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

NFT Canon

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: NFT Canon

#61

Post by rusk »

makeworld wrote: post #59
rusk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say “this is the genuine article” why do you even need a blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably “a cryptographic representation of something unique” EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist in that only one owner can derive the value from it.

I don't like NFTs, but the point of putting it on the blockchain is that it's globally available, verifiable, and immutable. Many versions of a PGP-signed message could exist and be passed around.

My point isn’t that the token itself is globally verifiable but that the asset it refers to actually is ...

Re: NFT Canon

#62

Post by rusk »

asimpletune wrote: post #39
rusk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say “this is the genuine article” why do you even need a blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably “a cryptographic representation of something unique” EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist in that only one owner can derive the value from it.

Because then it’s not on the blockchain. Yes, I could sell you a txt record, saying you own this hash, which represents a jpg, but then it’s not blockchain. Honestly, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because the blockchain is immutable? Like, I could change that txt record because I’m evil or something. That makes sense to me, in terms of technology.

No but the point is, when you’re talking about physical artefacts you can in theory issue as many tokens as you like ... it’s still down to a central authority to certify.

Re: NFT Canon

#63

Post by aboodman »

aboodman wrote: post #55
Judgmentality wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credib…

> Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to value any of his original "work" highly. To be clear I don't personally see any value at all in an NFT that do…

Another comparison here to make is like signed copies / limited editions. People buy signed copies of albums, artworks, etc., even though forgeries are rampant. Are NFTs like signed copies?

If the value of a signed copy is mostly performative, then NFTs alone maybe should not have value (because nobody can really see that you own one). If the value of a signed copy is personal, then maybe it does.

I don't personally see any value in owning an NFT, but it's not cut and dry to me that nobody else will or should.

Re: NFT Canon

#64

Post by Igelau »

bko wrote: post #2

It might be covered in one of the resources, but when people talk about NFTs, they just mean some token on Ethereum that the issuer of said coin say is "the" product. For instance, the NFT for "the first tweet" that sold is just someone created an Ethereum token and said "this one is the first tweet", presumably w/ some text in the token that states the tweet. In that regard, its kind of centralized. There can be mul…

> am I thinking of this incorrectly?

You've got it, more or less. The "surely I must be missing something" reaction is actually indicative of the correct understanding: the emperor has no clothes.

NFT: No Fscking Thing

Re: NFT Canon

#65

Post by gnopgnip »

rusk wrote: post #31
PretzelPirate wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confusion comes from how NFTs that represent images have become so popular right now (I believe it’s because it’s the easiest use case of an NFT and people want to make a quick buck). NFTs themselves are just a cryptographic representation of something unique. It can be a token that says “you own this image”, but it can also be an in-game virtual item, a software license, a digital trading card, etc... There is s…

Here’s the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say “this is the genuine article” why do you even need a blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably “a cryptographic representation of something unique” EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist in that only one owner can derive the value from it.

An NFT on the blockchain can be verifired crytographically that it is the "original", it can't be duplicated, and you can transfer it to anyone if you have the private key and the gas.

A token off the blockchain controlled by a centralized group could transfer ownership without a key at all. They could issue the same one to more than one party and duplicate it. Someone else could claim to own the record and they could decide you don't anymore, they get to decide who it is sold to. Or prohibit you from transferring it at all.

Re: NFT Canon

#66

Post by Igelau »

PretzelPirate wrote: post #7
bko wrote: post #2

It might be covered in one of the resources, but when people talk about NFTs, they just mean some token on Ethereum that the issuer of said coin say is "the" product. For instance, the NFT for "the first tweet" that sold is just someone created an Ethereum token and said "this one is the first tweet", presumably w/ some text in the token that states the tweet. In that regard, its kind of centralized. There can be mul…

The confusion comes from how NFTs that represent images have become so popular right now (I believe it’s because it’s the easiest use case of an NFT and people want to make a quick buck). NFTs themselves are just a cryptographic representation of something unique. It can be a token that says “you own this image”, but it can also be an in-game virtual item, a software license, a digital trading card, etc... There is s…

That's the other reason I hate NFT. The only plausible use case is as a terrible DRM key.

Re: NFT Canon

#67

Post by gnopgnip »

jakemauer wrote: post #60

The only way that NFTs make sense to me is in some sort of impossible to implement DRM-like system where ONLY the current owners of the media can display it or utilize it. If buying an NFT of a piece of art meant that I could digitally display the file in full resolution, or if it otherwise afforded me some tangible benefit during the period of ownership, I could see it making sense. As of right now NFTs are basicall…

The utility of art or collectibles is a very small portion of the value. A game worn Michael Jordan jersey you paid $100k for has essentially the same utility as a <$100 jersey. It is valuable because it is scarce, and the provenance

Re: NFT Canon

#68

Post by deckard1 »

miracle2k wrote: post #53
Judgmentality wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates of that work later. Unless the author has a legal contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that work again, there's no reason to believe in its authenticity. And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs don't strike me as trustworthy.

But in the non-NFT world, artists are selling prints of their work, and have been doing so for decades - hardly a fad! Those can be fairly expensive for the top tier, and they work the same way: You trust the artist will not inflate the supply of the same work with additional prints later on.

yes, but you can't just recreate a print at high quality unless there happens to be a digital image of it floating around.

Here's Beeple's $69 million artwork in full resolution (warning: 300 megs!):

https://ipfsgateway.makersplace.com/ipfs/QmXkxpwAHCtDXbbZHUw...

The metadata for the IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmPAg1mjxcEQPPtqsLoEcauVedaeMH81WXDPvPx...

Because a token is public we can all see the contents. Now, you could theoretically just put the hash in there without the content existing on the IPFS (or elsewhere), and then give the owner the content after the sale via a separate channel. But now you've got the problem of how to verify what you're buying is the real deal. Furthermore, it complicates resale (not that IPFS will save you there, IIRC if you're the one storing content on IPFS and the only one, then it's possible you just stop hosting it and the data vanishes).

Re: NFT Canon

#69

Post by schoen »

okareaman wrote: post #38
notahacker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sod going to an art gallery to look the actual paint committed to canvas by the legendary artist over 500 years ago, we can queue up to look at this PNG copy and admire the uniqueness of the cryptographic token some anonymous programmer attached to it recently" said literally nobody ever. Rollercoasters and Mickey Mouse make pastiches of common things more interesting; creating an inferior copy of a famous thing and…

What if you had a human model (or robot) who looked liked Mona Lisa, dressed like Mona Lisa and was certified as the only recognized copy of Mona Lisa and by purchasing the NFT you were the only one who could have s.e.x with her?

This has got to be a plot point from a William Gibson story.

Re: NFT Canon

#70

Post by sbhagat »

jakemauer wrote: post #60

The only way that NFTs make sense to me is in some sort of impossible to implement DRM-like system where ONLY the current owners of the media can display it or utilize it. If buying an NFT of a piece of art meant that I could digitally display the file in full resolution, or if it otherwise afforded me some tangible benefit during the period of ownership, I could see it making sense. As of right now NFTs are basicall…

It's not impossible, and we completely agree that this is needed. We're building this over at masterfile.co via our OpenDRM technology.
Post reply on HN