|
|
|
|
|
|
by riptheworld
1608 days ago
|
|
|
You are moving the goalposts. I described a mechanism that addresses link rot in the current NFT ecosystem. The hash-based method allows an owner to efficiently prove what content was associated with a rotted link with overwhelming probability. Using this basic building block, one could construct a process that allows an NFT owner to update the link stored on the blockchain. If you are concerned with changing an NFT's content or debating philosophically about whether that should be allowed, I don't have an opinion. I don't own NFTs, nor am I convinced they will stick around. My point is that the NFT ecosystem will likely evolve to create technical solutions solving many of the problems mentioned in the article. |
|
|
it doesn't.
IPFS is already content addressable, knowing the hash doesn't solve the fact that the link is dead.
It's like having the address of a building destroyed by an hurricane.
> The hash-based method allows an owner to efficiently prove what content was associated with a rotted link with overwhelming probability
It only proves that a stream of bytes resolve to some hash using some hashing algorithm.
Whoever has on their devices the same stream of bytes can republish the same item on the chain creating a new link that is alive and sell it.
The old one is dead and the money spent to buy the content the link pointed at have been lost forever.
It's like the "All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" trope
I spent money to buy a digital assets and "all I got was this lousy hash string"
> will likely evolve to create technical solutions solving many of the problems mentioned in the article.
or not.
as proved by the many problems in the cryptocurrencies space that people predicted would "likely evolve to create technical solutions" but didn't after more than 10 years and billions of dollars poured to the problem.
so why invest in something that fails to accomplish anything and will fail to do so at least for another 20-30 years?