News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency. Parent comment

Re:The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency by creshal on Thursday July 08, 2021 @07:40AM (#27770666)
> The premise of this space is that the tokens hold value because of who distributed the tokens (the artist), and what they conceptually represent (the artwork), and this value can exist beyond the scope of the website or platform that originally facilitated their distribution.

So what value does a distributed, anonymized ledger add, when the artists are the central authority who determine what is and isn't authentic? In the end, the value comes from the artist saying "I made this, not an impostor", which is the same as any physical artwork in history.

Do people just want to own art without being burdened by the ownership of physical goods? That sounds rather irrational even compared to normal art trades.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency by mattdesl on Thursday July 08, 2021 @08:05AM (#27770859)
The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree that "wallet X owns digital token Y".

To your second point: much of today's art is not manifested by a single physical artefact. Conceptual art has been around for a long time; ownership of conceptual art is not new[1], but the advent of blockchain gives a new vehicle and distribution mechanism for it, in particular digital and software art.

[1] - https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-conceptual-art...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency by creshal on Thursday July 08, 2021 @08:18AM (#27770959)
> The distributed ledger adds security, longevity, ownership, and provenance: eg. a token is purchased from an artist, and it can be held and traded (ie. "owned") for as many years as the blockchain continues to survive. Unlike the ownership of a file or record in a centralized database, which are mutable and based on a single source of trust, the blockchain acts as a social consensus mechanism, i.e. we can all agree that "wallet X owns digital token Y."

Is there any advantage over a traditional certificate signed by PKI? I'd say the risk of X.509 PKI in its entirety disappearing is significantly lower than the risk of any individual blockchain startup failing. (How's that for decentralised redundancy!)

> To your second point: much of today's art is not manifested by a single physical artefact. Conceptual art has been around for a long time; ownership of conceptual art is not new[1] but the advent of blockchain gives a new vehicle and distribution mechanism for it, in particular digital and software art.

So we're back to hype for the sake of hype, detached from any technical merit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Non-Innovation of Cryptocurrency by mattdesl on Thursday July 08, 2021 @08:28AM (#27771055)
I don't know much about PKI but it seems to rely on certification authorities (i.e. single source of trust) and there does not seem to be a clear mechanism for artists to sign, trade, and 'own' them.

But, if you were to create a PKI-enabled digital art marketplace that is able to meet the same decentralized structure and benefits of NFT technology, without the need for a distributed ledger and tokenization, I'm sure many artists and creators would welcome that.

[ Parent | on HN ]