[GhostVII]

This is what I don't really get about NFTs. Just because you own a token pointing to a particular object, doesn't mean you actually own that object unless someone in the real world enforces that link. And if someone in the real world has to enforce that link, what is the point of the NFT? The ownership is still being enforced by a single organization or individual. You might as well have that organization or individual track ownership themselves if they are also supposed to enforce it.

In this case it seems like the open seas marketplace is trying to become this organization that enforces the link. Which really defeats the point of a decentralized system.

[kibwen]

> This is what I don't really get about NFTs.

As usual for people saying this, you do get it. Anything whose bits do not literally live on the blockchain cannot be decentralized via blockchain; the need for a centralized oracle makes ownership of the NFT's linked asset a centralized affair.

[digitailor]

To chime in with the choir, you do get it. You bring up OpenSea and I can give you an example of the defeat-of-decentralization that you mention. One of the things that commonly appeals to people about the idea of NFTs is that smart contracts allow for things like a resale fee (points) to go back to the original owner automatically for all future resale transactions. But you actually can't automatically receive the resale stipulation if the resale of the NFT takes place off of the OpenSea platform due to its design, which is basically an intermediary smart contract that has the functionality that allows for the points to be assigned.

I'm not a decentralization purist so I can't say that "Web 3.0" centralization bothers me in and of itself. I do think it dulls a lot of arguments of there being great innovation in this specific area, especially when your non-fungible token consists of a URL string. Real-world, existing laws and regulation apply to this new stuff already, as you indicate.

[tshaddox]

It sounds to me like you do get it. Everyone knows you can right-click and save a regular old digital image, and that any copy of that digital image is probably not going to be valued by people.

[BoiledCabbage]

> It sounds to me like you do get it. Everyone knows you can right-click and save a regular old digital image, and that any copy of that digital image is probably not going to be valued by people.

If they were the case, then Open Sea wouldn't be fighting to ensure they are banned. They'd know they'd just be ignored. The reason why Open Sea wants them banned is because they know that the people will readily substitute them for the others as they are an easily substitutable good - and if they become common/understood/accepted it blows up their business model.

Once again, when push comes to shove, the "decentralization" aspect is shown to be a farce, and it's nothing but a zero-sum money grab.

[vanusa]

One would think that if NFTs "worked" then it wouldn't be necessary to use out-of-band mechanisms to "fight" this kind of duplication.

[tshaddox]

I really am not following this very closely, but I would imagine the reason Open Sea is banning them is that they don’t want people to be deceived because that could harm Open Sea’s reputation.

[BoiledCabbage]

> I would imagine the reason Open Sea is banning them is that they don’t want people to be deceived because that could harm Open Sea’s reputation.

Yes exactly, and now Open Sea is taking on the responsibility of a centralized entity who declares what is legit and what isn't. And they get all of the power and control that comes with it. The antithesis of this supposedly 'decentralized' system.

And with that centralized power soely based on their reputation, and no system of accountability to anyone (except their investors), will come the same conflicts with society (ie 'the community') where someone will add a work that is legit derivitate artwork and Open Sea will ban them and then there will be an uproar about how Open Sea is de-voicing them or de-platforming them just like people do when kicked off of Youtube. And then people will start spaming differnent derivitate works and Open Sea won't be able to manually keep up with it, so they'll automate the process. And then they will add in "Copyright Takedowns" just like any other company. And people will complain about how defi or crypto 'has been corrupted and lost it's ideals', and now it's nothing but another corporate take over. With all the same rules and regulations of the previous sytem. And this isn't some crazy soothsayer prediction, this is blantantly obvious. Just as obvious as people who said "yah they claim the source code is law, but the first time someone important is about to lose a lot of money, they'll throw that aside and find a way to veto what was in the code." And low and behold, almost everytime someone of reasonable importance is about to lose their value due to crypto's decentralized source code is law, groups with power step in and ensure that doesn't happen. Just like in the real world. All of this decentralization/democratization/libertarian fantasy is all just facde. In the end it's just a the veneer to lure people into what is essentially zero sum racetrack betting and centralization.

System's evolve in certain ways. Reputations become entrenched. Power centralizes. Resources are distribued via power laws. Unless a system actively actively it, that is the 'natural' state of the world. Just like humanity at war and murder is a natural state. It takes concerted effort to build and maintain a society free from these things (or reduced).

