide ownership to anything or anyone? No. Are they signed by the original players? No. Do they give you any other benefit? No.

It's just collector items that refers to something, and there is a limited amount of them. But that's basically it.

Now you could argue that you can hold a card in your hand, and an NFT not. But that is not where that crazy value is coming from.

I'm not claiming that NFT's value is justified, I have no idea about that. But to me it seems like a "collectors" thing.

Because let's be serious, nobody in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a freaking card with some baseball player at the front. Same goes for NFT's.

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

#154

Post by koonsolo »

bananamerica wrote: post #92

Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely pretend to understand it; - those that duel in such profound abstractions that the actual world for them becomes a nuisance, a minor detail, an after thought. NFTs are a joke, a thought experiment taken too far. They're the modern version of The Emperor's New c…

Or they are the new baseball cards.

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

#155

Post by thephyber »

razemio wrote: post #90
atoav wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a practical level it is the attempt to bait rich people into believing into ownership and scarcity in a place where it doesn't exist: The internet.

Ownership of digital goods does exist since blockchain technology. You can now proof that things existed at a given time and that you are the rightful owner. That was not possible before without a middleman. Incoperate that to YouTube. At the moment millions of channels steal video revenue from their creators. If it would be accepted as proof that you where the first uploading this video, ownership can be proofen in…

This doesn't require a middleman, even pre-blockchain.

Proof of Ownership of digital content has existed for at least 30 years; digital signatures were a feature of PGP.

I could host the original video (original quality before upload) on my own website, link to / host my PGP public key, host the content digital signature on my website, then post these links in the YouTube description after I upload it there.

NFTs don't always identify the owner publicly by their real world identity; typically the blockchain only proves that a particular wallet id owns the content. Hence, there is another link in the chain to be proven for your use case. PGP doesn't necessarily fix this either; it only proves that the digital key pair own the content, not an IRL identity.

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

#156

Post by [deleted] »

koonsolo wrote: post #154
bananamerica wrote: post #92

Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely pretend to understand it; - those that duel in such profound abstractions that the actual world for them becomes a nuisance, a minor detail, an after thought. NFTs are a joke, a thought experiment taken too far. They're the modern version of The Emperor's New c…

Or they are the new baseball cards.

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by robjan »

MrPatan wrote: post #150
IceWreck wrote: post #28

NFTs are such a sham to claim fake "ownership" of an asset. All the images/files are public anyways. Nothing stops me from creating another blockchain and call it NFTv2. And then I can create an NFT which points to the original asset. Its just as legit as the Etherium one. Or just change the link to the same file and create an NFT on the Etherium blockchain.

You can also copy and set up your own land registry and say it's all yours. Yes, it's all a social convention, like all property. If enough people decide it's "real" then it is.

You can't copy and enjoy my property for free, you can copy and enjoy an NFT for free.

If you were to get the new Land Registry enforced you would have to change the law, in which case the blockchain is no longer needed since the idea and enforcement of ownership is centralised with the government.

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

#158

Post by newswasboring »

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…

> You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse

NFTs seem to be the opposite of this. Just "ownership" but no control. How do people not see a problem with this.

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

#159

Post by thinkingemote »

koonsolo wrote: post #154
bananamerica wrote: post #92

Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely pretend to understand it; - those that duel in such profound abstractions that the actual world for them becomes a nuisance, a minor detail, an after thought. NFTs are a joke, a thought experiment taken too far. They're the modern version of The Emperor's New c…

Or they are the new baseball cards.

Baseball cards used to come with a purchase of a real product. They were an incentive to buy actual things. People collect them now, but they didn't exist on their own back then initially.

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

#160

Post by pama »

throaway6942 wrote: post #121
arcticbull wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like this $500,000,000 flash loan backed wash trade of punk 9998. [1] [1] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/crypto-punk-500-million-sa...

that's not a wash trade.. it was just a publicity stunt. I know the guy who did it!

I suspect that the guy who did it now owes the IRS a large commission in the form of taxes.
Post reply on HN