NFTs

[katzenjammer]

It is dumb, but isn't it just slightly dumber than the value assigned to gold, ludicrously-priced watches, high-end fashion, rare pokemon cards etc? People are pretty bad at assigning value to things.

Yes, they only have value if enough people believe they do.  The way I think of NFTs is that it's like buying a painting that you never see because it's stored in a vault.  After a few years you sell it to someone else who also just leaves it in the vault, and so on.  It's a way of storing value, you hope it retains it or increases.  Once you've got some wealth, keeping it seems surprisingly difficult, a couple of months of hyperinflation and you're back to square one.

I also suspect NFTs could be good for money laundering, you make a shit gif and then sell it to yourself and pay with crypto.

[Zetetic]

Also good for mass-distributing cleartext links to child sexual abuse imagery to a large number of other people's computers. (Or indeed the images themselves, if you've got the money.)

[Paul Calf]

I don't know how that would work and I'm not sure I want to.

[Zetetic]

Tokens contain arbitrary data.[nb]There are standards/specifications for cover giving your NFT a pretty name or a link to an image URI, but that's just a matter of consensus about what tokens should look like.[/nb]

Tokens are stored as entries in a blockchain - i.e. on a bunch of other people's computers.

And, of course, one of the points of a blockchain is that it's very difficult to remove entries once they've become established, involving getting large numbers of otherwise unrelated people to agree to rewrite the history of that blockchain.

[Sebastian Cobb]

That's not specific to nfts is it, I'm sure I read this mightve happened in some clear text / comment/meta data field on the bitcoin blockchain.

[Better Midlands]

There's more to NFTs than just overpriced art, in the future you'll be able to use them for anything that requires a certified document for example car/house ownership & insurance/financial products/qualifications etc as well as everyday products such as event tickets (due to the blockchain this will eliminate scalping).

[Paul Calf]

Tokens contain arbitrary data.[nb]There are standards/specifications for cover giving your NFT a pretty name or a link to an image URI, but that's just a matter of consensus about what tokens should look like.[/nb]

Tokens are stored as entries in a blockchain - i.e. on a bunch of other people's computers.

And, of course, one of the points of a blockchain is that it's very difficult to remove entries once they've become established, involving getting large numbers of otherwise unrelated people to agree to rewrite the history of that blockchain.

Oh, without the knowledge or permission of the owners of those computers.

Eeesh.

[Zetetic]

That's not specific to nfts is it,

No, not really, although the token specs suggest it more obviously I guess.

[RetroRobot]

Internet pogs with the added benefit of killing the planet even faster than making real pogs

[Zetetic]

anything that requires a certified document for example car/house ownership & insurance/financial products/qualifications etc

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/storage-limitation/
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/

[Sebastian Cobb]

There's more to NFTs than just overpriced art, in the future you'll be able to use them for anything that requires a certified document for example car/house ownership & insurance/financial products/qualifications etc as well as everyday products such as event tickets (due to the blockchain this will eliminate scalping).

"what does this do that a system using a relational database can't?"

blockchain can provide decentralisation so it's not going through a single body but for the examples you've provided I don't see any advantage to decentralisation, car ownership, for instance, may as well be something handled by the dvla.

[Zetetic]

"what does this do that a system using a relational database can't?"

Irrevocably violate some fairly basic rights regarding personal data.

[olliebean]

I don't understand the blockchain at all. I've read about it but it all reads as mystical nonsense. I think I'm best off without bitcoins or tokens.

I am determined to remain convinced, no matter what I read to the contrary, that it's something to do with block transfer computation.

[JesusAndYourBush]

del

ctrl + c

ctrl + v

Not as easy as that.  There's some blockchain wankery involved.

Was reading an article about this the other day.  Some guy sold a jpg and some twat with more money than sense bought it for millions.  But anyone can copy the jpg and can view it in the same detail and quality as the original, except the owner has a special blockchain certificate thing that certifies he's the One True Owner.  So although literally anyone can view the art, and anyone can own the art, the twat who paid millions can be smug and know that only he is the One True Owner of the art.

And the same article said that someone sold their first tweet.  And some twat bought it.  For millions.  With the same blockchainy gubbins shite, so he can be smug about being the One True Owner.  So a tweet... something literally anyone can copy... but nobody wants to because it's shite... has been bought for millions.  Yeah it's insane.

[touchingcloth]

Oh, without the knowledge or permission of the owners of those computers.

Eeesh.

The child porn was just resting in my blockchain.

[Sebastian Cobb]

The without knowledge or permission thing has been something that has made me wonder about browsers 'prefetching' links in web pages.

A potentially bad actor could embed a link to something and your browser could helpfully fetch it ahead of time, leaving you on the hook for a link you never clicked.

[Zetetic]

You can do that trivially with any embedding element though, like an img tag.

(Or a hidden IFrame, I guess if you want it to fetch embedded content in the underlying page.)

Edit: I'm pretty sure touchingcloth has done this with "joke" URIs in the past to make this point or something. (Apologies if it was someone else.)

[touchingcloth]

Not as easy as that.  There's some blockchain wankery involved.

Was reading an article about this the other day.  Some guy sold a jpg and some twat with more money than sense bought it for millions.  But anyone can copy the jpg and can view it in the same detail and quality as the original, except the owner has a special blockchain certificate thing that certifies he's the One True Owner.  So although literally anyone can view the art, and anyone can own the art, the twat who paid millions can be smug and know that only he is the One True Owner of the art.