Democracy is an example of a system that actively fights it, "everyone" has a single vote (not based on their resources). But even with that, unless you continuously actively enforce it, systems still centralize, and resources overwhelm it (as you see with lobbying and other contemporary "influences" on democracy). The point isn't "don't try", the point is that this haphazard thing of crypto/defi/nft that people are claming will someone be for the people, is not, as nobody is actually trying to enforce that. Whenever an issue comes up, it instead people in these communiciaties go towards centralization. Meaning they'll end up with the same centralized systems as in the real world.

But on top of ending up with the same systems as in the real world, there will be an incredible centralization of resources to the 1% of the 1% who will set the new rules of the system. And we'll waste a ton of energy while doing so.

So yes a bit of a rant. But the hyprocracy is just so blantant it's hard to not comment on it.

[danlugo92]

Nfts will be enforced by client software in web3.

[kibwen]

> Nfts will be enforced by client software in web3.

We've spent the last 20 years decrying how disastrous DRM has been, and now these supposed technologists are trying to sell us on a bold, glorious future where DRM comes knocking for our ability to right-click images.

[mburee]

all while using retarded amounts of electricity

[dllthomas]

I think your complaint is, rather, that the electricity use is the opposite of retarded.

[literallyWTF]

Retarded? More like mentally handi-capable.

[AlexandrB]

So web3 is about applying DRM on every type of content on the internet, not just video? That's sounds awful.

[Joeboy]

For what it's worth, I believe that was Ted Nelson's vision for Project Xanadu[1]

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu

[woodruffw]

One of Xanadu's goals was (is?) to uniquely identify documents, which isn't inherently tied to either access control or rights management.

The process and theory of identifying documents is one of the oldest subjects of interest in library science[1], and the Internet is chock full of unique identification schemes (URIs, nominally, but also OIDs, DOIs, ORCIDs, &c.).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_control

[Joeboy]

I admit my eyes glazed over half way through, but this[1] seems to suggest their "transcopyright" system incorporates permissions and micropayment systems.

[1] https://xanadu.com/tco/index.html

[woodruffw]

Yeah, they've got a whole complicated permissions scheme that, to the best of my knowledge, does not and has never fully existed.

The parts of Xanadu that do exist seem to be mostly "goodfaithware," if you'll excuse the term. It's not clear that they have any real protections (like DRM) against clients copying data and/or not obeying the unique addressing scheme.

[dragonwriter]

> Nfts will be enforced by client software in web3.

Even if that is true, what enforces provenance of art when NFTs are created? False claims of ownership of existing art in the creation of NFTs is a thing; enforcing NFTs doesn't solve the problem if nothing stops NFTs from being frauds ab initio.

[phoe-krk]

So, in other words, unless you and everyone else uses a specially prepared and non-FOSS web3 browser which employs NFT DRM, there's no enforcement.

[evilos]

I guess they will have to ban all cameras too then?

[beckman466]

> Nfts will be enforced by client software in web3.

when you 'buy' an NFT what you are really buying into is someone else's/a third-party's centralized platform (like opensea or whatever it's called).

[rsynnott]

Assuming ‘web3’ is ever a thing, surely people would just use less restrictive software? Unless you have a, whisper it, CENTRALISED SOURCE of ‘web3’ client software, of course…

[weego]

How do you trust the client software? Who writes it? How do they build the provenance that they can be trusted?

[danlugo92]

You don't trust the TCP/IP implementation on your current system?

[torginus]

This is a property of fine art in general. Even if you don't own the Mona Lisa, you could probably buy a very detailed replica of that you could frame and hang in your room. It would probably be an almost perfect replica in terms of reproducing the actual aesthetic qualities of it, the only thing you wouldn't be able to say is 'I own the original'. I think NFT's are BS as art, but I also think this is BS as well.

[woodruffw]

I won't attempt to make a "realist" argument for the value of art, but I'll point something important out: as the owner of a "valuable" piece of physical art, you own a product of original physical labor. When you look at the pigments on the canvas, you're looking at the product of an artist physically transferring materials onto the medium. That itself is a rarity: people who (for whatever reason) value that artist's work realize that the artist can only perform that exact labor once.

