You cannot do this with an NFT unless the server that the NFT is hosted on supports it (and has awareness of the blockchain). Then it becomes centralized to that server. You couldn't do it with IPFS.
Edit: I should have added my own explanation as it's not as obvious to everyone else what an NFT is. If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). NFTs have nothing to do with URLs (although some NFTs do have URLs inside of them), the main point is to have something with a unique ID that is unique within that specific blockchain.
(To be fair, a better analogy would involve OP setting fire to a rainforest somewhere as part of the process.)
> If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID).
This is where the entire argument falls apart trivially. The problem is that NFTs are just random pieces of paper containing a pointer. They're not guaranteed to be the only pointer, the content on them can be copied, they're not actually scarce resources, and everyone can (and does) fool everyone else about whether or not they have the same paper and/or the same pointer.
Additionally with NFTs, the pointer is often to some random centralized resource holder/single server in the 'centralized fiat' world of trust, and quite frequently that turns out to be a $5 VPS running apache that someone stops paying the bill for.
Notarize it, and the analogy is back on track.
The person who owns the URL on the paper can change the contents of that URL. Legally, the paper may be a gift, but I'm now the proud owner of a piece of paper.
I can similarly own a map to the Mona Lisa. Everyone in the world may even agree and attest to that fact! I don't own the Mona Lisa as a result. The Louvre can move it, take it off display, burn down, or do any number of other things.
NFTs have already gone dark in this fashion. https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1369802069729812483
Hell, Jack "sold" his first Tweet for nearly $3M as an NFT. You don't own it. You can't delete it, you can't do anything with it. Jack could delete it! Twitter could delete it! Twitter could make that URL host a page that says "NFTs are dumb". You own the NFT itself.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-...
> According to “Valuables,” the tweet itself will “continue to live on Twitter,” but the winning bidder would own the NFT, “signed and verified by the creator,” like a virtual autograph.
This is untrue in practice. In theory an NFT could have no url associated with it. In reality that’s how NFTs were envisioned and how they are actually implemented.
> the entire thing is based around uniqueness within blockchains, so important to highlight when you try to explain what NFTs are.
That’s right. You have to mention the blockchain so that people turn off their critical thinking. Because if you describe an NFT without techy-sounding buzzwords, people will rightly say “that sounds stupid”.
There was a scam scheme on eBay that if you did not read the item description correctly you would be surprised to discover that you paid $2000 for a picture of the laptop, instead of the laptop itself. NFTs are similar, except the element of surprise is missing. People still buy them, because the word "blockchain" causes their brains to shut down.
(if they do - they do it outside blockchain, what makes blockchain part quite pointless, beyond Ponzi part)
Ownership, no. That's a legal concept.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/30/22860010/bored-ape-yacht...
> A pair of non-fungible token projects are testing the boundary between plagiarism and parody. Digital marketplace OpenSea has banned the PHAYC and Phunky Ape Yacht Club (or PAYC) collections, both of which are based on the same gimmick: selling NFTs with mirrored but otherwise identical versions of high-priced Bored Ape Yacht Club avatars. Now the dueling projects are selling their apes while dodging bans from other marketplaces, becoming the latest example of how the NFT world handles copied art.
The only thing that determines the real Bored Ape Yacht Club is an off-chain belief that it's the legitimate one.
Hell, they can't even agree on which one is the real fake.
> Somewhat ironically, PAYC and PHAYC have since fought on Twitter over which one is the authentic Bored Ape Yacht Club ripoff, with PAYC’s founder referring to PHAYC as a “cash grab fraud project.” PHAYC charged people to mint its apes, and CoinDesk reports that it took in around 500 ETH (or around $1.8 million) in sales. By contrast, it says PAYC earned around 60 ETH (or roughly $225,000) from its paid sales.
https://opensea.io/assets/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118a18...
https://nftrade.com/assets/eth/0x176e0fe17314def59f0f06e976e...
Imagine you have zero off-chain knowledge. Which one of these is the real one?
You know Bored Ape Yacht Club and Phunky Ape Yacht Club exist. How do you know which one owns the copyright to the images? Which one's the original artist, and which one's the fraud?
Loosely similarly, if I want to communicate with someone securely they first have to communicate to me their public key but once I have it I can always verify that a message comes from them and send them messages back.
