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

251–260 of 264 posts

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

#251

Post by vmception »

arcticbull wrote: post #230
vmception wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both my tax lawyer and CPA said no tax event, and that the circumstances about why its a no have nothing to do with the crypto/blockchain component. Because it didn't move between parties. The blockchain just lets that conclusion be made faster because everyone can see the transaction, except the people who wouldnt bother to look (because blockchain) and wouldnt understand if they did look (because blockchain). You a…

> Many blockchain skeptics wind up defending the technology more often because their other skeptical friends are saying procedurally generated non-sequiturs. I wrote my perspectives, and you are once again just being toxic. This isn't reddit. We disagree, and we can disagree here, civilly.

We could, but what are we disagreeing about exactly? The meme? The lack of tax event? Something else?

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

#252

Post by iamwil »

b3n wrote: post #243
iamwil wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only know a cursory amount about Namecoin. That it was built on Bitcoin, but somehow failed. ENS is actually working, and recently launched their DAO for governance.

What do you mean by "failed"? It is an active project: usable and still in development.

That I take it back. I know nothing about the project.

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

#253

Post by hoten »

renewiltord wrote: post #192
thephyber wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without a hash you just simply trust the issuer unconditionally? And you prefer this trust over a cryptographic guarantee the content, and thus the meaning, of the NFT won't change?

This whole NFT really is inscrutable.

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

#254

Post by saltminer »

nieve wrote: post #241
thephyber wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Website, BitTorrent, IPFS, etc all have the possibility for bit rot. There is, however, incentive for the person who currently owns the NFT to maintain the content at the current URL or their investment would suffer a loss of value.

Is it necessarily true that the owner of the NFT has any control at all over the server being pointed to? It seems highly unlikely to me that it's universal or even common.

With IPFS you can pay someone to pin a file (or do it yourself), and bittorrent you can just seed it yourself.

But if your NFT is a URL to some random webserver (which might not be the majority of NFTs, but is not an insignificant number according to [0]), you have no control over it unless the previous owner passes along the credentials somehow. Or, they might not pass them along, and modify or delete the file because...what are you going to do about it? Good luck getting a refund.

Either way, you have to do something to ensure your investment doesn't become unreachable.

[0]: https://twitter.com/moxie/status/1448066579611234305

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

#255

Post by nuerow »

vmception wrote: post #200
soco wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Not really, it's actually the other way around. Whataboutism aside, crypto proponents somehow try to maintain a cognitive dissonance of how crypto is designed to be unregulated and out of government's reach and at the same time show a kneejerk reaction to any comment on how crypto is used to perform transactions not allowed by regulation controlled by governments such as securities fraud and money laundering.

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

#256

Post by renewiltord »

hoten wrote: post #253
renewiltord wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without a hash you just simply trust the issuer unconditionally? And you prefer this trust over a cryptographic guarantee the content, and thus the meaning, of the NFT won't change? This whole NFT really is inscrutable.

I see what you mean. By producing the content you can verify the cryptographic hash. Okay, I misunderstood previously.

Yes, that is meaningful. What usually happens in the case is you just as well use a content-addressing system like ipfs for the URI.

Yes, you could just as well store just the hash. Very reasonable.

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

#257

Post by throaway6942 »

TomSwirly wrote: post #239
throaway6942 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't apply 1:1 laws to crypto precisely because of this. I can write a piece of code in a few minutes for all the collection I own, does not make it wash trading. In fact, you can very easily check it on etherscan or similar tools that this was a flash loan.

> We can't apply 1:1 laws to crypto precisely because of this. Why do you think the rule against wash trading is there? Because people systematically manipulated markets with it. > I can write a piece of code in a few minutes for all the collection I own, does not make it wash trading. Your argument is, "I can do this really fast, therefore it's not criminal"?

No, my argument is that someone like me can easily verify that this was a wash trade.

In fact, marketplaces have already started to flag these transactions[1].

[1] https://larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/details/3100

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

#258

Post by thephyber »

nieve wrote: post #241
thephyber wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Website, BitTorrent, IPFS, etc all have the possibility for bit rot. There is, however, incentive for the person who currently owns the NFT to maintain the content at the current URL or their investment would suffer a loss of value.

Is it necessarily true that the owner of the NFT has any control at all over the server being pointed to? It seems highly unlikely to me that it's universal or even common.

I’m saying the original minter of the NFT gets the choice to choose where the URL points. Any future owner needs to do due diligence to understand what they are buying.

If the minter or original auction house can not vouch or has no contract with the content host, the investment can suffer from an unexpected content switch at any time.

If a buyer realizes this could adversely affect the content, the value could suffer.

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

#259

Post by thephyber »

aorth wrote: post #250
thephyber wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caveat emptor. This is no different from due diligence when making any other form of investment. Observation: there is an incentive for the buyer to maintain the content (or perhaps even to replace with higher value content) at the URL. Perhaps NFT owners can band together to form a co-op / condo association if an NFT-content host site/domain goes down to maintain it. The next set of features I keep reading about in…

> Caveat emptor. This is no different from due diligence when making any other form of investment. Thanks for taking the time to respond, but it's _literally_ the value proposition of "crypto" evangelists that this stuff will be around "forever" on the blockchain. When you invest in stocks or put money in a savings account there are shit tons of regulations against insider trading, fraud, etc, not to mention federal…

“Crypto evangelists” are right. The problem isn’t with the blockchain layer (eg the Operating System). It retains the promises you espouse.

The problem is with an NFT (an application) minted with bad assumptions. If a buyer fails to understand what the NFT is, that’s not a shortcoming of blockchain enthusiasts.

I’m not an NFT investor (I don’t think an NFT of a JPG/MP3/MP4 has any intrinsic value), but your complaint applies to any investor in any asset. Caveat emptor. A buyer needs to learn what they are buying before they can put an accurate value on their offer, so they are responsible for their purchase.

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

#260

Post by bananamerica »

vmception wrote: post #246
bananamerica wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey dude, I know we're on Hacker News but there's no need to come at people with logic fu. There's a rhetorical dimension to language. You can't really "win" like that, were debating, not playing fallacy UNO.

What are your thoughts on this reality I described, its at odds with your reality and I’m wondering if you have a response. I may have jumped the gun imagining goal posts moving because its predictable, but I am still curious about your thoughts.

I think it's pretty obvious that when I talk about NFT I'm not referring to all possible uses of the underlying technology, but rather the subset of its uses that is currently mostly associated with it: the selling of empty tokens which have no meaningful connection with the concept or artwork which determines their value.

Again: rhetoric. Semantics. Not Hacker News strong suit.

Post reply on HN