It's difficult to say the same for NFTs: it's not clear where the original is, or why it should be emotionally/aesthetically rewarding to look at its digital attestation. I didn't frame the certificate of authenticity that came with the rug in my living room, after all.

[Normille]

Not only that. But many of the most popular NFTs are obviously batch created programmatically. It's not unusual to see collections containing many hundreds of variations on whatever piss-poor artwork they contain. So, even going back to the 'original' [however you establish what that is], chances are, it wasn't even created by an individual in any meaningful way. But, rather, spewed out by some automated permutation producing code.

[andrenth]

I don’t necessarily disagree but what does that say about digital photography?

[gerikson]

The issue of "originality" raised its head as soon as photography evolved beyond the daguerreotype (which could not be reproduced). As soon as you had a negative from which a print could be produced, you can theoretically produce infinite indistinguishable prints.

Photographs exist as art basically because the photographer or their agent promise to only produce a limited number of prints from an original.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

It's older than that, even woodcuts other printmaking processes have the same issue.

[woodruffw]

Hard to say!

I do some hobby film and digital photography, and it's been my experience that people love getting prints of the photos I've taken of them on film. Digital photos can also be printed, of course, but there's something (not clear what) special about knowing that a physical process other than an inkjet printer produced the image.

[berberous]

Anti-crypto people on HN are always so black and white.

YouTube routinely deals with DMCA notices that are bogus, and it’s difficult for them to sort out whether someone is a legitimate rights holder or not.

With NFTs, it makes that a lot easier. If I have a fake BAYC, OpenSea can determine that very quickly and take it down, regardless of how many intermediate off-platform transactions there have been.

So just because there are still fakes and IP enforcement issues, doesn’t mean that having a verifiable and auditable decentralized chain of custody back to the original mint transaction is not very helpful.

[AlexandrB]

> If I have a fake BAYC, OpenSea can determine that very quickly and take it done, regardless of how many intermediate off-platform transactions there have been.

What qualifies as "fake"? How many modifications would I have to make to the original images for them to count as new art? Because this is a fundamental question in copyright law RE: derivative works and NFTs don't seem to help with this at all.

[berberous]

This is again a black and white answer.

There are many fraudsters who, quite literally, make fake NFT that look exactly the same. The decentralized chain of title is very useful to quickly and definitely distinguish the originals from the fakes.

Just because blockchain cannot solve all problems, does not mean it has not solved the above problem.

I agree that an artist could come along and make a derivative artwork that is right on the line of what is infringing, and in that case, you would solve it with traditional methods, e.g. an IP lawsuit for a judge to decide. Nobody said NFTs can solve all IP disputes.

But they can definitely determine the provenance of an item, even after a complex round of intermediate off-platform secondary transactions.

[BobbyJo]

This completely glosses over the fact that this only works for things on-chain. So you own an NFT, what does that actually mean? Does it mean you verifiably own the thing the NFT points to? No. It simply means you verifiably own the pointer. The link between the pointer and the off-chain thing is still completely vulnerable and unverifiable.

I think the real world equivalent is having a signed legal contract, but no courts or police. Feel free to buy and sell the contract, as I'm sure that has value as art in and of itself (which is how I see NFTs). But if you wish to lay claim to the items under contract, glhf.

[berberous]

I think this is a problem that’s easier to solve than you think.

Let’s say an artist creates a minting process, which contains a click through contract granting you legal rights to the image purchased, the right to make derivatives, etc., which rights transfer always to the holder of the NFT.

You now have a legal contract granting the NFT holder all IP license rights to that image. If there are 300 intermediate secondary transactions, and then I buy the NFT, make a derivative to exploit commercially, and get sued, my defense in court is simple: (1) here’s the governing IP license terms and (2) I own the NFT which is easily proved on chain. That IP license, by the way, could even be embedded on chain.

I can think of lots of examples like the above, where you can leverage some offchain system (like an IP license) with an on chain one, so that you have real world rights to an item but also benefit from easy and auditable transferability.

Again, just because NFTs do not solve all problems (eg you still need an IP license) does not mean that combining the two is not a real and useful improvement.

[BobbyJo]

> Again, just because NFTs do not solve all problems (eg you still need an IP license) does not mean that combining the two is not a real and useful improvement.

