Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin?

[pooya87]

This reminded me of another fundamental problem with NFTs, both the owner and anybody else in the world can also download the "art".

This isn't a problem, but a feature. Yes, anyone can download the art, but none of them can provide a proof of ownership of the art except the current owner. Anyone who gives me this article and tells me NFTs are useless is benighted the least.

It's like telling me they own BTC without providing me a valid signature. Okay, you can enjoy looking at the address, but you don't have the rights to move the BTC. When you transact BTC, you do exactly the same thing; you transfer the rights of those BTC. A sign that says it's not yours anymore.

That's not like that at all. Bitcoin doesn't represent something else in real world. Each bitcoin is its own and is a unit of currency. Each NFT token on the other hand represents something else in this case a piece of art, and if that piece is destroyed for example that token becomes meaningless.

It is more like if anyone who wished to could summon an exact version of a painting like Mona Lisa that was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in their home hanging on the wall that was identical in all aspects each others. The fact that Louvre museum has a version of it with a certificate doesn't mean much any longer.

For example, the Los Angeles County Register of Deeds could issue NFTs to real estate owners representing ownership of their property.

The question always is not about what you can do but why would you want to do that.
In this case storing such things on a distributed global ledger is meaningless! Storing it in a centralized database in that county or country is already working well enough.

The owner of a property could transfer their property to another person by transferring their NFT to another person. In this example, the Los Angeles County Register would need to agree (probably via statute) to recognize an NFT as ownership of a property. If you are buying a NFT representing ownership of real estate property, you would need to make sure the LA County Register actually issued the NFT (which can be done via reviewing the blockchain), and you would need to trust the LA County Register of Deeds, however, you need to do the later anyway if you are buying property in LA County.

Explanation of this process and the fact that the centralized body of LA county register is a must proves that you don't need a decentralized NFT on a decentralized public ledger (assuming the blockchain used is all that and not faking it like the existing token platforms).

The above could reduce the costs associated with selling your property, as it would make things such as title searches much easier, and would nearly eliminate title insurance payouts, which should reduce the cost of title insurance.

No it won't. Blockchain is the most expensive and inefficient form of database whether it is about storage, security or searching inside it.
With current centralized system, all you have to do is to search inside that centralized database that the LA county register keeps. They take care of everything including but not limited to: storage, verification, indexing, updating,... they could even alert you if the ownership was transferred while you are making the purchase.

With decentralized blockchain solution you will have to first download the entire blockchain (1122.89 GB for ETH) verify it, index the entire chain or parts of it so that it becomes searchable (will increase storage requirement) then search inside of it! Then you have to stay in sync and download and verify every block (produced every couple of seconds in ethereum) so that you can know if the ownership was transferred!

There are taxes associated with transferring property from one person to another, however, the costs I was referring to were things such as performing a title search, and title insurance, both of which are paid to entities other than the government.

This type of cost won't go away. Regular people would have to still rely on other entities to tell them what the hell an NFT is and how to search it in some blockchain and how to transfer the title through it.
Considering that people are reluctant to run their own full node to handle all these acts (which costs a lot too) they will rely on these entities that would ask for a lot more money since this would be a new thing and there would be little competition among those who can handle this kind of stuff.

[FinneysTrueVision]

NFTs already existed in Bitcoin well before they became such a popular trend. Rare Pepes are probably the most well-known one. Bitcoin NFTs never had as much hype and marketing as other blockchains and the Counterparty protocol didn't have much development along with the high fee issues never allowed NFTs to gain significant traction on Bitcoin.

[BBGC NFT]

NFTs already existed in Bitcoin well before they became such a popular trend. Rare Pepes are probably the most well-known one. Bitcoin NFTs never had as much hype and marketing as other blockchains and the Counterparty protocol didn't have much development along with the high fee issues never allowed NFTs to gain significant traction on Bitcoin.

