Just spitballing here. Maybe some kind of legal framework. Some legislation that controls who is allowed to create NFTs for a work. Something that judges and courts can use to enforce the right to sell an NFT. Something that bans anyone but the original creator from distribution of the work the NFT is for. Because a "fake" NFT is any NFT that doesn't control the work it is attached to, right? But NFTs are just a thing on a block chain, so we need a contract to link the NFT to the work. And we will need the same contract to be enforced by the courts.

So, we need a contract to link an NFT to a work. That contract should also spell out all the things the NFT holder can do (maybe the creator didn't want to, or isn't allowed to, sell all rights).

So contract the says who owns a work and what they can do with it, enforced by a legal framework and the courts. That us all you need to make NFTs make sense, I don't see what the problem is.

What's that? If you have the contract, why do you need an NFT? Well, what scrub would buy a paper contract with bitcoin? It's not even on a block chain!

I think a large majority of the population just think this stuff is silly and I highly doubt anyone would want to put legislation through to help these companies that arguably don't contribute much to society. I also don't think it would be popular to spend lots of tax dollars enforcing this stuff.

If it wasn't clear, I am part of that population that thinks this is all very silly. The point of my rambling was to point out that the solution to NFT/blockchain problems boil down to contracts and lawyers and courts. Things that we already have and can use without NFT/blockchain bullshit.

We have courts and lawyers and contracts. We need to use those to make NFTs work, so why are NFTs valuable again?

There is no theoretical (technical) solution. Ownership is a legal construct, not a natural phenomenon. To wit, someone only owns something because a legal jurisdiction is willing to recognize that he does. No blockchain tech can surmount this.

Basically it all comes back to monopoly on violence. If you steal my painting, police will crack open your home and take it back.

That's not the heart of it. Imagine a government just said, "Ok, this blockchain solution is what defines true ownership." Theft would be rampant, but now police reports would be met by, "Sure, it used to be your house, but the blockchain says it's his now, so we're kicking you out. He stole it fair and square."

That hasn't happened because blockchains are a bad match for how people think of ownership.

Also consensus. The thief may think they should get to keep the painting, but if most people don't agree, police or no police they'll have trouble keeping that painting. In that case to keep it they will most likely have to hide it, and then what's even the point?

A notional monopoly on violence is important, but even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.

>even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.

You think most people living under an oppressive regime think that there's nothing the government could do to be better? Such a state doesn't need broad consensus that there's no better alternative, it just needs to avoid the consensus that the personal cost of attempting to achieve the better alternative is worth it. That's where the monopoly on violence really helps.

I think we're on the same wavelength, but perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.

No, it comes down to people cooperating and agreeing on stuff.

Furthermore contracts - in the context that a human being wants to be rewarded for their labor - also a legal construct. Meaning smart contracts aren’t very smart at all when they go wrong and reward the wrong party through unintended glitches or computer mis-interpretation of the contract. Or straight forgery.

No there’s no solution. Not until we all fully operate in a legal realm (the/a metaverse) that validates the contract and rewards the humans who created the contract to cover their own ass. If the contract doesn’t follow the _legal_ language and intent it’s not smart at all and yes it’s totally a solution in search of a problem.

this NFT stuff is doomed to failure until we all operate in the same realm validating the identity of the contract owner, validating the legal intent of the contract, because that’s what a contract is in meat space

I can't agree. If say the US government established a central authority say "The National Federal Thingy" authority perhaps and had a registry of NFTs (or could register a decentralized blockchain ID) then it could happen as there is value in guaranteeing something is “the original” promoted by artist, twitterer, etc. However, I don't see that happening as even as such, it seems like kind of a joke and I don't see lawmakers wanting their name on something so associated with grifting.

Ownership used to be by virtue of possessing something. Sure you could steal something, which is why people protect the things they own, because possession is in fact a huge part of who owns what.

Intellectual property is another thing entirely, and not as easy to enforce, especially in the digital age.

There is no solution as far as crypto goes. People keep pretending NFTs are art. They're just a digital certificate that has no further blockchain implications. The rest of the "contact" is outside the blockchain and is as typical and problematic as all other contacts and promises in the past.

Somehow I swiped "contact" instead of "contract" multiple times and didn't notice!

NFTs can only really accrue value from the terms of their issuance. This is actually true for Bitcoin as well—issuance is provably tied to the real economic cost of computation.

As with traditional artwork, the story of the work is what accrues value, not the work itself. You can create a largely undetectable forgery of a Picasso, but you cannot forge the historical record that traces the true work back to Picasso’s paintbrush. NFTs can make this historical record cryptographically secure, at least for the token itself, but whether that means the token should accrue value or not is up to the market.

Bitcoin issuance is ultimately linked to to time not effort. Receiving those coins takes an investment indirectly tied to their hypothetical value at time of creation via a lottery.

The difference is subtle, but it is meaningful on edge cases such as around reward halving.

Would it be possible to store the creation of the artwork as I create it? So say I paint in procreate, could it accrue its value step by step?

Unless the problem is NP, it would be trivially easy to fake these steps. If you follow this line of reasoning you would eventually discover proof of work/waste

I see, so there is no silver bullet to make it work, as long as you can fake it.

Can't I just replay the steps you save with a later starting point and sell a new work that was also incrementally made with a lot of "effort"?

> Can someone explain at least what the theoretical solution to this is?

For this to work, a blockchain needs to access something outside the chain i.e an Oracle... now you have two problems.