this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1487 points (95.9% liked)
memes
14327 readers
3550 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The whole NFT/crypto currency thing is so incredibly frustrating. Like, being able to verify that a given file is unique could be very useful. Instead, we simply used the technology for scamming people.
I don't think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn't a way to verify if there isn't another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
I didn't know this and it's absolutely hilarious. Literally totally undermines the use of Blockchain to begin with.
No, it doesn't, it just means that Non-Fungible Tokens are...
Fungible...
So, they’re FNFT? Or just T?
wouldn't it be just FTs?
NFTs if anything are basically CryptoCurrency-based DRMs & we should always oppose DRMs
Copying the info on another contract doesn't mean it's fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it's associated to the right contract.
Let's say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn't recognize the "same" NFT if it wasn't linked to the right contract.
But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the "right contract". If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It's no longer a decentralized.
Yes and no, with the whole blockchain being public it's pretty easy to figure out which contract is the original one.
Lets say you don't have a central authority declaring one is official. How would you search the entire blockchain to verify you have the original NFT?
The NFT is useful with a central authority though, it's used to confirm the ownership of digital goods ex: if it's associated to digital games then the distributor knows which contract is the original since they created it in the first place...
Sure for bored apes pictures you copy the code and you go on a random websites and it can tell you the result of the mix of features based on the code, but on the original website it wouldn't work.
Exactly, and that’s the key issue. If we need a central authority, whether it’s a game distributor, marketplace, or platform to recognize and validate the “official” contract, then we’re back to a trust model similar to traditional databases.
Take your example of game ownership. If the launcher only accepts NFTs from a specific contract, that launcher is acting as the central authority. At that point, the launcher can just manage ownership records in its own database. NFTs only add complexity without eliminating the need for trust in a central entity.
And as we’ve seen with Magic Eden, even trusted platforms can make mistakes, leading to confusion or scams. So centralization is still required to resolve identity/authenticity, I don't believe NFTs offer any meaningful advantage over a traditional database.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/magic-eden-to-refund-users-after-25-fake-nfts-sold-due-to-exploit
The point of it is that you can freely trade the NFT with others, letting you exchange the ownership of digital goods and thus letting you decide to give up access to whatever it's related to in exchange for money and letting someone else get access to it. The NFT isn't the digital good, it's the proof of ownership of the digital good and I think that's the bit that's unclear to most. That proof of ownership is only good to then interact with whoever is the "gatekeeper" to access said good.
Just like having a contract saying that you have a safety deposit box at your bank still implies that you have to go to the bank to have access to the goods that are inside, having an NFT (the ownership contract) is only useful if you can use it to access the digital good it's related to. If the bank burns down your contract is worthless, if the provider of the digital good the NFT is related to closes its doors the NFT is worthless.
The NFT = an image thing just made things super confusing because anyone can analyze the NFT to say "based on the specs mentioned in the NFT and the analysis of the original database, here's the image" and anyone can spoof that to generate the same image on unofficial websites (but not in the official one which would check that the NFT is attached to the original contract), but when you understand that the NFT is just the proof of ownership it makes more sense.
It's still decentralized because ownership and transfers are managed on the blockchain.
Incorrect. An NFT is tied to a particular token number at a particular address.
The URI the NFT points to may not be unique but NFT is unique.
The NFT is only unique within the contract address. The whole contract can be trivially copied to another contract address and the whole collection can be cloned. It's why opensea has checkmarks for "verified" collections. There are a unofficial BoredApe collections which are copies of the original one.
Yes, the URI can point to the same monkey jpg. But a different contract address means it is a different NFT.
Completely agree, but the guy I responding to thinks the monkey jpeg is unique across the whole blockchain, when that isn't true. The monkey jpeg can be copied. There's no uniqueness enforced in a blockchain.
The key point is that the jpeg is not the NFT
Right, it’s a link to the JPEG. Either way, the point still stands, there’s no mechanism in the blockchain to prevent duplicate content or enforce uniqueness of what the NFT points to. The NFT token is unique within its contract, sure, but that doesn’t stop someone from deploying a near-identical contract with the same media and metadata. That’s the issue, the blockchain doesn’t know or care if the same JPEG is being reused in other collections.
The NFT token is unique within its contract and since the contract had a unique address the NFT pointer is unique. Include chainID in the description and the NFT is globally unique.
That’s true, the (chainID, contractAddress, tokenID) can be globally unique. But that doesn’t solve the original concern, it doesn’t prevent content duplication.
The method for unique content is to reference the chainID, Address and token number in the content itself (I.e. in a metadata field). This approach works well for legal documentation, but could equally be applied to monkey pictures (although it usually isn't).
