71–80 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like options on a stock market. You don't own the stock itself.(part of the company) Just a link (with rules) to it.
Not even close. Options give you legally enforceable rights to buy the stock itself. An NFT gives you no such rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my case, if arweave allows for digital pieces to disappear from the web, then that means they've likely failed as a project considering they've positioned themselves to be a permaweb. However, interestingly if you leverage the token ownership for access, in my collection's case, even if the static image is wiped for whatever reason, they could still access the interactive service and see their art, and interact wi…
And how can the "buyer" verify if the creation has unlimited "lifetime"? If the original creator can even delete the artwork, the owner is never sure.
I don't quite know the extent of power that I could leverage as a creator over data on arweave. It's not ever crossed my mind as to why I'd possibly want to alter that.
At the end of the day you have to have some degree of trust with most services you interact with, and I think this would be no different. Maybe I as a creator could eliminate this ability to update anything on arweave after the initial upload by changing the update authority to a wallet that is programmatically created from an onchain program, and off of the Ed25519 curve. If I am able to do something like that, then it would be impossible to access the wallet since it doesn't have a valid private key, and maybe then it's truly immutable?
It's a problem I actually haven't thought of until now. But there's probably something I could do along those lines.
Honestly if something like that works then it might be a generalizable solution to the problem you're suggesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a recent conversation with a (soon to be) lawyer [as I understand it] software typically uses what's called a "shrink wrap contract" [1] wherein the _usage_ of the product implicitly accepts a license. As far as I can tell, nothing in the ERC721 standard (for example) has any provision for such a legal instrument to be included. As such, I don't see how NFT "ownership" can (currently) be construed to possess any…
Similar to buying a signed print from an artist—no contract involved, no legal transfer of copyright or intellectual property, no claim to anything except ownership of the artist-signed artefact. In the case of NFT it is mostly equivalent: claim of ownership over the artist-signed artefact (the token).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "ownership" of an NFT even mean? Can you even repudiate ownership later if you so chose? Can you remove the record of your ownership of the NFT? Can you transfer that ownership outside of the blockchain? NFTs seem like blockchain graffiti. You've purchased the right to tag a passing train car, that's all.
> What does "ownership" of an NFT even mean? It means that the shared ledger (also called blockchain) has a record of that specific NFT belonging to your address. > Can you even repudiate ownership later if you so chose? Yes, you send it to a "burn address" which is a address no one has access to. > Can you remove the record of your ownership of the NFT? Like remove the history? If so, no, blockchains are (usually) i…
Such a token is inherently worthless. The only value comes from rights that token can confer.
That’s why people are trying to associate them with objects of real-world value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how can the "buyer" verify if the creation has unlimited "lifetime"? If the original creator can even delete the artwork, the owner is never sure.
That's a fair question, and really I think it comes down to degrees of trust. As you say, ultimately I as the creator of the tokens could possibly utilize my update authority to change some of the underlying metadata for the token. The only real reason I can think of that I'd do it for this project is bugfixes if there is something botched in the metadata for specific tokens. I don't quite know the extent of power th…
Bought source is available for download as soon as I buy something. So i have it in my possession on my drive when eg. Envato deletes the assets because of copyright infringement.
Also, i frequently visit https://rekt.news/ and trust seems to be far-fetched. Even the auditors sometimes keep the 0-days to themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even close. Options give you legally enforceable rights to buy the stock itself. An NFT gives you no such rights.
I don't know the name in english, in german they are called "Optionsscheine" they are like options, but they also get taken down, disabled etc if the stock moved too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And neither does the Blockchain have provenance of... anything really.
Of course it does. Go try and right click save a Bitcoin and sell it on Coinbase or Gemini.
I someday hope that people realize what you can do with single issue tokens beyond simply having a link to cloud storage. You can create products that utilize this same behavior, but also leverage proof of ownership to create actual unique applications. With even just an ounce of developer ingenuity, you can use NFTs as an access token to whatever service you wish to provide. I put together a collection that is both…
Sure, fine. Why do I care? I can use said copy on any other service I want. If your argument is "ah yes, but someone out there believes that's not as valuable because it ignores their 'ownership'", and you can't see why that isn't persuasive, then I really am not sure we share enough of the same reality to discuss this rationally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't fully agree with your characterization. I'm more in favor of: Stealing the painting = hacking the wallet/private key to transfer the NFT Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking
> Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking Absolutely not. A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. Right clicking a JPG , saving it on your laptop and looking at whenever you want gives you the exact same satisfaction as paying 100k USD for the work of art. Matter of fact it gives you way more satisfaction, because y…
That seems a bit handwavy to me. Apparently some museums don't even put originals on display, only a replica (due to conservation/vandalism concerns). Maybe that means that the "satisfaction" you get is purely placebo? In other words, it's the same painting for all intents and purposes (to your amateur eye), and the "satisfaction" you're getting is some vague notion that this particular painting is the original. Does this start sounding like NFTs to you?
Can I legally create an NFT of someone else's artwork? What determines that NFT "A" is the canonical NFT of artwork "X"?