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

NFT: even more deceiving

p4bl0.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#21

Post by 8note »

vmception wrote: post #10
kreas wrote: post #4

"What is stored on the blockchain is most often a link to a web page[6] that itself points to the associated object. Here again, we have lost all idea of decentralization" No where in the article did the author mention IPFS ( https://ipfs.io/ ). The trend with NFTs is that the digital assets are stored on IPFS, typically through a pinning service like Pinata ( https://www.pinata.cloud/ ). With the asset being content…

There are also plenty of NFTs with the images embedded directly onchain. Whether base64 binary with an image mimetype or encoded as an SVG. NFT users and buyers will begin to care as domain names for dead projects expire over the next year. To me, it is really strange how people see flaws in an implementation and don't even look for the other people that are working on improving those flaws. The market is saying "hey…

How do those handle DMCA takedowns?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#22

Post by vmception »

8note wrote: post #21
vmception wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also plenty of NFTs with the images embedded directly onchain. Whether base64 binary with an image mimetype or encoded as an SVG. NFT users and buyers will begin to care as domain names for dead projects expire over the next year. To me, it is really strange how people see flaws in an implementation and don't even look for the other people that are working on improving those flaws. The market is saying "hey…

How do those handle DMCA takedowns?

It wouldn't?

I'm not sure the question? An NFT with no reliance on third party infrastructure, as described above, would have no ability for denial of service. More analogous to a non-digital art piece, where only third party individuals or companies that are digitally presenting an existing piece could be coerced by the arm of the state to stop displaying it via a DMCA request, but the existing piece still exists for anyone physically present to see. The NFT would just transcend geography in this case.

So a marketplace like OpenSea or a digital gallery could potentially receive a DMCA request. Galleries with unknown owners are likely going to become more prevalent.

It's up to the communities and potential purchasers to be discerning about what they interact with or buy, not really a standard to place on the technology thats a higher standard than other media. NFTs aren't here to solve plagiarism and unauthorized distribution. For a previous NFT work being re-released by someone else, consumers should check with the official community first before trying to acquire that contract. For an NFT work that wasn't previously issued (like a famous artist putting their stuff onchain suddenly now), they should do greater due diligence.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#23

Post by peoplefromibiza »

user249 wrote: post #9

People are misunderstanding decentralization. Sure we can talk about decentralized technology like IFPS, but we should also talk about moving away from centralized governments, banks and legal systems. Decentralization in this context means we can form our own social group, say a commune in the desert or a virtual group online that skirts the old school central organizations and sets up our own. We could conduct our…

> and if you don't honor what's on the chain then you get killed.

since the chain itself can't enforce anything, I'd say that for that particular business you only need enough gunpower to decide what "honor" means

the blockchain is completely useless

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#24

Post by peoplefromibiza »

riptheworld wrote: post #13

I agree that the current NFT ecosystem is a house of cards, e.g., the susceptibility of NFTs to link rot. That being said, I think the ecosystem will evolve to a having a more robust way of handling these things as it matures. For example, rather than only storing a URL that points to the content, perhaps the token could also include a cryptographic hash of the original content? In the case of link rot, the owner cou…

you have simply exchanged proof of ownership of a link with proof of ownership of an hash

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#25

Post by vmception »

xg15 wrote: post #17
riptheworld wrote: post #13

I agree that the current NFT ecosystem is a house of cards, e.g., the susceptibility of NFTs to link rot. That being said, I think the ecosystem will evolve to a having a more robust way of handling these things as it matures. For example, rather than only storing a URL that points to the content, perhaps the token could also include a cryptographic hash of the original content? In the case of link rot, the owner cou…

This might have the opposite problem: Suppose you own an NFT of your favourite monkey JPEG. At some point however, browsers drop support for the JPEG image format because it is outdated and has long since been replaced by better formats. Of course you could easily convert the ape JPEG into an ape PNG, except the hash would still only be valid for the JPEG. Suddenly, it starts getting unclear what kind of "ownership"…

There are upgradeable contracts (All NFTs are the self-executing code called smart contracts) and the admin key to cause an upgrade can be community governed, even more nuanced approaches such as some variables available to be governed.

