Hacker News Reader

Comment by klipt | Hacker News Reader

The artist can sign a message including your public key. The message is verifiable using the artist's public key. If other people copy it, they're just copying the proof that it belongs to you.

If you want to sell it to someone else, you sign a message saying you give it to them and so on, forming a "chain" of signed transactions.

View on HN

Any owner can sign as many receipts of sale as they want.

Can't an artist also mint as many NFTs as they want?

What stops an original owner (of the to-be-digitized asset) from selling an NFT on the same thing multiple times? Perhaps on multiple different platforms?

Nothing, but they can only sign the "first" once

If the NFT is just a pointer to a digital good, can't they have multiple "first" NFTs all referring to the same digital good?

Yes and no. If they minted multiple within the same block then yes. If not, then proof of first minted NFT could be verified by block height.

They could mint or 'sign' as many as they want.

But like a painting that can be copied, people decide to disproportionately value the first one...just because.

sure, but unless they are signed in the same block, then there will be a "first".

Congratulations, you just invented an inefficient PoS for a single use case!

The point being made is that it's trivial to create a proof of ownership system without using the blockchain.

The proof of ownership system described above is a blockchain where every single block is produced at irregular timestamp and contain a single transaction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com