Yes, back in 2015, there was a service to tokenize ownership on the Bitcoin blockchain, ascribe.io. I started to create 'NFTs' even without knowing the name NFT.

https://twitter.com/bbgc58
https://opensea.io/collection/bbgc-bitcoin-blockchain-gold-coin
''Originally, Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coins were registered in 2015 through ascribe.io (a service to tokenize ownership on the Bitcoin blockchain) to test what we call now Non Fungible Token (NFT). To have a fixed number of pictures in the set, something new should be tested: first, creating "empty frames" as editions (registering) and then linking the different pictures to these "empty frames" (minting). The idea behind that is, to avoid an increase of the number of pieces in the set in the future. Unfortunately, ascribe is no longer active. Now, Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coins are on the Ethereum blockchain. The 32x32 pixel images are coins with a Base58 character.''

First of all, I'd like to confirm that I have the correct technical background of the way NFTs work in my mind.

If you can bring NFTs to the Bitcoin blockchain, I will bring back my 2015 'NFTs' to your project.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Each NFT token on the other hand represents something else in this case a piece of art, and if that piece is destroyed for example that token becomes meaningless.

Be careful with it then. Behave same like you would with your private keys.

The fact that Louvre museum has a version of it with a certificate doesn't mean much any longer.

It's because it doesn't just have a version of it. It has the original, authentic painting drawn by Leonardo da Vinci. Whether new painters draw the exact same painting, using the same palette Leonardo used in 1503 or not, they can't recreate Mona Lisa, but only replicas.

No it won't. Blockchain is the most expensive and inefficient form of database whether it is about storage, security or searching inside it.

And yet, the most censorship resistant. Can't you acknowledge how significant it is if we, two, came into an agreement that we have no need for notaries? That we can exchange our rights this way, in this block chain? Same thing happened in 2009. Some people switched from legal money to bitcoin, because it was more satisfactory to them.

You can't really deny that there's not even one valid argument in favor of NFTs.

If you can bring NFTs to the Bitcoin blockchain, I will bring back my 2015 'NFTs' to your project.

What do you mean? The responses of this thread show that NFTs never left the Bitcoin network. They're just called Colored Coins.

[pooya87]

It's because it doesn't just have a version of it. It has the original, authentic painting drawn by Leonardo da Vinci. Whether new painters draw the exact same painting, using the same palette Leonardo used in 1503 or not, they can't recreate Mona Lisa, but only replicas.

You took the example too literally. Imagine if you could pull the painting Leo drew in an alternate universe to our universe
To be more precise without an example it means everyone can get the exact same copy of the the digital art that they sell as NFTs.

You can't really deny that there's not even one valid argument in favor of NFTs.

Ok. I concede.
But in my view when you are giving up something you have to gain something significant in return. If we are going to endure the hardship of decentralized blockchain then the reward we are getting has to be worth it. I do believe it is worth it in case of bitcoin since the utility bitcoin provides is so valuable and useful that it justifies all that but I honestly cannot see the same benefit provided by projects known as Smart Contract Platforms that nowadays focus on NFTs.
I hope some day things change and I start seeing real utilities though so that I can change my mind.

[BlackHatCoiner]

To be more precise without an example it means everyone can get the exact same copy of the the digital art that they sell as NFTs.

Yes, every person who has the image can gain satisfaction by looking it, but that is just missing the point. What matters is the rights of the image. The fact that I can now go outdoors and start writing on sites that I'm the damned owner with a proof. Obviously, there has to be consensus on which chain there's agreement. So, that I don't have the same rights on each.

I like seeing it that way:

An NFT is a unique digital object.

Scarcity is either enforced offline (like a ticket to an event), by a smart contract (like a .eth domain), or by a social contract with a community (artists, fans, punks, apes).

“You can’t right-click and save a community.”

I do believe it is worth it in case of bitcoin since the utility bitcoin provides is so valuable and useful that it justifies all that but I honestly cannot see the same benefit provided by projects known as Smart Contract Platforms that nowadays focus on NFTs.

The fact that NFTs can work on bitcoin, but haven't shows me that Solana, Ethereum etc. are pure hype. I don't want to own anything from such chains, but I would be interested on purchasing the rights of a Yu-Gi-Oh card by Konami, say for instance, if they were working on bitcoin instead.

[garlonicon]

I would be interested on purchasing the rights of a Yu-Gi-Oh card by Konami, say for instance, if they were working on bitcoin instead.

Technically, it could be possible to even use that card in a game, just by producing a signature. I can imagine a system, where both players have some LN channel and use such cards for playing, then the winner could get some satoshis from the loser.

