[Alex3917]

Blockchain doesn’t need to make it impossible to counterfeit real-world items to be useful, it just needs to reduce counterfeiting levels by reducing the profitability. It’s more than capable of doing that. If you can only sell at most one counterfeit item per authentic item, that’s already a multi-trillion dollar innovation.

[Nextgrid]

I still can't see how a blockchain here would do something that a database wouldn't. A DB of authentic serial numbers with a way to mark them as claimed is all you need. If your new widget's serial is already marked as claimed on the manufacturer's website then you most likely have a counterfeit, no blockchain necessary.

[rdiddly]

Well, all you need is an immutable write-only (edit: append-only) database. Which is the one thing a blockchain actually is.

[TomSwirly]

But a very very very slow such database, one that uses insane quantities of memory and energy.

[delaaxe]

I think you mean append only. Blockchains are immutable thus not writeable

[rdiddly]

Whoops, yes

[ses1984]

What if you want to sell your thing?

Who is hosting this db?

[ojr]

Somebody always host the NFT image, it can be taken down from ipfs or from a cloud service like s3 at any moment. Also NFT are only worth something because someone provides a frontend to serve the "NFT metadata".

NFTs are essentially sleek frontend UIs mixed in with a speculative volatile currency less juridicial than dollars. It also helps that blockchain assets led by bitcoin are in a bull run.

The innovation is now a company like Dapper Labs can provide a marketplace like NBA Topshot providing a digital experience with licensed content. This digital experience can be traded using Paypal but using a traditional method comes with tradeoffs. Dapper Labs created an in-house blockchain called Flow. The benefits of a blockchain is it is harder for double spends to occur. Blockchain makes it hard for race conditions to occur when the source of truth is distributed among computers in a network.

It would be easier to make a database of hash values but traditional databases are less transparent than blockchains. Blockchains are too expensive. Some digital experiences are worth it, most probably aren't, enough people care about the frontend.

[SCHiM]

You are, as a saas I think.

I mean, this gives you all the control, you can charge for all sorts of services and "value adds". There's no reason you, as the maker of this software, would want this available as a block chain.

Unless you also create a token and start having people speculate on your anti-counterfeiting blockchain?

That's what it looks like to me anyway.

[ses1984]

I am not really following you. The appeal of an nft is that it doesn't rely on a saas, it doesn't rely on a trusted third party that needs up time that needs to be available in the future.

Jacob Collier tried to sell an nft that granted lifetime access to his concerts.

The appeal of such an nft is that it can be traded independently of any third party, on the open market.

Of course it depends on Jacob's promise to honor it.

He went back on it when people raised environmental issues.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Most NFTs depend on trusted third parties to determine what they even are. Collier’s proposal makes a lot more sense; a promise to grant specific rights to the holder of a specific token really does make the token valuable. But in the typical case, an NFT is really just a dangling pointer to some content (encoded in the Ethereum blockchain to varying degrees of completeness). Nothing stops me from minting copies of any NFT I’d like and selling them as the one true SpicyNFT of the underlying media - and if my platform outcompetes the others, eventually the SpicyNFT will be the only one that matters. (Equivalently, nothing stops me from minting NFTs of art that has nothing to do with me and securing first mover advantage over its actual owners.)

[ses1984]

You can't mint a copy of Collier's NFT because if you show up at Collier's concert with SpicyNFT they'll turn you away.

The arguments about SpicyNFTs is just kind of a distraction. It would be like if I argued against banks by saying, I could hang a shingle, accept deposits, and then just run with the money.

Do we really need to enumerate all the possible ways that a new, very limited, technology can be misused? We might be here a while, I'm pretty sure there are infinitely many ways that NFTs can be abused.

[TomSwirly]

So it's like a contract, but not enforceable.

In other words, worthless.

[ses1984]

Right, an NFT by itself is worthless. A NFT granting access to a concert is only as valuable as the promise associated with it.

It could be tied to an actual contract.

The value prop of an NFT is pretty much limited to just being able to transfer it reliably without relying on a trusted third party.

It's not like it provides a cryptographic guarantee that some contract that exists outside it will be honored.

[scotty79]

Databse dies with company that set it up. And companies die all the time.

[whateveracct]

NBA Topshot is already worthless without the express written consent of the NBA.

NBA Topshot would be better served by a DB. The NFT part is there for hype.

[fock]

opensource the database (just as dying companies should opensource repair manuals and signing keys - have fun with your blockchain-authenticated John Deere). and regularly archive the state hash in a public archive.

[scotty79]

I wonder why e-gold didn't just opensource their database.

[phroobster]

Sounds like a lot of work. Not sure why you think that is superior to simply using a blockchain.

[TomSwirly]

Because a blockchain is far, far, far more expensive in terms of computing resources.

[phroobster]

Only if it’s a Proof of Work blockchain. Ethereum is what is mainly used for NFTs and it’s in the process of migrating to Proof of Stake.

[IgorPartola]

I have a bicycle. I sell you the NFT for that bicycle. I then sell the bicycle to my neighbor. How did that work out?

[WJW]

That seems like a suboptimal fraud. Why not sell a thousand different NFTs on the same bike?

[dragontamer]

For even better efficiency, sell the NFTs to yourself to pump the last sold price to $10,000+, with cryptocoin proof that the "last buyer" thought the price was worth $10,000.

[Pyrodogg]

Is it even a fraud? What rights does holding the NFT give to the source object?

[Y_Y]

The NFT itself is the fraud.

[mike00632]

Is it? The NBA is selling "clips" of Basketball plays. They make clear in the terms of the sale that the buyer does not have any rights to the video after buying the NFT. The NBA can do whatever it wants with the actual video including selling it again

[SergeAx]

Putting a fraudilent scheme with all caps in your ToS and EULA doesn't make it legit.

[runawaybottle]

Is it not the same for physical basketball cards? I doubt you own the rights to the photograph or even the stats on the card.

[zepto]

How is it a fraud? Nobody claims it to be anything other than a token.

[Alex3917]

10x better than you selling 10 bicycles. Your example actually demonstrates why blockchain is hugely valuable.

[IgorPartola]

Want to buy an NFT to my bicycle? $100 will do it. Comes with no rights and I may sell a similar NFT to others.

[bsenftner]

And you fundamentally do not understand NFTs. It is perfectly fine and acceptable and within the contract of the NTF for the owner of the physical item to sell said physical item separate from that item's NFT. They are separate assets. An NTF was never said to represent the physical object, the NTF represents itself as the unique only NFT representing the physical object, but the two are wholly separate independent things. The owner and/or transfer of ownership of the physical object has no relation to the NFT beyond the claim of it being the one and only NFT of that physical object. The entire concept is a grifter's game for fools.