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

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#51

Post by riptheworld »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #49
riptheworld wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you store a concise representation of that content which is meaningless. because cosmic rays could flip a bit during the transfer and the content would be different, hence not yours anymore. it's this the kind of ownership you want for the future? I surely don't. imagine if your car was considered another car after a scratch makes it non-identical to the one you bought and you had go through the process of establis…

You are moving the goalposts. I described a mechanism that addresses link rot in the current NFT ecosystem. The hash-based method allows an owner to efficiently prove what content was associated with a rotted link with overwhelming probability. Using this basic building block, one could construct a process that allows an NFT owner to update the link stored on the blockchain.

If you are concerned with changing an NFT's content or debating philosophically about whether that should be allowed, I don't have an opinion. I don't own NFTs, nor am I convinced they will stick around. My point is that the NFT ecosystem will likely evolve to create technical solutions solving many of the problems mentioned in the article.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#52

Post by p4bl0 »

bingbongbing0x wrote: post #41

The global warming argument is pretty tired. I don't see the same commentators applying their concern for global warming over wasteful pointless """""AI"""" or virtually any other kind of computer work. This essay also reeks of producing a surface level argument without diving in further to actual use cases. Many criticized the early internet for its original uses without seeing the bigger picture. You can sit back o…

Have you read the article? It doesn't even mention global warming.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#53

Post by peoplefromibiza »

riptheworld wrote: post #51
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you store a concise representation of that content which is meaningless. because cosmic rays could flip a bit during the transfer and the content would be different, hence not yours anymore. it's this the kind of ownership you want for the future? I surely don't. imagine if your car was considered another car after a scratch makes it non-identical to the one you bought and you had go through the process of establis…

You are moving the goalposts. I described a mechanism that addresses link rot in the current NFT ecosystem. The hash-based method allows an owner to efficiently prove what content was associated with a rotted link with overwhelming probability. Using this basic building block, one could construct a process that allows an NFT owner to update the link stored on the blockchain. If you are concerned with changing an NFT'…

> You are moving the goalposts. I described a mechanism that addresses link rot in the current NFT ecosystem

it doesn't.

IPFS is already content addressable, knowing the hash doesn't solve the fact that the link is dead.

It's like having the address of a building destroyed by an hurricane.

> The hash-based method allows an owner to efficiently prove what content was associated with a rotted link with overwhelming probability

It only proves that a stream of bytes resolve to some hash using some hashing algorithm.

Whoever has on their devices the same stream of bytes can republish the same item on the chain creating a new link that is alive and sell it.

The old one is dead and the money spent to buy the content the link pointed at have been lost forever.

It's like the "All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" trope

I spent money to buy a digital assets and "all I got was this lousy hash string"

> will likely evolve to create technical solutions solving many of the problems mentioned in the article.

or not.

as proved by the many problems in the cryptocurrencies space that people predicted would "likely evolve to create technical solutions" but didn't after more than 10 years and billions of dollars poured to the problem.

so why invest in something that fails to accomplish anything and will fail to do so at least for another 20-30 years?

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#54

Post by vmception »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #47
vmception wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer the NFT version in both circumstances. They inherit current possession and I like the standardized interface. In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account, an NFT may be valuable but I care more about the standardized interface. Most of your discussion has been an assumption of purchasing, not all NFTs need to be purchased or re…

> In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account not valuable in monetary sense, but valuable as "recognized as having a meaning" they can be assumed to be valid exactly because they are emitted with a non standard interface by some centralized entity who's the solely authoritative source allowed to do that. on the other hand NFT standard interf…

any economist will say those are valuable things. a market is a market. I am the market, you are the market, I say it is recognized as having meaning to me, as well as recognizing the monetary sense, and that's all that's necessary. It fits my risk profile to take the risk of ongoing possession using a blockchain medium, and it fits my risk profile on a case by case basis to spend money on one whether there is an assurance of a future buyer or not.

