[vmception]

There are upgradeable contracts (All NFTs are the self-executing code called smart contracts) and the admin key to cause an upgrade can be community governed, even more nuanced approaches such as some variables available to be governed.

So upgrading the image data and format could be possible. They typically use a getImage() method, as part of the NFT standards, a setImage() method could be added with the method being set to OnlyOwner, which is just a member level designation seen in other programming languages like JVMs.

In EVMs, OnlyOwner can be a collective or its own smart contract controlled by a collective.

Depending on the format and size of the image or transformation operation, the transformation could occur onchain. Nodes in a blockchain are just compute instances. I don't see how it matters if such thing occurred onchain or offchain though, as long as the output was written to the setImage method and that fixes the NFT.

This is the kind of stuff developers do everyday in other stacks, I get a feeling many developers (who are a big audience on this forum) just haven't looked at the crypto space on the development side because these conversations make little sense.

[peoplefromibiza]

what's the point of buying sth because it's uniquely identified in the digital space if it's not even unique and can be changed at will?

[vmception]

As I mentioned in other threads, it is up to the consumer to be discerning, no different than anything else a consumer has to do. If they want to be part of a community to upgrade the artwork in their possession, then find those kinds of NFTs. If they don't want any ability for their art work to be upgraded, then find those kinds of NFTs.

Some people buy things based on hype.

Some people buy things based on their ability to resell it.

Some people won't be able to.

Thats how market work. Whose problem is that? Its not mine, its probably not yours, so who cares just because NFTs are involved.

[peoplefromibiza]

> no different than anything else a consumer has to do

false.

if I buy a coffee machine and inside the box there's a brick there are a number of ways I can use to have my money back.

what you suggest is like buying the coffee machine from an unknown person who's also wearing a mask, altering their voice and doing their business in a shady parking lot picking up the box from the back of a van with no plate.

it would still be safer than what you propose.

[vmception]

whose problem is that? its not the seller's problem. be a seller then. if you don't want to sell plagiarized goods then don't sell plagiarized goods. there's plenty of buyers.

I don't really understand this buyer centric side of things on behalf of ...all buyers... ? are you debating a big purchase?

[peoplefromibiza]

> be a seller then

I'm no scammer.

> then don't sell plagiarized.

you're moving the goalpoast.

if you can't tell what's good and what's plagiarized, the only safe assumption is that everything's plagiarized and stay away from it, both as seller and buyer.

black markets are illegal for a good number of reasons.

[vmception]

can you elaborate? If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things, how would that be scamming people or moving the goal post of this conversation? who cares if the consumer can't tell the difference, if you personally don't want to scam people with plagiarized work (or scam in the sense of simply making money in that fraudulent way) then you still wouldn't have done that.

do you have a different foundational belief than even that? are you of the belief that anything in the NFT format (a set of software methods with a getImage() method) is a scam?