Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In comments on What do you think will the tech bros jump on next?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Yes, the URI can point to the same monkey jpg. But a different contract address means it is a different NFT.

parent

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

The key point is that the jpeg is not the NFT

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

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).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

Anyone can still mint a copy with different metadata on a different contract.

That would not be an exact copy, because the data is different. Then traditional copyright laws take over.

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.

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

Lets say I mint an NFT of Mickey Mouse. I don't own that image since it is protected by copyright. First created doesn't mean ownership or authenticity. To be legally compliant, there would have to be some central authority to take down the offending IP on another contract, but blockchain doesn't offer an ability to do this.
Or lets say my house deed was on the blockchain and a hacker stole my secret pass phrase and took my deed. He doesn't have legal authority over my house.

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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Lets say I mint an NFT of Mickey Mouse. I don't own that image since it is protected by copyright.

Not any more. So let's choose Minnie Mouse instead.

First created doesn't mean ownership or authenticity.

Agreed

To be legally compliant, there would have to be some central authority to take down the offending IP on another contract, but blockchain doesn't offer an ability to do this.

Incorrect. An NFT of Minnie Mouse would not be legal, but that doesn't make other NFTs of other art illegal.

Or lets say my house deed was on the blockchain and a hacker stole my secret pass phrase and took my deed. He doesn't have legal authority over my house.

Agreed. Stealing the crypto key is as exactly as illegal as stealing a physical key and claiming ownership.

Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain

No need to roll back. The legal contract can be made to point to a different nft.

but if we are using a central authority then there isn't any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.

In this case the blockchain removes friction. Real world enforcement of laws is centralised because society demands it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Sibshops@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

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?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

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

permalink

fedilink

source

parent