So upgrading the image data and format could be possible. They typically use a getImage() method, as part of the NFT standards, a setImage() method could be added with the method being set to OnlyOwner, which is just a member level designation seen in other programming languages like JVMs.

In EVMs, OnlyOwner can be a collective or its own smart contract controlled by a collective.

Depending on the format and size of the image or transformation operation, the transformation could occur onchain. Nodes in a blockchain are just compute instances. I don't see how it matters if such thing occurred onchain or offchain though, as long as the output was written to the setImage method and that fixes the NFT.

This is the kind of stuff developers do everyday in other stacks, I get a feeling many developers (who are a big audience on this forum) just haven't looked at the crypto space on the development side because these conversations make little sense.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#26

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #22
8note wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do those handle DMCA takedowns?

It wouldn't? I'm not sure the question? An NFT with no reliance on third party infrastructure, as described above, would have no ability for denial of service. More analogous to a non-digital art piece, where only third party individuals or companies that are digitally presenting an existing piece could be coerced by the arm of the state to stop displaying it via a DMCA request, but the existing piece still exists fo…

so basically we should throw away millennia of history and trial and error to reboot our societies using a technology that doesn't even work without an internet connection and a very fast computing device?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#27

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #26
vmception wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't? I'm not sure the question? An NFT with no reliance on third party infrastructure, as described above, would have no ability for denial of service. More analogous to a non-digital art piece, where only third party individuals or companies that are digitally presenting an existing piece could be coerced by the arm of the state to stop displaying it via a DMCA request, but the existing piece still exists fo…

so basically we should throw away millennia of history and trial and error to reboot our societies using a technology that doesn't even work without an internet connection and a very fast computing device?

the DMCA is 24 years old and its current use relies on an internet connection more heavily than onchain NFTs do. what stimuli were you replying to exactly, its not clear to me.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#28

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #25
xg15 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might have the opposite problem: Suppose you own an NFT of your favourite monkey JPEG. At some point however, browsers drop support for the JPEG image format because it is outdated and has long since been replaced by better formats. Of course you could easily convert the ape JPEG into an ape PNG, except the hash would still only be valid for the JPEG. Suddenly, it starts getting unclear what kind of "ownership"…

There are upgradeable contracts (All NFTs are the self-executing code called smart contracts) and the admin key to cause an upgrade can be community governed, even more nuanced approaches such as some variables available to be governed. So upgrading the image data and format could be possible. They typically use a getImage() method, as part of the NFT standards, a setImage() method could be added with the method bein…

what's the point of buying sth because it's uniquely identified in the digital space if it's not even unique and can be changed at will?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#29

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #27
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so basically we should throw away millennia of history and trial and error to reboot our societies using a technology that doesn't even work without an internet connection and a very fast computing device?

the DMCA is 24 years old and its current use relies on an internet connection more heavily than onchain NFTs do. what stimuli were you replying to exactly, its not clear to me.

the DMCA relies on something called a law and the power of the State to enforce such law, using the force if necessary.

your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement and rely on personally checking every single trnsaction, because if you don't and are scammed, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do to get your money back.

I'm not sure it's an improvement.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#30

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #28
vmception wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are upgradeable contracts (All NFTs are the self-executing code called smart contracts) and the admin key to cause an upgrade can be community governed, even more nuanced approaches such as some variables available to be governed. So upgrading the image data and format could be possible. They typically use a getImage() method, as part of the NFT standards, a setImage() method could be added with the method bein…

what's the point of buying sth because it's uniquely identified in the digital space if it's not even unique and can be changed at will?

As I mentioned in other threads, it is up to the consumer to be discerning, no different than anything else a consumer has to do. If they want to be part of a community to upgrade the artwork in their possession, then find those kinds of NFTs. If they don't want any ability for their art work to be upgraded, then find those kinds of NFTs.

Some people buy things based on hype.

Some people buy things based on their ability to resell it.

Some people won't be able to.

Thats how market work. Whose problem is that? Its not mine, its probably not yours, so who cares just because NFTs are involved.

Post reply on HN