The person who put a JPEG on the blockchain may not own that JPEG. As evidenced by the existence of the Phunky Ape Yacht Club copies.
A list of transactions after that point doesn't demonstrate ownership if you can't demonstrate ownership by the minter.
So yeah, NFTs are like the parent comment explains. Plus that ledger that has no actual meaning.
Edit: I'm not underestimating that giant ledger's technical solution for verifying the piece of paper. All I'm saying is that it doesn't fucking matter.
But again, "it doesn't fucking matter" so no need to reply me, in fact, if you don't care you probably shouldn't, because replying would signal you do actually care.
The technical mechanism of 'Blockchain' might be a novel artifact of the definition of an NFT - but it does not matter.
You're talking about the 'type of paper the deed to the house was written on'.
We don't care about the 'technology used to make the deed' - we care about the implications, i.e. ownership of what, how, when etc..
An NFT is indirectly implied to be 'ownership' of something, but in reality, it's simply 'ownership of the NFT' itself really.
Any legal or popular control over the 'digital content' has nothing to do with NFTs, it's just 'by implication' and has no real social or legal basis.
As such, the 'piece of paper' is a decent analogy.
"It's a record, that references something; you own the record itself, but it means absolutely nothing beyond that".
If you want to think you're cool from owning that, that's cool, or not, or whatever.
It's a good analogy.
You seem to have missed what the analogy is: The piece of paper is the blockchain record, the thing that can be exchanged with other people, not the art or whatever at the end of it (hence why a URL on the paper was mentioned).
It's a great explanation for non-technical people.
Anyone with a basic understanding of NFTs will immediately see that you don't understand what you're talking about if you use that explanation, as NFTs have nothing to do with URLs, art or whatever. It's simply a currency with the total supply being 1. Nothing less, nothing more.
Confusing that with the whole "NFT Art" space is just doing everyone a disservice, as there are people who actually understand NFTs, and are against them, but based on their actual capabilities, not some fake thing you've made it.
Yes, exactly like that unique scrap of paper, of which there is only 1 in existence. The fact that OP wrote an URL on it is not important, it could have been a sticker, or a coffee mug stain, or even nothing at all. The scrap of paper is guaranteed to be unique since you can never rip out the same piece of paper again, the fringes would be all different
I find it a good analogy
a) they have a serial number making each unique b) they are purposefully designed to make it easy to identify forgeries
To the detractors: can you explain what an NFT is without saying blockchain or distributed ledger? An NFT doesn't need those to be an NFT.
1. The paper has an authenticated watermark which cannot he forged by any known technology
2. The paper can teleport a shadow copy of itself anywhere in the world: it can be inspected by practically anyone in the world, without the shadow copy being traded as the real thing
You know, like titles.
Most NFTs are like a title to a house. Like a title to a house, you can: 1. Prove you own it; 2. Sell it to someone.
Unlike the title to a house: 1. The party certifying your ownership is not the government, but the consensus rules of a blockchain; 2. The thing you own is not physical, but digital in nature; 3. Your ownership does not prevent anyone from copying the file itself for their own uses.
Regarding your point that the object you own might not be consistent: because of the cost relative of storing data on a blockchain, the actual digital thing you own isn't usually stored on the blockchain, but a hash of that file (e.g. [1]). Unless hashing is broken, this is cryptographic proof that the object does remain consistent.
[1] https://github.com/larvalabs/cryptopunks/blob/master/contrac...
Edit: perhaps the notion of an entry ticket to a concert would have been a better analogy than a title to a house.
I'll agree that the analogy wasn't perfect though - I added an edit for another analogy (still as imperfect as it may be).
NFTs are like a title to a house that you wrote with a crayon.
There is no legal grounds for ownership, its just bunch of people claiming they own something and some other saying they agree.
You can convince whole china + india that you are king of england, but goodluck with actually sitting on the english throne.
A house drawn with a crayon can be considered an artwork or may have sentimental value.
You also have clear ownership of that artwork that you can defend in court.
You will also not loose "ownership" the moment the business that certifies it goes out of business or looses their database to ransomware.
They are the opposite of a title to a house.
The most important function of the 'Title To the House' is that you own the house.
That's the whole point of the title.
