Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin?

[BBGC NFT]

~~

These examples are using other blockchains as support.

We're talking about 'pure bitcoin' NFTs, without using other blockchains.

[OgNasty]

~~

These examples are using other blockchains as support.

We're talking about 'pure bitcoin' NFTs, without using other blockchains.

Agreed.  Anything with a "vault" to me seems like it's dead from out of the gate.  I don't think that "technology" is one that is going to be looked at as coveted by the masses anytime soon and I'm a bit surprised that it's still being pushed as an option.  

I'm sure Bitcoin's secondary layers will become the popular place to trade Bitcoin NFTs once there is open discussion and development tools available outside of those in the Good Old Boys Club.  Most Bitcoiners still think NFTs are pictures with no use, so I think they're more concerned with how to get the next wave of users to sink their savings into Bitcoin to HODL forever...  

[larry_vw_1955]

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.

if person A owns the nft for some jpeg on ethereum and person B owns the nft for the same jpeg on some other blockchain then is that a problem? it seems like it would have a devaluing affect on the original image. or maybe we're back in the .com days where you had to register .net,.org, etc just so no one else could problem is with this stuff there's no icann to oversee abuse.

[OgNasty]

if person A owns the nft for some jpeg on ethereum and person B owns the nft for the same jpeg on some other blockchain then is that a problem? it seems like it would have a devaluing affect on the original image. or maybe we're back in the .com days where you had to register .net,.org, etc just so no one else could problem is with this stuff there's no icann to oversee abuse.

That is indeed a big problem with NFTs.  There are lots of other problems as well.  What it boils down to is that an NFT is just a url on the blockchain (sure some of them go deeper than that, but lets keep things simple).  That url can be changed to point to nothing, the image at the end of that url could be removed or replaced with anything...  IPFS solves one of those problems, and I'm sure contracts could be written to solve for the first problem as well, but most people aren't even aware that what they're buying isn't an image on a blockchain, but a token with a url attached.  It's up to the community to enforce abuse, and sometimes marketplaces step in, but in the end things are worth what people will pay for them, and some people wear fake diamonds, so you can expect that some people will display fake NFTs (not being from the original creator) as well.

[TwitchySeal]

~~

These examples are using other blockchains as support.

We're talking about 'pure bitcoin' NFTs, without using other blockchains.

Yeah, there's been one around for years.

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

I have a couple rare pepes myself.

[PrimeNumber7]

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.

if person A owns the nft for some jpeg on ethereum and person B owns the nft for the same jpeg on some other blockchain then is that a problem? it seems like it would have a devaluing affect on the original image. or maybe we're back in the .com days where you had to register .net,.org, etc just so no one else could problem is with this stuff there's no icann to oversee abuse.

In order for an NFT to have value, the issuing entity needs to have some kind of ownership claim to the underlying asset. So if one entity sells the same underlying asset twice on two different blockchains, the buyers of those assets could come after the issuing authority in court.

The solution to the above problem is not technical, as it not technically possible to prevent someone from selling the same asset on two blockchains. The solution is legal, and is something that would need to be handled by the courts.

[Wind_FURY]

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

I have a couple rare pepes myself.

I did not know that.

OK, I change my mind about NFTs. Although the NFT market currently is Tulip Mania 2.0, it might also have a purpose not only as an “asset”, but a technology of expression of socio-political viewpoints, and other such messages.

[larry_vw_1955]

In order for an NFT to have value, the issuing entity needs to have some kind of ownership claim to the underlying asset. So if one entity sells the same underlying asset twice on two different blockchains, the buyers of those assets could come after the issuing authority in court.

why is that though? the creator of an nft can sell it anywhere and as many places as they want to. no one is going to come after them for doing that.

maybe what you meant is if a buyer of an nft tries to do that. completely different story.

The solution to the above problem is not technical, as it not technically possible to prevent someone from selling the same asset on two blockchains. The solution is legal, and is something that would need to be handled by the courts.

yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money. but i guess that's relative. like if their nft is worth $200,000 vs $2.

and then what about people that get hacked and lost their nft that way? you dont know who the hacker is so there's no legal recourse, only technical solutions to stop the hacker from profiting off their stolen artwork.

[WhyFhy]

You could simply validate with a signature.
Sig points to physical asset. Serialized objects make it easier.
I did a proof of Burn Signature binding concept a few years ago something's misaligned now and the signature doesn't check out anymore but it did at the time.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5150524.0

I guess in a way I designed the BTC NFT or what could be.
You could add terms to a sale with signatures and DChain the sig with historical TX ID , a itemized Blockchain within a Blockchain. Like a human read smart contract kinda.

Now I want to mess with this concept....

[BlackHatCoiner]

yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money.

There's no law enforcement in NFTs, that's the problem. Currently, to prevent copyright infringement, the creators have to declare their property, but there're intermediaries involved. Transferring rights using a blockchain is a completely unofficial procedure and does not transfer the ownership legally, yet.