[BBGC NFT]

If you can bring NFTs to the Bitcoin blockchain, I will bring back my 2015 'NFTs' to your project.

What do you mean? The responses of this thread show that NFTs never left the Bitcoin network. They're just called Colored Coins.

I meant a marketplace/explorer for NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain like OpenSea or Rarible.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Technically, it could be possible to even use that card in a game, just by producing a signature. I can imagine a system, where both players have some LN channel and use such cards for playing, then the winner could get some satoshis from the loser.

Very interesting point of view and I include it in my to-get-involved-into things. However, I have some questions such as what if one player decides to leave the game without having any losses? What discourages them to leave instead of staying if they're losing?

Which problem do digital signatures solve? I fail understanding the way you've thought this. Are we going to publish colored coins as cards or not?

I meant a marketplace/explorer for NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain like OpenSea or Rarible.

Impressed there isn't one.

[BBGC NFT]

I meant a marketplace/explorer for NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain like OpenSea or Rarible.

Impressed there isn't one.

I think ''Bitcoin OpenSea'' would work.

My project ''Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin'' was minted in 2015 via ascribe.io on the Bitcoin blockchain:

Oct 30, 2015 8:31 AM UTC, Block 381208
txid: e9a1d1bc79a09779b60af93c35baaf647d753218dc0d087b174e9d7a5fe7a138
ID: 1HUktrGqpfYxcaCiV8kpC473MxnGgRiMd3

Here you can read more on ascribe.io: https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ascribe-for-nft-archaeologists-17ca5481d206

''ascribe was a protocol, backend, and app for blockchain-secured digital art (“NFTs”) starting in 2013. It was built on Bitcoin; Ethereum didn’t exist yet.''

We were too early ...

[swiftapp]

I meant a marketplace/explorer for NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain like OpenSea or Rarible.

Impressed there isn't one.

I think ''Bitcoin OpenSea'' would work.

My project ''Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin'' was minted in 2015 via ascribe.io on the Bitcoin blockchain:

Oct 30, 2015 8:31 AM UTC, Block 381208
txid: e9a1d1bc79a09779b60af93c35baaf647d753218dc0d087b174e9d7a5fe7a138
ID: 1HUktrGqpfYxcaCiV8kpC473MxnGgRiMd3

Here you can read more on ascribe.io: https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ascribe-for-nft-archaeologists-17ca5481d206

''ascribe was a protocol, backend, and app for blockchain-secured digital art (“NFTs”) starting in 2013. It was built on Bitcoin; Ethereum didn’t exist yet.''

We were too early ...

There is one, https://xchain.io/ works very well and is designed well for NFT's. The concept of burning XCP to mint tokens creates a good economic system. A direct clone of OpenSea would be anti-bitcoin in terms of values and ideals imo. Counterparty doesn't charge fees for sales on tokens, tx fees are low, and the ability to transact in either bitcoin or tokens is fairly simple which is exactly how a NFT platform for artwork/memes should work. Claiming that "xyz" was a "NFT" by partial definition, NOT intention, is comical though, i.e. colored coins, twitter eggs. People created tokenized memes on counterparty with the full intention of using them as a store of value. Gaming NFT's may be a stretch on counterparty, but I wouldn't dismiss the potential completely. There are already simple sites that can reference your login address and the tokens owned by that address, but its fairly obvious that Solana is suited for gaming NFT's. Rare pepes were the first quasi decentralized NFT project with user curation, following the narrative of what bitcoin use to represent. That narrative is probably long gone though and consumed by the institutionalization of bitcoin. Gaming NFT's should have a completely separate distinction and label to represent them as an asset/token class. Without considering gaming nft's, every other NFT platform is objectively inferior to XCP. Are the others more monetized and hyped? Most definitely. XCP doesn't even trade on Coinbase and its a fairly old stable and reputable project, as well as being below the initial price to mint XCP tokens. Fairly sad to see the environment in crypto where it is at the moment. Rarepepe's were/are the pinnacle of bitcoin, NFT's, and crypto, they actually gave the people that made bitcoin be successful a way to monetize something that was fair and contributed value to bitcoin. Value to bitcoin that now every project leeches from hour by hour and day by day. XCP's position in the crypto system really brings to light the nature of the crypto community, they became the same people that they claimed to detest and wanted to detach from.

