Hacker News Reader

Comment by bootlooped | Hacker News Reader

But NFTs can be copied. In which case a third party outside the blockchain must attest to which NFT is original or legitimate. That kills the whole proof of ownership angle, I think. Having an NFT only means you control a digital file asserting that you "own" something else; what is meant by "own" and if the assertion is true is not knowable without off-chain information.

I'll give you that it does allow creators to extract value from their work.

View on HN

That 2nd sentence is incorrect. The blockchain is already the 3rd party attesting to the NFT's legitimacy. The purpose of the decentralized blockchain is to remove the need for 3rd party validation. Yes the NFT can be copied, and yes the digital asset that the NFT represents can be copied, BUT the NFT's record in the blockchain can NOT be copied. What is meant by "own" is that the owner's address is tied to the NFT in the blockchain record.

I'd replace "NFT legitimacy" with "NFT correctness". Unless you met the author and seen them create the NFT, you don't really know if it's legitimate (as in created by the original author) or not. The market being flooded by random fakes and actual authors having to put their higher quality art behind a paywall is a serious problem these days.

For real legitimacy of the source, you need either the author or a trusted third party.

I think in most cases with NFTs, "own" is being defined at ownership of the off-chain artwork (or other thing).

I think people are being sold the idea that they're buying a certificate that proves they own (in some sense of the word) the artwork, but in reality they're being sold a certificate that proves they own the certificate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com