An NFT is a homeless person selling you a 'certificate' that gives you 'ownership' of the 'Brooklyn Bridge'.
* Live there
* Remodel it
* Landscape it
* Rent it out
* Etc.
What, beyond selling it, can I do with my new NFT? What does it even mean to own it, if my right to copy is no greater or less than anyone else's?
Basically, imagine a certificate you have on your computer, except it's publicly known, then imagine use cases based on that.
We have that?
Which is to say that I think the problem is less that NFTs are inherently worthless and more that the crypto community desperately needs to reclaim the brand from the speculators, if there's even anyone else left.
For all the cool applications that there might be for blockchain, the only ones that seem to gain traction are the ones that involve highly speculative investment machines. NFTs have been no different, and it's this tendency that makes many people very uncomfortable with anything involving crypto.
The discussion is art NFTs being worthless (or not). Coming in and saying “yeah, but not all NFTs are about art” it’s not helpful. If you think that art NFTs are stupid but the underlying tech has promise, then say that. Don’t defend “NFTs” because that looks like you’re defending the value of the current ones actually being discussed.
Engaging in a semantic argument just muddies the whole issue and looks like you’re defending something you are not.
If you own an NFT, you get no practical real world benefits.
The debate reminds me of when Napster looked, to many, like it would end the sales of pre-recorded music, since music can be copied identically for free. Obviously such predictions turned out to be wrong.
I think they would have turned out to be right if there was no such thing as copyright law. But there is. People were prosecuted, and over time the prosecutions made a difference. They helped it make sense to invest money in creating well-designed, easy-to-use streaming services. And in the end, for most people, it was more convenient and risk-free to get music from such services than to pirate it. It was worth the cost.
Over time, if people spend real money on NFTs, the legal system will evolve to better protect people's purchases. For now, if two people claim to be the creator of a given artwork which is the subject of an NFT, and create two NFTs, only one of them will have the actual copyright. That should provide a basis for legal action.
As I said, I'm not sure cross-game NFTs will ever get past the hype stage. But I have been to a museum where truly beautiful NFT art was on display. I haven't bought any art in many years but I can certainly imagine that my next art purchase could be that kind of NFT. By purchasing it, I am helping the creator in "1000 True Fans"[1] manner, and I am, in the creator's view, which is the only one with any legitimacy when it comes to digital art, the "owner". (Even if I am the second or third purchaser of an NFT, the fact that the original purchaser knew he could sell it to someone like me is part of why he purchased it, so I have helped create the environment where that original purchase could happen.)
While it's true that people can make copies that are identical, people can also make copies of the Mona Lisa that can't be distinguished by anyone but specialists. To the normal person, they would appear to be identical. It isn't what they look like that matters. It's the legitimacy: which is the legitimate Leonardo Da Vinci? It's the one he personally made (and/or was made in his studio by other people under his direction). It has nothing to do with how it looks to the average person.
To one degree or another, these issues of legitimacy and helping the artist will have an affect and give value to NFTs of real art.
I'd also be willing to bet that there will be a long-term market for "collectibles" for the same reason there is for baseball cards. If someone were to make an identical copy of an original Mickey Mantle baseball card, it would have no value. Only the original does, and only because the purchasers believes it is the original, and therefore legitimate, card. The mechanism for NFT legitimacy is different, but there is no reason to assume that that mechanism will not create persistent value over time. It is unclear now how much value it will create. But it would be wrong to just dismiss it at this early stage.
[1] https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/; see also https://future.a16z.com/1000-true-fans-try-100/
I can possess all the bored ape JPEGs. So can anyone else in the world who can right-click or screenshot or download a .zip of them.
Not legally, they aren't. I can take someone else's photo, put it up on OpenSea as a NFT, and it'll go through. I didn't own it. You don't own it. The original photographer still holds every bit of legal ownership, regardless of our possession of JPEG copies of it.
> a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed
What a particular platform does when it sees that relationship is up to them. If no platform does anything with that data then your NFT does exactly nothing.
According to who?
Not according to the government. "Owning" an NFT doesn't give you any kind of reproduction or copyright rights.
Too bad for NFTs that "possession" is a legal problem, not a technological-one. If a court and government doesn't recognise that cryptographic verification, you're out of luck.