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

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#31

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #29
vmception wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This thread isn't about NFTs being an improvement over all copyrighted work, this thread is about NFTs being an improvement over other NFTs.

On the consumer side I wasn't suggesting anything, I said what they have to do in response to an already existing market with already existing transactions. This isn't about some future reality we imagine on an internet forum, this is about one you are simply not in.

If you think checking is too hard, then make a service that makes it easier to check and charge people for it, how often do you rule out business models that you personally identify, because thats what the market is saying to do.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#32

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #30
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abi…

> no different than anything else a consumer has to do

false.

if I buy a coffee machine and inside the box there's a brick there are a number of ways I can use to have my money back.

what you suggest is like buying the coffee machine from an unknown person who's also wearing a mask, altering their voice and doing their business in a shady parking lot picking up the box from the back of a van with no plate.

it would still be safer than what you propose.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#33

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #31
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This thread isn't about NFTs being an improvement over all copyrighted work, this thread is about NFTs being an improvement over other NFTs. On the consumer side I wasn't suggesting anything, I said what they have to do in response to an already existing market with already existing transactions. This isn't about some future reality we imagine on an internet forum, this is about one you are simply not in. If you thin…

> If you think checking is too hard

I'm saying it is useless

Who's the authority that certifies that I am the real aithor of the NFT I'm selling?

And what the original author can do to prevent it?

absolutely nothing.

so it's completely useless.

you're buying random numbers produced by running some computing device at 100% for a few hours/days

would you buy the output of 'cat /dev/urandom'?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#34

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #32
vmception wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abi…

> no different than anything else a consumer has to do false. if I buy a coffee machine and inside the box there's a brick there are a number of ways I can use to have my money back. what you suggest is like buying the coffee machine from an unknown person who's also wearing a mask, altering their voice and doing their business in a shady parking lot picking up the box from the back of a van with no plate. it would s…

whose problem is that? its not the seller's problem. be a seller then. if you don't want to sell plagiarized goods then don't sell plagiarized goods. there's plenty of buyers.

I don't really understand this buyer centric side of things on behalf of ...all buyers... ? are you debating a big purchase?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#35

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #34
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no different than anything else a consumer has to do false. if I buy a coffee machine and inside the box there's a brick there are a number of ways I can use to have my money back. what you suggest is like buying the coffee machine from an unknown person who's also wearing a mask, altering their voice and doing their business in a shady parking lot picking up the box from the back of a van with no plate. it would s…

whose problem is that? its not the seller's problem. be a seller then. if you don't want to sell plagiarized goods then don't sell plagiarized goods. there's plenty of buyers. I don't really understand this buyer centric side of things on behalf of ...all buyers... ? are you debating a big purchase?

> be a seller then

I'm no scammer.

> then don't sell plagiarized.

you're moving the goalpoast.

if you can't tell what's good and what's plagiarized, the only safe assumption is that everything's plagiarized and stay away from it, both as seller and buyer.

black markets are illegal for a good number of reasons.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#36

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #35
vmception wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

whose problem is that? its not the seller's problem. be a seller then. if you don't want to sell plagiarized goods then don't sell plagiarized goods. there's plenty of buyers. I don't really understand this buyer centric side of things on behalf of ...all buyers... ? are you debating a big purchase?

> be a seller then I'm no scammer. > then don't sell plagiarized. you're moving the goalpoast. if you can't tell what's good and what's plagiarized, the only safe assumption is that everything's plagiarized and stay away from it, both as seller and buyer. black markets are illegal for a good number of reasons.

can you elaborate? If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things, how would that be scamming people or moving the goal post of this conversation? who cares if the consumer can't tell the difference, if you personally don't want to scam people with plagiarized work (or scam in the sense of simply making money in that fraudulent way) then you still wouldn't have done that.

do you have a different foundational belief than even that? are you of the belief that anything in the NFT format (a set of software methods with a getImage() method) is a scam?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#37

Post by riptheworld »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #24
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