Sure, you can establish a stronger tie between the token and the file by embedding the chain ID, contract address, and token number in the content or metadata, but there’s no way to enforce that tie at the blockchain level. Anyone can still mint a copy with different metadata on a different contract.
As for legal documents, while storing them on-chain might help with transparency or timestamping, the blockchain itself has no legal jurisdiction. It doesn’t have legal authority, and documents stored this way are not inherently compliant with local laws, so they’re unenforceable unless recognized by a traditional legal system.
That would not be an exact copy, because the data is different. Then traditional copyright laws take over.
Agreed. The NFT and legal documentation has to be constructed in such a way as to pass local laws. Having a bill of sale on-chain rather than on-paper isn't that big a difference.
Just transferring an NFT doesn't guarantee that legal ownership has changed.
But it is possible to create a legal structure that does create a legal bill of sale just by transferring an NFT.
As far as I can tell it isn't possible to create a legal structure on a blockchain. Technical limitations inherent in blockchain prevent this from making it possible.
Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain, but if we are using a central authority then there isn't any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.
Not any more. So let's choose Minnie Mouse instead.
Agreed
Incorrect. An NFT of Minnie Mouse would not be legal, but that doesn't make other NFTs of other art illegal.
Agreed. Stealing the crypto key is as exactly as illegal as stealing a physical key and claiming ownership.
No need to roll back. The legal contract can be made to point to a different nft.
In this case the blockchain removes friction. Real world enforcement of laws is centralised because society demands it.
Right, I agree that not all NFTs are illegal just because one might infringe IP. But the broader issue is enforcement, blockchains, by design, don’t offer mechanisms to remove or suppress infringing or malicious content.
And with legal documents like deeds, I get that stealing a key is like stealing a physical one. But the difference is that if someone steals my house key, I can rekey the lock. If they steal my private key, the blockchain can't "reassign" the NFT unless a centralized authority steps in, defeating the idea of decentralized, immutable ownership.
Sure, you could update the legal system’s contract to point to a different NFT, but again, that requires a central entity with authority to override what's on-chain. So at that point, we’re counting on some central authority to fix blockchain’s problem of not having reversibility.
So this goes back to the main question, if we need centralized enforcement and off-chain enforcement, anyway, what actual value does a blockchain add compared to an access-controlled database?
Enforcement of laws and documentation of ownership are two separate functions. Blockchain does the former only if everything is digital (like money).
Let's take licence to drive as a pure real world enforcement example. There are multiple countries so there are multiple centralised databases. Blockchain allows all those databases to be merged without needing central access control
It's crazy that people could see NFTs were a scam but can't see the same concept in virtual coins.
I'm not defending other cryptocoins or anything, they might be a ponzy scheme or some other form. But in the end they at least only pretended to be that, a valuta. Which they are, even though they aren't really used much like that. NFT's on the otherhand promised things that were always just pure technical bullshit. And you had to be a complete idiot not to see it. So call it a double scam.
A large majority of "real" money is digital, like 80% non-m1 m2. The only real difference between crypto and USD is that the crypto is a public multiple ledger system that allows you to be your own bank.
I've heard the sales pitch, it's a ponzi scheme with receipts. An open pyramid, so to speak. At best a volatile store of wealth.
You're not sold on the concept of money? I guess that fits right in on Lemmy.
Potentially volatile right, since who knows if/when various stablecoins might depeg
Because the pyramid scheme is still going strong with them, exactly because new victims are continually falling for them. NFTs lost their hype so quickly that the flow of new victims basically completely stopped, and so the bottom went out of them much faster.
It's crazy that people see crypto as a scam but can't see the same concept in fiat currencies.
because there are some buisness that accept some crypto, mostly grey or black market ones, but respectable companies none the less.
I think a big part of the problem with NFT is that they are so abstract people don't understand what they can and cannot do. Effectively, with NFT, you have people that hold a copy of a Spiderman comic in hand and believe they own all forms of spiderman.
Essentially, when you boil it down, you can turn this into "it's provable that individual X has possession of NFT identifier x,y,z". It's kind of like how you can have the deed to a piece of property in your desk, but that doesn't prevent 15 people from squatting on it.
It's so abstract you can use it to fleece people. Even after 2 years of hype, people STILL do not understand them properly.
It isn't even that. It's is identifying which drawer in your desk the deed is placed, but there is no guarantee that the drawer contains the deed.
Now imagine trying to explain all this to the unwashed masses... it's no wonder the explanation they got was "buy this, it's going to the mooooon!!!!"
But it's totally legit brah, it's just like trading cards but on a computer bro, you can make jay pegs totally unique bro, nobody else in the world can have the same image as you brah, it proves you're the only owner of it bro, trust me bro it's super secure and technological bruh