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

NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

erickhun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 264 posts

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#191

Post by renewiltord »

captn3m0 wrote: post #151
renewiltord wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I can’t sell you the PDF because I can’t prove that I’m selling only to you. That makes the PDF useless to sell on. An example of something is the fact that I am a vim donor and a neovim initial backer. I really like that I’m in backers.md. If they would have handed out NFTs for backing, I would have loved that too.

The artist could publish a git repo with all the signatures? We already solved this problem with Cert Transparency in PKI. None of this needs a energy-hungry blockchain.

Ah but I can’t transfer it without the artist having to be involved. And so, in practice, I can’t transfer it because that adds too much trouble for them.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#192

Post by renewiltord »

thephyber wrote: post #172
renewiltord wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand. What purpose does the hash provide?

The NFT is a pointer to content (pointed by a URL). If the underlying content at that URL changes, the assumptions about the original NFT minting / first transaction change. Bundling a cryptographic hash with the original NFT assertion of content accurately describes the content the NFT was intended to be minted for. Example analogy: an NFT is like a receipt for a baseball card signed by a player. If the NFT is minte…

But that makes the NFT less valuable. If the content at the url changes without the hash you still have a useful NFT. With the hash, your NFT is burned when it changes.

As a buyer I would want that one less. In the fraud case adding the hash damages only me.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#193

Post by iszomer »

sbierwagen wrote: post #32
todd3834 wrote: post #17

I hate to admit it but I’m still struggling to understand why people would pay so much for NFTs. I feel like I fully understand what they are and why most people want me to believe it has value but I still don’t agree. I’m waiting for my mind to change but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s frustrating because so many people I respect are leaving their high paying jobs to work in web3 startups around NFTs and I feel dumb f…

The most plausible conspiracy theories I've heard is that the big sales ($1 million plus) are wash trades, ("sell" an object to a confederate for 500 ETH, then they transfer the money right back via another route) and some classic money laundering Now of course there's a mountain of clueless suckers kicking off a regular tulip mania-style bubble. I wonder how many more weeks it will last.

And the kicker is, the record of your "wash trades" is now stored on an immutable blockchain, a stark contrast to actual paper trails.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#194

Post by karmakaze »

addandsubtract wrote: post #179
thinkingemote wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baseball cards used to come with a purchase of a real product. They were an incentive to buy actual things. People collect them now, but they didn't exist on their own back then initially.

What did you buy to get a baseball card? I figured they were sold in packs, much like Pokemon cards are sold today.

As I recall collectible cards were sold with a plain single stick of chewing gum for reason(s) I don't know.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#195

Post by bananamerica »

koonsolo wrote: post #154
bananamerica wrote: post #92

Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely pretend to understand it; - those that duel in such profound abstractions that the actual world for them becomes a nuisance, a minor detail, an after thought. NFTs are a joke, a thought experiment taken too far. They're the modern version of The Emperor's New c…

Or they are the new baseball cards.

Please stop with this ridiculous comparison. I can hold a baseball card. I can look at it. I can put it on a binder. It's an object of appreciation, like a painting I hang on the wall. It is tangible. NFTs are nothing but an empty concept which seduces programmers with a weak grasp on reality. It's fairy dust, or an eunuch's cum.

NFTs are magical thinking, occultism for programmers.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#196

Post by captn3m0 »

renewiltord wrote: post #191
captn3m0 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The artist could publish a git repo with all the signatures? We already solved this problem with Cert Transparency in PKI. None of this needs a energy-hungry blockchain.

Ah but I can’t transfer it without the artist having to be involved. And so, in practice, I can’t transfer it because that adds too much trouble for them.

You could sign it forward. Slightly harder to validate, but maybe if the original PDF included your key - that should maintain a clear chain of custody on the PDF itself.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#197

Post by nazka »

newswasboring wrote: post #186
koonsolo wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The baseball card also doesn't give you ownership of the baseball player, or over the photograph or stats of that player. You can copy the photograph and stats as much as you want (the player not so much ;)), but the card still stays the card. So conceptually: the NFT doesn't refer to the baseball card, it is the baseball card. Baseball card refers to something real, but doesn't take ownership of that thing. NFT refe…

I think I might be close to getting it. But with a baseball card, I control the baseball card. Right? With the NFT, I have no control over the resource linked to from the NFT. If that server goes away, doesn't the thing that provided NFTs its value also go away? Its like if someone scratched off the photo from my baseball card, doesn't that baseball card become valueless at that point?

Continuing with the analogy you can own a rare baseball card of an all star player but many other people also own it. With NFT there is (usually) one and only one owner so it’s like there is only one card that have been produced. For instance check what they did with the NBA and dunks. They are selling short videos of every dunk. So there is only one possible owner of a dunk sold. That’s it. So only one guy own the one of the best dunk of Michael Jordan.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#198

Post by renewiltord »

captn3m0 wrote: post #196
renewiltord wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah but I can’t transfer it without the artist having to be involved. And so, in practice, I can’t transfer it because that adds too much trouble for them.

You could sign it forward. Slightly harder to validate, but maybe if the original PDF included your key - that should maintain a clear chain of custody on the PDF itself.

Oh for sure. And the existence of the signed on copy with a timestamp can invalidate later signed copies, etc.

This is just a mechanism that provides that in a general way.

It’s sort of like, how, before Uber you could call up the few cabbies you had who you liked and get a ride but having Uber was a game changer anyway because the friction fell below some threshold.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#199

Post by vmception »

todd3834 wrote: post #17

I hate to admit it but I’m still struggling to understand why people would pay so much for NFTs. I feel like I fully understand what they are and why most people want me to believe it has value but I still don’t agree. I’m waiting for my mind to change but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s frustrating because so many people I respect are leaving their high paying jobs to work in web3 startups around NFTs and I feel dumb f…

The NFT collectibles are where the action is. These are more akin to trading cards than expensive one-off art in a gallery that may have made headlines earlier this year.

Imagine that its the same trading card pools of capital that would have bought collections at MSRP, what would the seller’s annual revenue be? There had been no transparency in that. Instead, imagine if the seller only did a single set and everyone could verify that was the only one, the same amount of capital is squeezed i to that one set, which would push the price up. The issuer here makes more money from royalties when people trade pieces of the collection, instead of needing to continually issue that collection.

Re: NFT misconception: JPEG aren't stored on the Blockchain

#200

Post by vmception »

soco wrote: post #129
nuerow wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most plausible conspiracy theories I've heard is that the big sales ($1 million plus) are wash trades, ("sell" an object to a confederate for 500 ETH, then they transfer the money right back via another route) and some classic money laundering I'm not sure if the link between NFTs and money laundering can be downplayed as conspiracy theory. Even yesterday Reuters published a newspiece on NFTs being auctioned by…

Well regular art sales are currently considered as potential wash sales, so why would be something even more cryptic (haha) considered even less.

The people that make separate higher standards for crypto are ignorant about how the thing they respect works too.
Post reply on HN