[nullama]

I think one of the issues with NFTs is that there's no real need to have a blockchain for it.

Bitcoin had colored coins a long time ago, which is basically a predecessor of NFTs.

There were some startups using this concept many years ago, but the largest one of them ended up shutting down in 2018, and had something very interesting to say about this idea:

"In 99% of use cases we're seeing, blockchain is unfortunately a sub-optimal choice as a technology. Blockchains have many disadvantages in terms of speed, scalability, costs and user experience. Unless censorship resistance is a critical requirement (which it rarely is, especially in the enterprise blockchain space where participants all know each other), blockchain is rarely the right technological choice."

The blockchain's vaunted transparency, privacy and cryptographic security can all be achieved "quite easily" with a traditional system, Charlon went on to argue.

"In the end it was about intellectual honesty. I didn't like having to support projects that were trying to use blockchain for the sake of using blockchain, when I knew a centralized, more boring architecture would actually do a better job," he concluded.

[MIner1448]

Thoughts are very interesting, in principle, this is most likely what happens. But that's why Bob should buy this art, if the first owner can be traced through transactions ... The value of this art will most likely be devalued by Bob, I think, although I may be wrong.

[n0nce]

If you can bring NFTs to the Bitcoin blockchain, I will bring back my 2015 'NFTs' to your project.

What do you mean? The responses of this thread show that NFTs never left the Bitcoin network. They're just called Colored Coins.

I meant a marketplace/explorer for NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain like OpenSea or Rarible.

This is one big issue I see with current NFTs to be honest. Even though they're 'blockchain-backed', they seem to require (centralised?) marketplace websites to be able to trade them. How is it possible that BBGC's 'Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin' project went down together with a single website (ascribe) going down?
That doesn't seem to align very much with Bitcoin spirit to me. Way too much trust involved.

An analogy would be if you had the rights to the Mona Lisa, but couldn't prove or transfer them anymore due to one website shutting down due to interest in art ownership proofs dipping down for a couple years.

In my mind, coloured coins based NFTs would be much simpler and much less reliant on such websites. Since the utxo is 'tainted', you could transfer it like any other Bitcoin transaction (e.g. with dust limit amount) even without any NFT explorer or marketplace. Just with your regular wallet app / software. And 'NFT browser' could be implemented client-side; showing a received transaction indeed contains a coin coloured in a way that proves ownership to X - as well as in any regular online- or self-hosted block explorer.

[BlackHatCoiner]

In my mind, coloured coins based NFTs would be much simpler and much less reliant on such websites. Since the utxo is 'tainted', you could transfer it like any other Bitcoin transaction (e.g. with dust limit amount) even without any NFT explorer or marketplace.

You need these sites to present your work. They must work as escrows where the seller gives the marketplace their piece of work and people start bidding. I haven't ever purchased anything, I've just seen them.

How would colored coins be any different? Wouldn't you need to present them somewhere?

An analogy would be if you had the rights to the Mona Lisa, but couldn't prove or transfer them anymore due to one website shutting down due to interest in art ownership proofs dipping down for a couple years.

Whoever has the image and runs a full node can calculate the hash and therefore, verify the ownership of an NFT/colored coin.

[n0nce]

In my mind, coloured coins based NFTs would be much simpler and much less reliant on such websites. Since the utxo is 'tainted', you could transfer it like any other Bitcoin transaction (e.g. with dust limit amount) even without any NFT explorer or marketplace.

You need these sites to present your work. They must work as escrows where the seller gives the marketplace their piece of work and people start bidding. I haven't ever purchased anything, I've just seen them.

How would colored coins be any different? Wouldn't you need to present them somewhere?

Right, that's correct. But I think it should be implemented in a way that doesn't require those to work. For example, in my 'NFT implementation' idea, I could sell you an image's rights by directly sending you the image and proving ownership using any block explorer or even just Bitcoin Core. Or posting the image somewhere / even hosting it myself. It should really be super independent on where the image is stored; a hash and signature should suffice for ownership proof.

