Benefit of the hindsight
-
When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded
Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it's pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.
I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You've heard of landlords, but have you heard of NFT-Land landlords? 🤭
-
I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.
In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).
If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it
This is such a funny thing to say since NFTs were all about "owning" stuff on the blockchain.
-
This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what's coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.
A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that's hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).
The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).
The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.
This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.
The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.
-
The national news media got behind it big, which I really don't understand.
It never made any sense.
Explanation: Money.
Whenever you see a headline or article and don't understand why they're lying or pushing something. The answer is that it makes someone money. And a large chunk of modern media is owned by a handful of people who's goal is to make money, not tell the truth.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than "art". NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It's a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.
-
Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.
With your scheme you can't prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can't be extracted from the camera.
-
It's remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than "art". NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It's a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.
Explain to me one such benefit please
-
You've heard of landlords, but have you heard of NFT-Land landlords? 🤭
"Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place."
-
Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it's pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.
I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.
Bitcoin is still fucking shit. That just amounts to "I wish I was there first in this this pyramid scheme". It doesn't change what it is.
-
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork.
️I don't see how it's much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
You didnd't purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven't figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
-
Explain to me one such benefit please
For you as a user, this example can be interesting: event tickets.
Today, the market is dominated by companies like Ticketmasters and scalpers. Artists have very little control over their ticket price. Here in The Netherlands, some prominent artists started using GET to issue their event tickets on (these are technically NFTs). This gives them the assurance that the audience pays a fair price for the tickets and that scalpers cannot trade it for a higher price. Both the audience and the artist are better of using this technology, than issuing their tickets via Ticketmasters.
https://guts.tickets/
E.g. Dutch article with prominent artists starting sales via GUTS in 2018, and they still use that platform today: https://www.parool.nl/kunst-media/jochem-myjer-en-youp-van-t-hek-pakken-ticketfraude-aan~bc419f5c/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F -
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
-
Bitcoin is still fucking shit. That just amounts to "I wish I was there first in this this pyramid scheme". It doesn't change what it is.
Sure, never said otherwise, so you can see how someone could theoretically think maybe nft is the next bitcoin and want to get in early.
-
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
Iain M. Banks had a similar idea in The Player of Games. In the book AI is so realistic that all real photos and videos have to be logged and timestamped for authenticity.
-
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
There's not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry
-
I initially thought they were like numbered art prints, with a more robust way of guaranteeing authenticity.
That was the marketing hype.
They were actually selling numbered receipts of art prints.
-
"Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place."
For real cash ofc.
-
My first wife was tarded. She's a pilot now.
She pilots the Tardis.
-
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
Yeah. Crypto bros ruined crypto with their greed.
Crypto is still really cool but now when people read that word they just think scam. So it's never going to happen
