Re:NFT's aren't the answer to the problems of digital art
by bsedlm on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @07:16AM
(#29160667)
> Except they really don’t.
now that I've thought about it for a bit longer, I think you're right.
> I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact
no, because then the NFT would be exactly the same as the digital artifact, and they're not. that's the point I'm trying to make.
I suppose they fact that NFTs can be traded is what's so weird about them (and why my own argument fails).
Re:NFT's aren't the answer to the problems of digital art
by xondono on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @12:59PM
(#29164995)
> no, because then the NFT would be exactly the same as the digital artifact
I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact and then create a second token.
You should be able to copy the digital asset, but the second part (creating a new token) should fail. Otherwise what’s the point?
Re:NFT's aren't the answer to the problems of digital art
by Dagonfly on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @10:20AM
(#29162858)
Technically even the token isn't directly blockchain-backed. ERC-721 (the base standard) only requires a URI to a metadata file. That file may contain a link to the asset (JPG or whatever). So there are 2 indirections. Hopefully both are IPFS addresses.
Of course, there are other NFT implementations that store metadata directly in the smart contract, but that requires a lot more gas.
To be what you define, I should not be able to copy-paste the digital artifact and then create a second token. The token should, in some way, behave like a hash, where the blockchain should complain that this digital asset has been accounted for already.