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

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#21

Post by dragonwriter »

altrum wrote: post #16
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 global…

> 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.

NFTs are built on a preexisting global programmable database, but are specifically a use of that database to create digital baseball cards.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#22

Post by xsmasher »

As far as I can tell the current artwork NFTs are just beanie babies or tulipmania; they're valuable because the buyer thinks they have a resale value.

I suppose some minority may buy them just for bragging rights, a la "I am Rich" or that wutang album.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#23

Post by ggm »

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.

It only imbues value if the downstream IPR uses carry a subsidary fingerprint to prevent the assumption all copies are liars.

Sure, you can NFT the mona lisa. It's only viable if you NFT cross sign every postcard, puzzle, tee shirt ...

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#24

Post by woodruffw »

altrum wrote: post #14
woodruffw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly the problem you pointed out with luxury goods in your own article? It's all about authenticity and provenance ("the real one"); you've just offloaded the proof from physical quality (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess) to a proof of work or some other scheme without solving the actual problem (the bootstrapping of trust).

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#25

Post by tdeck »

woodruffw wrote: post #24
altrum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Again, this is where "branding" comes in. Once people know which smart-contract is the real one, putting another transaction won't work. I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly the problem you pointed out with luxury goods in your own article? It's all about authenticity and provenance ("the real one"); you've just offloaded the proof from physical quality (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess)…

Obviously what we need is another blockchain of NFTs that tell you which NFT is the real one. We'd probably also need a blockchain to keep track of which blockchains have the real NFTs for the real NFTs.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#26

Post by altrum »

woodruffw wrote: post #24
altrum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Again, this is where "branding" comes in. Once people know which smart-contract is the real one, putting another transaction won't work. I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly the problem you pointed out with luxury goods in your own article? It's all about authenticity and provenance ("the real one"); you've just offloaded the proof from physical quality (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess)…

> (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess)

But you can’t—that’s why the fake industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry and why StockX, a 4 billion dollar company, still end up selling fakes to consumers

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#27

Post by robjan »

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…

What happens when the owner of the NFT representing their land loses their private key or they die without passing the key to someone else? There are only two options: either the land exists ownerless forever or the blockchain is hardforked which would undermine the whole system.

Blockchain in general doesn't really work well when it has to interact with the physical world.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#28

Post by seoulmetro »

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…

Sounds like when gaming companies said that micro-transactions and pay-to-win were exciting times because they allowed people with less time to still play as if they had wasted lots of time.

Except here it sounds like just being able to be part of groups.

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#29

Post by woodruffw »

altrum wrote: post #26
woodruffw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, this is where "branding" comes in. Once people know which smart-contract is the real one, putting another transaction won't work. I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly the problem you pointed out with luxury goods in your own article? It's all about authenticity and provenance ("the real one"); you've just offloaded the proof from physical quality (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess)…

> (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess) But you can’t—that’s why the fake industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry and why StockX, a 4 billion dollar company, still end up selling fakes to consumers

> But you can’t—that’s why the fake industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry and why StockX, a 4 billion dollar company, still end up selling fakes to consumers

Two things:

First, let's say I bite the bullet and accept the claim that a human with sufficient information is no better at verifying the authenticity of an item than an NFT would be. Where does that leave me? Now my Burberry jacket and my monkey JPEG are fakes. How has the state of affairs improved for me?

Second: I think the way you're approaching this belies a misapprehension of the counterfeit market. Duplicitous counterfeiting (where the seller deceives an unwitting buyer) is just a fraction of that "multi-trillion dollar industry" -- a very large chunk of it is made of the fake Scott toilet paper and fake Duracell batteries that people knowingly buy at their local dollar store, to say nothing of fake luxuries. There are more harmful examples (adulterated honey and olive oil), but the underlying point is the same: NFTs either (1) don't solve the problem (I eagerly await cryptographic proof that my olive oil is authentic), or (2) are irrelevant because people don't want the problem solved ("I know damn well that my batteries are fake, and I don't care").

Re: People Don't Understand NFTs

#30

Post by altrum »

woodruffw wrote: post #29
altrum wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (which I or anybody else who's sufficiently informed can assess) But you can’t—that’s why the fake industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry and why StockX, a 4 billion dollar company, still end up selling fakes to consumers

> But you can’t—that’s why the fake industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry and why StockX, a 4 billion dollar company, still end up selling fakes to consumers Two things: First, let's say I bite the bullet and accept the claim that a human with sufficient information is no better at verifying the authenticity of an item than an NFT would be. Where does that leave me? Now my Burberry jacket and my monkey JPEG ar…

I agree with you on the physical components but you’re missing the point. If you’ve read the article you’d understand physical goods are different than digital ones. Look at the footnotes, I even point out that NFTs for physical items is not solved.

With digital goods, it is solved. If you have a brand (like cryptopunks or say, the US gov) and you produce some NFT—people can see and verify that the NFT is produced from those parties.

Again, I’m reiterating the same points in the article— it’s the same idea with open-sourced software. You can fork some code and “attempt to sell it” but you won’t go far because it lacks branding and trust.

Half the battle is branding.

Hope that clears it up

Post reply on HN