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

People Don't Understand NFTs

robert-chung.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#11

Post by Zaskoda »

tdeck wrote: post #6

> Imagine the U.S government started incorporating this global ledger to account for home ownership — automatically, they have a reputable brand. Since the code itself is out in public, it can be trusted and audited. Take this idea further and imagine the UN starts to keep track of land ownership for the entire world! Same deal — brand and trust, both satisfied. Where to even begin with this idea? First of all, many…

> Where to even begin with this? First of all, many local governments in the U.S. already have public databases of who owns what land. This is a problem that can be solved with a SQLite database, it doesn't need a blockchain.

I believe you're missing the opportunity that exists for automation. That database is heavily guarded by layers of human administration. I can't sell you my land without involving a bunch of humans who interpret contracts and push buttons. In a world where land ownership were recognized by tokens on a distributed ledger, buying and selling land no longer requires the overhead of all that administration.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#12

Post by woodruffw »

Vanit wrote: post #10
woodruffw wrote: post #2

> Finally, here’s where Gucci & Chanel differ from CryptoPunks — and one of the main ideas of why NFTs are revolutionary: you can’t fake it. Why not? This seems to be a popular sticking point in the NFT crowd, but it's never really been made clear to me. There seem to be oodles of duplicate NFTs out there (much less ones based on stolen art), so why can't I just make another?

Not only can anyone create another NFT; there's no reason the rightful ccreator can't decide they want to pretend the og NFT was "1 of N" and then create more later, diluting the value of the original.

I figured as much. It seems like a nightmarish substrate to base ownership on.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#13

Post by tdeck »

Zaskoda wrote: post #8

NFTs or whatever we call them in the long run will probably be important. I started working on an Ethereum game dApp in 2017. My NFTs are actual assets in a game that also runs on-chain. By following the ERC721 standard, I don't have to build a marketplace for my game assets. Gamers can just use any marketplace they like. I'm also going to have an ERC20 token that is just the in-game currency. It doesn't have to be E…

That sounds like a user experience that's going to be pretty prohibitive for most consumers though. Only hardcore crypto enthusiasts who also want to play your game are going to be willing to set up a wallet and figure out how to trade your NFTs.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#14

Post by altrum »

woodruffw wrote: post #9
bejelentkezni wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the picture of Calvin peeing isn't the NFT, the NFT is a cryptographically-secure blockchain that records ownership. They exist so that people can "own" the "real copy" of data that has no reason to be scarce. And like the article says, this worthless math is indeed mostly used for cash grabs and money laundering.

I know the picture of Calvin peeing isn't the "proof," it's just the public facing instrument. But this still isn't satisfying: anybody can put another transaction on that same blockchain (or a different one) with another proof of ownership. So which one is the real one?

Author here. Again, this is where "branding" comes in. Once people know which smart-contract is the real one, putting another transaction won't work.

Sure, some people may fall for fakes and buy an NFT from a duplicate smart-contract, but this only happens due to the current lack of infrastructure in the ecosystem.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#15

Post by gus_massa »

Zaskoda wrote: post #11
tdeck wrote: post #6

> Imagine the U.S government started incorporating this global ledger to account for home ownership — automatically, they have a reputable brand. Since the code itself is out in public, it can be trusted and audited. Take this idea further and imagine the UN starts to keep track of land ownership for the entire world! Same deal — brand and trust, both satisfied. Where to even begin with this idea? First of all, many…

> Where to even begin with this? First of all, many local governments in the U.S. already have public databases of who owns what land. This is a problem that can be solved with a SQLite database, it doesn't need a blockchain. I believe you're missing the opportunity that exists for automation. That database is heavily guarded by layers of human administration. I can't sell you my land without involving a bunch of hum…

Let's spouse I have two properties, one big and one small, and I sell you the small one for $X. But I miskick and send you the big one. If you don't want to return it to me, can I go to a judge?

What about kidnaping? If someone kidnaps me and use a wrench to send my property, can it be returned?

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#16

Post by altrum »

mjevans wrote: post #4

blockchain "baseball cards" is the best quick description I have for NFTs. It makes less sense than that to me though. Isn't an NFT just, within a specific blockchain, claiming to 'own' or control a bit of datastream? Like a photo, or video, or object model. Except this isn't even insanity normally practiced like copyright or patents; you don't get any of those artificial 'land grab' rights. Just your name attached t…

I think "baseball cards" is a limited view of the NFT model, which is what's being argued in this article; it's essentially a programmable, global database.