And the same article said that someone sold their first tweet.  And some twat bought it.  For millions.  With the same blockchainy gubbins shite, so he can be smug about being the One True Owner.  So a tweet... something literally anyone can copy... but nobody wants to because it's shite... has been bought for millions.  Yeah it's insane.

Presumably that special blockchain certificate thing doesn't know what it actually refers to, and a second One True Owner document could be made and given to someone else, and then we'd need a One True Owner of the One True Owner certificates which exist, and so on until infinity or we run out of hard drives.

[Zetetic]

Yes, you can always create new certificates (even if you can then always say that it's not this (earlier) certificate.)

[touchingcloth]

The without knowledge or permission thing has been something that has made me wonder about browsers 'prefetching' links in web pages.

A potentially bad actor could embed a link to something and your browser could helpfully fetch it ahead of time, leaving you on the hook for a link you never clicked.

This was one of the issues when I stupidly posted a broken link here with "MyFavKidStuff" (but more explicit) tacked onto the end for lols. I was the bad actor.

[touchingcloth]

Yes, you can always create new certificates (even if you can then always say that it's not this (earlier) certificate.)

This is why my invention idea is for self-aware paintings which know who owns them and are physically incapable of lying, like genies or house elves. That said, the earlier discussion about Midas reminds me that I need to arrange for some extra QA in the area of malicious compliance.

[dissolute ocelot]

Blockchain proponents claim it's an unfalsifiable historical record guaranteeing ownership, but it's nothing of the sort. Blockchains depend on decentralised entities agreeing on what's valid according to predefined procedures: because it's possible for different computers to get out of sync, they rely on a type of majority voting to decide what's real. People have already tried to take control of enough of the blockchain so they can rewrite history and steal cryptocurrency (called a "majority attack" or "51% attack"). Once the value of goods represented by NFTs exceeds the cost of buying enough servers to do a majority attack, then it's there for the taking and paying $$$ for NFTs means nothing. It's kind of like, if one company (or government) registers who owns all the land, you don't need to buy all the land, you just need to take control of the land register.

[touchingcloth]

Edit: I'm pretty sure touchingcloth has done this with "joke" URIs in the past to make this point or something. (Apologies if it was someone else.)

I have. Just the one time with that particular subject matter as the punchline. I think you might have put this edit in after I made this post...:

This was one of the issues when I stupidly posted a broken link here with "MyFavKidStuff" (but more explicit) tacked onto the end for lols. I was the bad actor.

...as I don't remember seeing it first.

[Zetetic]

I think it was just before, but the timing was very close - you'd probably started writing your reply before I'd updated my post.

[touchingcloth]

I think it was just before, but the timing was very close - you'd probably started writing your reply before I'd updated my post.

It wasn't to make a point about pre-fetching or anything, by the way. The thought process went no further than "wouldn't it be funny if someone clicked this, realised with a shock they'd been taken to a Bad Website, and then realised that it was a broken URL joke. Like a slightly less problematic Top Gear.

[olliebean]

If all an NFT is, is proof of ownership, how is that functionally any different from a legal document, except in that it isn't legally enforcible?

[Consignia]

The without knowledge or permission thing has been something that has made me wonder about browsers 'prefetching' links in web pages.

A potentially bad actor could embed a link to something and your browser could helpfully fetch it ahead of time, leaving you on the hook for a link you never clicked.

I actually got hit by that or something similar. My company carries out phishing tests against the employees to "promote awarness" of phishing by sending dodgy emails to everyone and if you click on the link, you get forced do mandatory training. But we'd also been told to use Outlook's "mark as phishing email" button to help combat the scourge of phishing. So being a good employee, I clicked it. But it seems Outlook decides to some scanning on a phishing email which follows links, which meant I got told to do training. Of course I didn't actually do the training, and have spent time since trying to undermine the system by getting everyone who mentions a dodgy email to look for all the tells in email headers.

[Gurke and Hare]

Blockchain proponents claim it's an unfalsifiable historical record guaranteeing ownership, but it's nothing of the sort. Blockchains depend on decentralised entities agreeing on what's valid according to predefined procedures: because it's possible for different computers to get out of sync, they rely on a type of majority voting to decide what's real. People have already tried to take control of enough of the blockchain so they can rewrite history and steal cryptocurrency (called a "majority attack" or "51% attack"). Once the value of goods represented by NFTs exceeds the cost of buying enough servers to do a majority attack, then it's there for the taking and paying $$$ for NFTs means nothing. It's kind of like, if one company (or government) registers who owns all the land, you don't need to buy all the land, you just need to take control of the land register.

I don't dispute any of that, but why would anyone want to steal an NFT any more than anyone would want to buy one? They're worthless, if you've got the servers to do it you may as well just steal bitcoins.

[Sebastian Cobb]

I actually got hit by that or something similar. My company carries out phishing tests against the employees to "promote awarness" of phishing by sending dodgy emails to everyone and if you click on the link, you get forced do mandatory training. But we'd also been told to use Outlook's "mark as phishing email" button to help combat the scourge of phishing. So being a good employee, I clicked it. But it seems Outlook decides to some scanning on a phishing email which follows links, which meant I got told to do training. Of course I didn't actually do the training, and have spent time since trying to undermine the system by getting everyone who mentions a dodgy email to look for all the tells in email headers.

My old work tried that on me, I didn't click and couldn't remember the email so I can only assume I didn't notice it was spam and just dismissed it as round-robin work bullshit.