An analogy would be if you had the rights to the Mona Lisa, but couldn't prove or transfer them anymore due to one website shutting down due to interest in art ownership proofs dipping down for a couple years.

Whoever has the image and runs a full node can calculate the hash and therefore, verify the ownership of an NFT/colored coin.

Does it work like that with current 'OpenSea' NFTs and BBGC's 'Bitcoin NFTs' as well? Because I agree that what you describe is how an NFT should work. Independence from any specific centralised (or not) site / service / marketplace. I should be able to advertise and sell NFTs even on this forum in my opinion.

[BBGC NFT]

...
Does it work like that with current 'OpenSea' NFTs and BBGC's 'Bitcoin NFTs' as well? Because I agree that what you describe is how an NFT should work. Independence from any specific centralised (or not) site / service / marketplace. I should be able to advertise and sell NFTs even on this forum in my opinion.

Yes, great idea. If we made it here on bitcointalk.org, I would give away 57 out of the 58 pics (except #1). It started in 2015 on the Bitcoin blockchain and we could continue it and test our idea on the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin NFTs ... wow.


We have a proof on the Bitcoin blockchain of the project:

My project ''Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin'' was minted in 2015 via ascribe.io on the Bitcoin blockchain:

Oct 30, 2015 8:31 AM UTC, Block 381208
txid: e9a1d1bc79a09779b60af93c35baaf647d753218dc0d087b174e9d7a5fe7a138
ID: 1HUktrGqpfYxcaCiV8kpC473MxnGgRiMd3

I wanted to test how it would be possible to have a prefixed number of pictures in a collection: first, creating "empty frames" as editions (registering) and then linking the different pictures to these "empty frames". The idea behind that is, to avoid an increase of the number of pieces in the collection in the future, to protect the holders (value).

The BBGC collection contains 58 pics, simple 32x32 pixel coin images with a Base58 character on them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, that are used for Bitcoin addresses.

[rot13maximalist]

First of all, I'd like to confirm that I have the correct technical background of the way NFTs work in my mind. So, let's say Alice wants to sell her digital art (image) to Bob.

1) She hashes her image and announces to everyone that this hash is owned by her.
2) Bob gives Alice an invoice which says she gives the rights of her art from her address to Bob's.
3) Once she announces it, it's Bob's. Now Bob can prove to anyone it's his art and Alice can prove it was her art before she handed it out to Bob.

In order for Bob to upload his now-owned art, he chooses as many NFT marketplaces as possible and uploads the file plus the hash. Any seller can verify it's Bob's and that he hasn't lied.

Let's see how can this work in Bitcoin:

1) Alice creates a transaction containing the hash of her image next to OP_RETURN and the state of her art. (Currently hers)
2) Bob gives Alice his address.
3) Alice creates another transaction which contains the hash of her image and a statement which reveals she wants to give the rights of her image to Bob, revoking her previous transaction rights.

Therefore, people can see where the first transaction of that art was made and follow the spent outputs to reach the current owner.

If you haven't already, you should read up on Single-Use-Seals. Here's a great entry point: https://petertodd.org/2017/scalable-single-use-seal-asset-transfer

RBG Protocol is building a bunch of stuff based on that (and several other) idea.

[TwitchySeal]

NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain have been around for years on the counter party platform.

I have a couple rare pepes myself.

[DesktopCommando]

NFTs have been on Bitcoin.

Not been through colored coins yet, however there are these as well.

The first on Namecoin - d/bitcoin (April 21, 2011)  https://www.namebrow.se/tx/6047ce28a076118403aa960909c9c4d0056f97ee0da4d37d109515f8367e2ccb/ (this is a .bit domain name)

The first on Counterparty - test - (January 13, 2014) https://xchain.io/asset/TEST (the image was added afterwards)

Using emblemvault you can trade these on Opensea Eth/Polygon, as well as BSC, Gnosis (xdai) and Fantom

https://opensea.io/collection/emblem-vault

Here's a quick ad on Coval/emblemvault https://youtu.be/aBoDzzHZtY0

but also, soon you will be able to trade Ethereum NFTs on Bitcoin - https://xchain.io/asset/A709923891251641011 (this is the prototype vault)