Just like how we trust certain government records to be accurate & representative of ownership, each chain, if secure, can achieve the same functionality in a more open and decentralized way (also its inherently global, which can have huge implications wrt globalization)

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#17

Post by grupthink »

bejelentkezni wrote: post #5
woodruffw wrote: post #2

> Finally, here’s where Gucci & Chanel differ from CryptoPunks — and one of the main ideas of why NFTs are revolutionary: you can’t fake it. Why not? This seems to be a popular sticking point in the NFT crowd, but it's never really been made clear to me. There seem to be oodles of duplicate NFTs out there (much less ones based on stolen art), so why can't I just make another?

Because the picture of Calvin peeing isn't the NFT, the NFT is a cryptographically-secure blockchain that records ownership. They exist so that people can "own" the "real copy" of data that has no reason to be scarce. And like the article says, this worthless math is indeed mostly used for cash grabs and money laundering.

My understanding is that the blockchain records ownership of just a token. If OpenSea or Nifty (or whatever NFT marketplace) shuts down, who then associates the artifact to the token on the blockchain? Would the token you own on the blockchain go worthless?

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#18

Post by tdeck »

Zaskoda wrote: post #11
tdeck wrote: post #6

> Imagine the U.S government started incorporating this global ledger to account for home ownership — automatically, they have a reputable brand. Since the code itself is out in public, it can be trusted and audited. Take this idea further and imagine the UN starts to keep track of land ownership for the entire world! Same deal — brand and trust, both satisfied. Where to even begin with this idea? First of all, many…

> Where to even begin with this? First of all, many local governments in the U.S. already have public databases of who owns what land. This is a problem that can be solved with a SQLite database, it doesn't need a blockchain. I believe you're missing the opportunity that exists for automation. That database is heavily guarded by layers of human administration. I can't sell you my land without involving a bunch of hum…

> That database is heavily guarded by layers of human administration. I can't sell you my land without involving a bunch of humans who interpret contracts and push buttons. In a world where land ownership were recognized by tokens on a distributed ledger, buying and selling land no longer requires the overhead of all that administration.

Those layers of human administration are called a "state". Without that, the concept of property is pretty much meaningless to begin with. I can claim to own any piece of land I want. The state pays people to show up with weapons if I'm using land that they've decided "belongs" to somebody else. It gets to set the terms of land ownership and to insert itself into every transaction because of the ability to use force, not because it has the most efficient record-keeping system.

What that means is that the fundamental premise of blockchain technology, that there's no need for an external authority, is completely at odds with the reality of how property works. If there's a smart contract that says I own parcel X, but the people with guns say I don't own it, who wins that argument? That means the state needs a way to insert itself into and modify the blockchain, but that kind of obviates the whole point of the blockchain. If the state can't alter it, it's not a meaningful source of truth.

That of course leaves the benefit of automation. But all of that automation could be done with a SQL database and a PHP web app. The reasons it isn't done that way are policy ones, not technical ones.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#19

Post by altrum »

gus_massa wrote: post #15
Zaskoda wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where to even begin with this? First of all, many local governments in the U.S. already have public databases of who owns what land. This is a problem that can be solved with a SQLite database, it doesn't need a blockchain. I believe you're missing the opportunity that exists for automation. That database is heavily guarded by layers of human administration. I can't sell you my land without involving a bunch of hum…

Let's spouse I have two properties, one big and one small, and I sell you the small one for $X. But I miskick and send you the big one. If you don't want to return it to me, can I go to a judge? What about kidnaping? If someone kidnaps me and use a wrench to send my property, can it be returned?

Author here; I agree, and this is something I've been wrestling for years. The lack of centralization means it's impossible to reverse hacks or scenarios you mentioned--I personally think _some_ centralization is crucial, but not sure to what extend (and if that basically just means we should just have private companies like we do today).

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#20

Post by tdeck »

gus_massa wrote: post #15
Zaskoda wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where to even begin with this? First of all, many local governments in the U.S. already have public databases of who owns what land. This is a problem that can be solved with a SQLite database, it doesn't need a blockchain. I believe you're missing the opportunity that exists for automation. That database is heavily guarded by layers of human administration. I can't sell you my land without involving a bunch of hum…

Let's spouse I have two properties, one big and one small, and I sell you the small one for $X. But I miskick and send you the big one. If you don't want to return it to me, can I go to a judge? What about kidnaping? If someone kidnaps me and use a wrench to send my property, can it be returned?

What about the very unlikely event that someone loses access to their private key or gets hacked? Does that mean their house now belongs to someone else? I suppose this speeds up the ability to lose one's home through cryptocurrency scams.
Post reply on HN