Every "issue" you have with an artist or issuer making money simply says it is a functioning market. Which is the only standard of markets possible. I don't push potential external behaviors of the participants onto the concept of whether there are transactions happen ("curing cancer or scamming people" as if mutually exclusive), it is completely boolean to me:

if(isTransaction() == true) isMarket(true);

the consumers should check if it fits their risk profile.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#55

Post by peoplefromibiza »

vmception wrote: post #54
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account not valuable in monetary sense, but valuable as "recognized as having a meaning" they can be assumed to be valid exactly because they are emitted with a non standard interface by some centralized entity who's the solely authoritative source allowed to do that. on the other hand NFT standard interf…

any economist will say those are valuable things. a market is a market. I am the market, you are the market, I say it is recognized as having meaning to me, as well as recognizing the monetary sense, and that's all that's necessary. It fits my risk profile to take the risk of ongoing possession using a blockchain medium, and it fits my risk profile on a case by case basis to spend money on one whether there is an ass…

that's over simplifying things

selling illegal guns is a market too

and far more lucrative than NFTs

the issues that a market has make the difference between an healthy market and an unhelathy (or sometimes criminal) one

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#56

Post by miracle2k »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #50
miracle2k wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists, and the corresponding owner in the column to the right. That spreadsheet will survive the bankruptcy of any particular company, which gives the tokens a sense of permanence, and Benjaminian aura if you will, that you don't get from a ledger run by Google. That is what is is, that is what people find it useful for. It is not supposed to do any other thing…

> It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists or by people that found something slightly interesting and put it on the blockchain for money. here's no assurance that some artist made it, there's no assurance the author is the one selling it, there's basically no assurance, apart that they are trying to trick people into thinking that it's an investment. It's, in other words, a scam. > That spreadsh…

> here's no assurance that some artist made it

Correct. I do not see how it follows that a NFT minted by the artist who made it is a scam.

> 98% of NFTs will last at max few months

You make this mistake because you think the url matters. It does not. It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives. Agreement on what the token represents, either ad-hoc or through a hash is enough.

> at least I can sue Google if they publish on their ledger the hash of something I made and someone else sold without my permission...

True.

> People absolutely don't care about the item, proof is that the majority of items sold as NFTs would never ever have a market outside of the speculative bubble (and in fact they never had one before).

There is a speculative bubble, but art will remain hard to sell the less it is a short-term speculative investment, but the creation of this previously non-existent market is indeed the contribution here. Without the market, the spreadsheet is not interesting.

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#57

Post by peoplefromibiza »

miracle2k wrote: post #56
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists or by people that found something slightly interesting and put it on the blockchain for money. here's no assurance that some artist made it, there's no assurance the author is the one selling it, there's basically no assurance, apart that they are trying to trick people into thinking that it's an investment. It's, in other words, a scam. > That spreadsh…

> here's no assurance that some artist made it Correct. I do not see how it follows that a NFT minted by the artist who made it is a scam. > 98% of NFTs will last at max few months You make this mistake because you think the url matters. It does not. It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives. Agreement on what the token represents, either ad-hoc or through a hash is enough. > at least I can sue Google if th…

> It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives

it doesn't make any sense in this context

of course if I buy a painting i am responsible to maintain the painting, but the painting It's the item I bough!

here you're buying the URL, the only way to keep it working is taking over the maintenance of someone else's server, but only for that specific URL

Or I have to pay and there's no limit on how much it would cost

If i move the item to another URL, _it would be indistinguable from the billions of possible exact replicas_

hence NFTs provide no value at all

> There is a speculative bubble, but art will remain hard to sell the less it is a short-term speculative investment

art has a value if I can put it on display

Re: NFT: even more deceiving

#58

Post by miracle2k »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #57
miracle2k wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> here's no assurance that some artist made it Correct. I do not see how it follows that a NFT minted by the artist who made it is a scam. > 98% of NFTs will last at max few months You make this mistake because you think the url matters. It does not. It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives. Agreement on what the token represents, either ad-hoc or through a hash is enough. > at least I can sue Google if th…

> It is the collectors job to ensure the art survives it doesn't make any sense in this context of course if I buy a painting i am responsible to maintain the painting, but the painting It's the item I bough ! here you're buying the URL, the only way to keep it working is taking over the maintenance of someone else's server, but only for that specific URL Or I have to pay and there's no limit on how much it would cos…

> here you're buying the URL

But you aren't buying the URL, your are buying a ledger entry that represents an artwork, and there happens to be a URL attached for your convenience.

> The only way to keep it working is taking over the maintenance of someone else's server, but only for that specific URL

IPFS fits neatly in here. Anyone can seed a particular file they want to seed.

Post reply on HN