Correct. But this specifically solves the problem at hand. Rather than storing an entire image, video, etc. on the blockchain, you store a concise representation of that content. The collision-resistance property of a cryptographic hash ensures that the probability of finding two differing NFTs which hash to the same value is negligible. You would include the link in the token as well, but if the link ever rots, you have some way of proving what the original link pointed to.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#38

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #36
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> be a seller then I'm no scammer. > then don't sell plagiarized. you're moving the goalpoast. if you can't tell what's good and what's plagiarized, the only safe assumption is that everything's plagiarized and stay away from it, both as seller and buyer. black markets are illegal for a good number of reasons.

can you elaborate? If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things, how would that be scamming people or moving the goal post of this conversation? who cares if the consumer can't tell the difference, if you personally don't want to scam people with plagiarized work (or scam in the sense of simply making money in that fraudulent way) then you still wouldn't have done that. do you…

> If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things

then you don't need to sell NFTs, you need a government that issues those licenses and protects your copyright by maintaining a (very expensive) judicial system and a PayPal account

> are you of the belief that anything in the NFT format (a set of software methods with a getImage() method) is a scam?

since there is no way yo verify in the chain the validity of the proposal, you have to assume that it is not valid.

it's simply logic

if someone says to you "see? I'm the author because I have this document that certifies I made it" then you can simply give the guy your money and buy the item

he will give to you a signed piece of paper that says 'this is copy #N of the series XXX made by AUTHOR'S NAME' in exchange

done

what does the NFT add to the process, except the (scammy) prospect of being a remunerative investment?

would you buy the same item if there was no 'get rich quick' label attached to it?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#39

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #38
vmception wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you elaborate? If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things, how would that be scamming people or moving the goal post of this conversation? who cares if the consumer can't tell the difference, if you personally don't want to scam people with plagiarized work (or scam in the sense of simply making money in that fraudulent way) then you still wouldn't have done that. do you…

> If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things then you don't need to sell NFTs, you need a government that issues those licenses and protects your copyright by maintaining a (very expensive) judicial system and a PayPal account > are you of the belief that anything in the NFT format (a set of software methods with a getImage() method) is a scam? since there is no way yo verif…

> would you buy the same item if there was no 'get rich quick' label attached to it?

I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications, so yes I would continue to interact with them. I would not rule out buying one either, no different than I wouldn't rule out buying a ticket, or rule out buying an in-game trinket for access. If an artist was releasing a work digitally that I liked, I would consider purchasing the NFT version as well. so of those categories the answer is yes.

I also don't mind selling, or reselling, in that form.

For things I wanted the option to resell, I don't mind if the market dries up. I'm fine waiting, or never getting a bid. Far easier to notice when a bid is available than with some consumer electronics or art pieces I have.

It is not possible for me to put a different higher standard on NFTs, as the similarities are too great to other consumptive goods. Anything NFT specific is either the same experience as something else, or better. Including with the authenticity aspect, I gain consensus over any specific NFT very quickly by checking with the artist or their community and double check the published contract addresses with the one I'm considering to interact with. And there are indeed times when I don't care. Its like if someone made a record of all the volume of prada knockoffs sold on the side of the street, all you see is the number of times people - the buyers - don't care. The NFT is just showing that record of consumer sentiment that has existed for a very long time.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#40

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #39
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things then you don't need to sell NFTs, you need a government that issues those licenses and protects your copyright by maintaining a (very expensive) judicial system and a PayPal account > are you of the belief that anything in the NFT format (a set of software methods with a getImage() method) is a scam? since there is no way yo verif…

> would you buy the same item if there was no 'get rich quick' label attached to it? I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications, so yes I would continue to interact with them. I would not rule out buying one either, no different than I wouldn't rule out buying a ticket, or rule out buying an in-game trinket for access. If an artist was releasing a work digitally th…

> I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications

badges on apps are released by the app itself, they have value because a central authority emits them.

> If an artist was releasing a work digitally that I liked, I would consider purchasing the NFT version as well. so of those categories the answer is yes.

give the money yo the artisti directly, so they don't have to pay a fee to the (useless) platform minting the (useless) NFT

pay them to send you an email if you need proof of ownership

Post reply on HN