[hn_throwaway_99]

I think NFTs are bullshit, but I don't think the "And more than one receipt can be minted for that card" is as much of a problem as people think it is.

For example, it wouldn't be hard for an artist to publish a video saying "Hey folks, this is my public key, and these are the NFTs for these pieces of art", and then publish that video in multiple forums like Twitter, YouTube, etc. Then if someone tried to come up with different NFTs for the same pieces of art, the NFT holder could just point to the video (and, as you say, if the artist was malicious and tried to dupe his own NFTs, the earlier one would win).

This kind of "identity validation" is all over the cryptography space already - that's basically how Keybase proofs work. Heck, lots of HN commenters put their proofs in their HN account signatures.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> For example, it wouldn't be hard for an artist to publish a video saying "Hey folks, this is my public key, and these are the NFTs for these pieces of art"

So then how do we know that artist actually created that art? For all we know, that artist took someone else's work and was just the first to mint NFTs for it on that particular chain. Maybe the legitimate artist minted NFTs on a different chain later so nobody will ever believe they created it because of the timestamp.

As I understand it, this sort of 'theft' is happening all the time right now.

[falcolas]

An artist can create as many instances of an NFT as they want, even after selling "number 1". It's not malicious, it's a feature of the platform.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> An artist can create as many instances of an NFT as they want

Not just "an artist", anyone can. And they do. Many artists' works are being exploited in this way without their consent or even knowledge.

[cbm-vic-20]

Indeed, this also happens in the physical world. Many artists create multiple, individually numbered prints/copies of their artwork.