However, I'm not convinced such actions will be taken any time soon from the states.

[PrimeNumber7]

In order for an NFT to have value, the issuing entity needs to have some kind of ownership claim to the underlying asset. So if one entity sells the same underlying asset twice on two different blockchains, the buyers of those assets could come after the issuing authority in court.

why is that though? the creator of an nft can sell it anywhere and as many places as they want to. no one is going to come after them for doing that.

The issuer will need to make a representation of if the buyer is going to own exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the buyer is going to own non-exclusive ownership, the issuer needs to represent how many other others of the asset there could possibly be. If the issuer does not do this, there would be no reason for any buyer to pay anything of value for an NFT because the issuer could continue selling a similar NFT until everyone owns one.

The solution to the above problem is not technical, as it not technically possible to prevent someone from selling the same asset on two blockchains. The solution is legal, and is something that would need to be handled by the courts.

yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money. but i guess that's relative. like if their nft is worth $200,000 vs $2.

As I mentioned, the issuer needs to represent if the NFT represents exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the issuer says the NFT represents exclusive ownership of an asset, then tries to sell a similar NFT on another blockchain, they are selling something they don't own, and would be committing fraud.

[larry_vw_1955]

As I mentioned, the issuer needs to represent if the NFT represents exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the issuer says the NFT represents exclusive ownership of an asset, then tries to sell a similar NFT on another blockchain, they are selling something they don't own, and would be committing fraud.

i dont think most people that buy nfts have any type of ownership over the artwork itself thus the above is a mute point. just because there is only one up for sale on some marketplace on some blockchain doesn't mean they can't go and sell the same thing on other blockchains. buyer might not like it but that's how it goes. now i think where it might seem unethical to do is to go and sell it on some other marketplace using the same blockchain. but buyers have no control in any event.

[PrimeNumber7]

As I mentioned, the issuer needs to represent if the NFT represents exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the issuer says the NFT represents exclusive ownership of an asset, then tries to sell a similar NFT on another blockchain, they are selling something they don't own, and would be committing fraud.

i dont think most people that buy nfts have any type of ownership over the artwork itself thus the above is a mute point. just because there is only one up for sale on some marketplace on some blockchain doesn't mean they can't go and sell the same thing on other blockchains. buyer might not like it but that's how it goes. now i think where it might seem unethical to do is to go and sell it on some other marketplace using the same blockchain. but buyers have no control in any event.

What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT? Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?

[pooya87]

What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT? Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?

There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.
First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.

[BBGC NFT]

There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.
First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.

And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.

And this third group is by far the largest 

[ABCbits]

And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.

And this third group is by far the largest 

NFT is basically sign that you're owner of specific content. I seriously doubt it's biggest group when cryptocurrency marketcap is very small compared with other investment and it's very easy to pirate the NFT. Some people even decide to pirate almost all NFT[1].

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-nft-bay-asks-if-you-would-steal-all-the-jpegs/ar-AAQSzsM

[BBGC NFT]

NFT is basically sign that you're owner of specific content. I seriously doubt it's biggest group when cryptocurrency marketcap is very small compared with other investment and it's very easy to pirate the NFT. Some people even decide to pirate almost all NFT[1].

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-nft-bay-asks-if-you-would-steal-all-the-jpegs/ar-AAQSzsM

Yes, the same you can do with BTC... right clicking it, you can create Bitcoin... who would buy it?

[pooya87]

And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.

And this third group is by far the largest 

I have not seen a single person who isn't buying a token for profit making. The people you mention are also "investing" in these tokens thinking they would appreciate in time. Something like the dotcom bubble but without the bubble.

Yes, the same you can do with BTC... right clicking it, you can create Bitcoin... who would buy it?

No, you can't create bitcoin out of thin air but you can create an unlimited amount of the same token out of thin air with virtually no cost.

[PrimeNumber7]

What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT? Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?

There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.
First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.

The bitfinex hacker (or the people who are very likely to be the bitfinex hacker, IMO) used some of their stolen coin to buy NFTs. See the article and court documents linked here.

I don't disagree that many people are laundering money via NFTs, as I understand that many people also launder money via the purchase of art, and for the most part NFTs are a form of "digital art" (although there is the potential for non-art NFTs).

I also don't disagree that a lot of people buying up NFTs are speculating, but I don't think NFTs are tulip bulbs. I think there is some underlying value in NFTs. I don't think there would be demand for a NFT that could potentially be sold on another blockchain.

[larry_vw_1955]

What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT?

It doesnt matter what I think they think they are buying. What matters is the terms and conditions of the sale, what rights were bestowed upon the buyer. of course, then that brings up other questions about how those terms and conditions are inherited upon future sales if using a different marketplace than the original sale happened on...

Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?

does the artist give up their rights to the work?