Totally agree. I think that's where the divide lies with tech savvy people and why HN tends to be anti-crypto. It is indeed a useful piece of a stack for solving a problem, but honestly it's a pretty minor piece. A majority of the cost and attention that goes into IP is enforcement, not contract tracing. It's definitely a part of the problem, especially for smaller players, but it's not the whole pie that the less tech savvy seem to think it is.

[Joeboy]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you or not.

I can see that if there's an NFT minted in eg 2020 and no record of the associated work existing prior to that, that provides a bit of evidence in favour of the (earliest) NFT holder being the legitimate IP owner. Is that what you're saying, or something more than that?

[berberous]

That’s basically it.

For a well known and successful project, like BAYC or Cryptopunks, the authentic and original mint contracts are well known. If in 100 years someone offers to sell me one, which has traded hands 3500 times, it is extremely easy to ignore the noise of the 3500 intermediate transactions, pull up the source contract, and confirm it’s the authentic original.

This of course works best for “well known” NFTs, but it is a legitimate improvement over how Sotheby’s would have to authenticate a newly discovered alleged Monet, as in that case, the secondary transactions are relevant and need to be investigated as it’s impossible to just jump to the source and know with certainty that this is a legitimate Monet.

For projects that are not well known, you do not have the benefit of having a “well known” source contract, but yes, with everything on chain, you could at least do as you suggest and say, well, this appears to be the earliest example on chain anyone has been able to find.

So while there is of course still some uncertainties or some need to refer to external knowledge or sources off chain, being able to totally track a clear decentralized chain of title is very helpful, and solves a lot of problems, even though it does not solve all problems.

[Joeboy]

Thank you! My initial idea of what NFTs were was that they were like a free copyright registry, and as far as that goes, I don't really see a problem (although it seems like a rather over-engineered solution).

[TheDong]

> YouTube routinely deals with DMCA notices that are bogus, and it’s difficult for them to sort out whether someone is a legitimate rights holder or not.

This is very true, but I don't see how NFTs are a good solution to this.

The problem you're getting at is "determining if someone has permission from a copyright holder in a given work is hard" which is a true problem. NFTs do not currently give you copyright over a work, so they don't currently solve it.

In theory, we could have a copyright token, but that also can't work trivially. Why? Because copyright can, and of often is, written with complex conditions.

Let's say I'm a podcast, and I email a songwriter and ask them if I can use one of their pieces of music on my podcast, and then they ask what the podcast and content is, and then finally say "Yes, you have permission to use it for free on that specific episode you talked about" or "you can use the first 20 seconds of it" or such. How does that get captured as an NFT, where it's okay use it on a youtube video which is the audio of my podcast episode I got rights for, but it would be infringing to use it on a different video?

How would fair use be checked? Would lawyers act as oracles in any "NFT token use disputes"? Isn't that already the state of the art?

I guess in my head, "legal use of copyright" requires checking fair use, and requires checking arbitrarily complex legal conditions, so I don't see how you can make an "nft" of this without having a lawyer review or write every token... which scales just as well as having one lawyer at youtube hq watching every video.

For another fun challenge in copyright, how might your idea model copyleft / gpl / the linux kernel copyright issues, where someone uses GPL software (a conditional copyright license, conditioned on releasing their source code), but did not give the source code out after making changes and distributing binaries?

[i_am_proteus]

>OpenSea can determine that very quickly and take it down

How is this block chain different from open sea using a centralized ledger?

[berberous]

If everybody in the world agreed to only buy and sell digital art on OpenSea, then it is no different, assuming you trust OpenSea to operate fairly and to not lose records or make mistakes.

But practically, nobody has ever been able to convince the world to only buy and sell on one platform, and even if they could, that would be a worse solution because better platforms may emerge and it’s nice to have alternatives.

Stated another way, today, OpenSea could not possibly track all NFT transactions in a centralized database without just mirroring the data in the blockchain, as many transactions occur off platform.

[woodruffw]

I eagerly await MoMA's removal of Warhol's despicable fakery[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans

[AkshatM]

> having a verifiable and auditable decentralized chain of custody back to the original mint transaction

A verifiable and auditable centralized chain also works here if you trust the centralized party? I'm not seeing why decentralization is core to this premise.