I don’t think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
Copying the info on another contract doesn’t mean it’s fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it’s associated to the right contract.
Let’s say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn’t recognize the “same” NFT if it wasn’t linked to the right contract.
But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the “right contract”. If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It’s no longer a decentralized.
The NFT is useful with a central authority though, it’s used to confirm the ownership of digital goods ex: if it’s associated to digital games then the distributor knows which contract is the original since they created it in the first place…
Sure for bored apes pictures you copy the code and you go on a random websites and it can tell you the result of the mix of features based on the code, but on the original website it wouldn’t work.
Exactly, and that’s the key issue. If we need a central authority, whether it’s a game distributor, marketplace, or platform to recognize and validate the “official” contract, then we’re back to a trust model similar to traditional databases.
Take your example of game ownership. If the launcher only accepts NFTs from a specific contract, that launcher is acting as the central authority. At that point, the launcher can just manage ownership records in its own database. NFTs only add complexity without eliminating the need for trust in a central entity.
And as we’ve seen with Magic Eden, even trusted platforms can make mistakes, leading to confusion or scams. So centralization is still required to resolve identity/authenticity, I don’t believe NFTs offer any meaningful advantage over a traditional database.
The NFT is only unique within the contract address. The whole contract can be trivially copied to another contract address and the whole collection can be cloned. It’s why opensea has checkmarks for “verified” collections. There are a unofficial BoredApe collections which are copies of the original one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
Copying the info on another contract doesn’t mean it’s fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it’s associated to the right contract.
Let’s say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn’t recognize the “same” NFT if it wasn’t linked to the right contract.
But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the “right contract”. If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It’s no longer a decentralized.
Yes and no, with the whole blockchain being public it’s pretty easy to figure out which contract is the original one.
Lets say you don’t have a central authority declaring one is official. How would you search the entire blockchain to verify you have the original NFT?
The NFT is useful with a central authority though, it’s used to confirm the ownership of digital goods ex: if it’s associated to digital games then the distributor knows which contract is the original since they created it in the first place…
Sure for bored apes pictures you copy the code and you go on a random websites and it can tell you the result of the mix of features based on the code, but on the original website it wouldn’t work.
Exactly, and that’s the key issue. If we need a central authority, whether it’s a game distributor, marketplace, or platform to recognize and validate the “official” contract, then we’re back to a trust model similar to traditional databases.
Take your example of game ownership. If the launcher only accepts NFTs from a specific contract, that launcher is acting as the central authority. At that point, the launcher can just manage ownership records in its own database. NFTs only add complexity without eliminating the need for trust in a central entity.
And as we’ve seen with Magic Eden, even trusted platforms can make mistakes, leading to confusion or scams. So centralization is still required to resolve identity/authenticity, I don’t believe NFTs offer any meaningful advantage over a traditional database.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/magic-eden-to-refund-users-after-25-fake-nfts-sold-due-to-exploit
NFTs if anything are basically CryptoCurrency-based DRMs & we should always oppose DRMs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Good, now read it
NFTs are a row in a database.
They are not, in any way, DRM.
I didn’t know this and it’s absolutely hilarious. Literally totally undermines the use of Blockchain to begin with.
No, it doesn’t, it just means that Non-Fungible Tokens are…
Fungible…
So, they’re FNFT? Or just T?
Incorrect. An NFT is tied to a particular token number at a particular address.
The URI the NFT points to may not be unique but NFT is unique.
The NFT is only unique within the contract address. The whole contract can be trivially copied to another contract address and the whole collection can be cloned. It’s why opensea has checkmarks for “verified” collections. There are a unofficial BoredApe collections which are copies of the original one.
Yes, the URI can point to the same monkey jpg. But a different contract address means it is a different NFT.
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.
The key point is that the jpeg is not the NFT
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.
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.
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.