Comment by mattdesl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattdesl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution.

For example, some artists on Ethereum are deploying their own token contracts[1], without the need for a distribution platform like Hicetnunc, SuperRare, etc. Once minted, these tokens can be traded on a secondary marketplace such as OpenSea (which may not have taken part in the initial distribution). If those secondary markets fail, the source of truth still lies in the blockchain, and the tokens can still be traded via any new marketplaces that emerge, or via smart contract queries through blockchain explorers like Etherscan, or even via one's own command-line (the web merely acts as a thin interface over these distributed endpoints).

I do agree that artists on Tezos are becoming too centralized to Hicetnunc (compared to, say, NFTs on Ethereum, which tend to be very diverse), but I believe this to be a solvable problem[2].

[1] - https://www.deafbeef.com/

[2] - https://twitter.com/mattdesl/status/1412713480893960195

> The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution.

So what value does a distributed, anonymized ledger add, when the artists are the central authority who determine what is and isn't authentic? In the end, the value comes from the artist saying "I made this, not an impostor", which is the same as any physical artwork in history.

Do people just want to own art without being burdened by the ownership of physical goods? That sounds rather irrational even compared to normal art trades.

The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree that "wallet X owns digital token Y".

To your second point: much of today's art is not manifested by a single physical artefact. Conceptual art has been around for a long time; ownership of conceptual art is not new[1], but the advent of blockchain gives a new vehicle and distribution mechanism for it, in particular digital and software art.

[1] - https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-conceptual-art...

> The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree that "wallet X owns digital token Y."

Is there any advantage over a traditional certificate signed by PKI? I'd say the risk of X.509 PKI in its entirety disappearing is significantly lower than the risk of any individual blockchain startup failing. (How's that for decentralised redundancy!)

> To your second point: much of today's art is not manifested by a single physical artefact. Conceptual art has been around for a long time; ownership of conceptual art is not new[1] but the advent of blockchain gives a new vehicle and distribution mechanism for it, in particular digital and software art.

So we're back to hype for the sake of hype, detached from any technical merit.

I don't know much about PKI but it seems to rely on certification authorities (i.e. single source of trust) and there does not seem to be a clear mechanism for artists to sign, trade, and 'own' them.

But, if you were to create a PKI-enabled digital art marketplace that is able to meet the same decentralized structure and benefits of NFT technology, without the need for a distributed ledger and tokenization, I'm sure many artists and creators would welcome that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com