[IDEA] Cryptographic Image Format

[cbeast]

While folks are working on creating asset tokens for Bitcoin 2.0, I would ask for development of an image format akin to DRM that first checks the blockchain for the outputs before accessing the image data. Then anything done with the image like printing, displaying, or selling would require a transaction (with a fee) and would remove the color from the token.

Important documents would be authenticated by the author as a notarization. This wouldn't deter copyright infringement, but would be useful for authenticating original artwork. Rights for displaying lower resolution images in the case of artwork could be granted with different color (and cheaper) tokens.

This would mostly be useful when it is important to authenticate the originality of the document or artwork. For instance, applications could be developed that prove that "selfie" images were taken by the camera installed on the device. Games like "Magic: The Gathering" could sell virtual cards displayable once on a device. And of course, contractual tools could be developed.

[newIndia]

While folks are working on creating asset tokens for Bitcoin 2.0, I would ask for development of an image format akin to DRM that first checks the blockchain for the outputs before accessing the image data. Then anything done with the image like printing, displaying, or selling would require a transaction (with a fee) and would remove the color from the token.

Important documents would be authenticated by the author as a notarization. This wouldn't deter copyright infringement, but would be useful for authenticating original artwork. Rights for displaying lower resolution images in the case of artwork could be granted with different color (and cheaper) tokens.

This would mostly be useful when it is important to authenticate the originality of the document or artwork. For instance, applications could be developed that prove that "selfie" images were taken by the camera installed on the device. Games like "Magic: The Gathering" could sell virtual cards displayable once on a device. And of course, contractual tools could be developed.

What I understand about your concept is an image will open only with private key. But image is about showing others, unless it is a secret doc. Does it find any purpose in the normal concept of image sharing ?

[cbeast]

What I understand about your concept is an image will open only with private key. But image is about showing others, unless it is a secret doc. Does it find any purpose in the normal concept of image sharing ?

No. Any digital image can be copied, but images encrypted that can only be displayed with special software will help protect your purchase from being copied if you don't want it to be. It's only to prove authenticity, not copy protection.

[cbeast]

Let's say you are an artist and want to sell a limited edition run of electronic prints. You would issue colored coins that are partially embedded into the print itself. You would be able to authenticate your ownership by signing your colored coin that is verified to be the print number that is owned by you. If you sell the digital print, you will also have to transfer the colored coin. If you sell the digital form, the image would need to be re-hashed and a new colored token would be created that would be traceable to the previous token. If multiple tokens are hashed, they would be seen in the blockchain. It behooves the owner to never expose the original to the internet. You would need an offline or sandboxed device to render the image for display purposes.

[newIndia]

Let's say you are an artist and want to sell a limited edition run of electronic prints. You would issue colored coins that are partially embedded into the print itself. You would be able to authenticate your ownership by signing your colored coin that is verified to be the print number that is owned by you. If you sell the digital print, you will also have to transfer the colored coin. If you sell the digital form, the image would need to be re-hashed and a new colored token would be created that would be traceable to the previous token. If multiple tokens are hashed, they would be seen in the blockchain. It behooves the owner to never expose the original to the internet. You would need an offline or sandboxed device to render the image for display purposes.

So, u r talking about replacing third party authentication of digital signature through a decentralized public ledger ? 2 questions...

1. What would be the miner's benefit to maintain the blockchain ?

2. Is not ethereum already working on it ...a distributed database ?

[cbeast]

Let's say you are an artist and want to sell a limited edition run of electronic prints. You would issue colored coins that are partially embedded into the print itself. You would be able to authenticate your ownership by signing your colored coin that is verified to be the print number that is owned by you. If you sell the digital print, you will also have to transfer the colored coin. If you sell the digital form, the image would need to be re-hashed and a new colored token would be created that would be traceable to the previous token. If multiple tokens are hashed, they would be seen in the blockchain. It behooves the owner to never expose the original to the internet. You would need an offline or sandboxed device to render the image for display purposes.

So, u r talking about replacing third party authentication of digital signature through a decentralized public ledger ? 2 questions...

1. What would be the miner's benefit to maintain the blockchain ?

2. Is not ethereum already working on it ...a distributed database ?

1. I'm talking about Colored Coin tokens. Bitcoin mining is already part of the protocol.

2. Ethereum, NXT, Mastercoin, Counterparty, et al. could do this as well. This is a Bitcoin forum, so I am using Bitcoin based Colored Coin as an example.

[franky1]

While folks are working on creating asset tokens for Bitcoin 2.0, I would ask for development of an image format akin to DRM that first checks the blockchain for the outputs before accessing the image data. Then anything done with the image like printing, displaying, or selling would require a transaction (with a fee) and would remove the color from the token.

Important documents would be authenticated by the author as a notarization. This wouldn't deter copyright infringement, but would be useful for authenticating original artwork. Rights for displaying lower resolution images in the case of artwork could be granted with different color (and cheaper) tokens.

This would mostly be useful when it is important to authenticate the originality of the document or artwork. For instance, applications could be developed that prove that "selfie" images were taken by the camera installed on the device. Games like "Magic: The Gathering" could sell virtual cards displayable once on a device. And of course, contractual tools could be developed.

imagine microsoft office that asked you to register first and then supplied you with a download, and the licence key was a public key. to use it you just needed to pay to that public key.

because microsoft owned all privkeys. then people cannot simple use random public keys, and key gens would be useless due to the fact that any key not linkd to micosofts privkeys would be useless..

now things you still have issues with.
people that can crack the DRN/blockchain checker. or atleast feed the data false information...

[cbeast]

imagine microsoft office that asked you to register first and then supplied you with a download, and the licence key was a public key. to use it you just needed to pay to that public key.

because microsoft owned all privkeys. then people cannot simple use random public keys, and key gens would be useless due to the fact that any key not linkd to micosofts privkeys would be useless..

now things you still have issues with.
people that can crack the DRN/blockchain checker. or atleast feed the data false information...

Again, I'm not talking about copyright infringement. I'm talking about the buyer wanting to protect his particular investment, not the company that created it.

[franky1]

imagine microsoft office that asked you to register first and then supplied you with a download, and the licence key was a public key. to use it you just needed to pay to that public key.

because microsoft owned all privkeys. then people cannot simple use random public keys, and key gens would be useless due to the fact that any key not linkd to micosofts privkeys would be useless..

now things you still have issues with.
people that can crack the DRN/blockchain checker. or atleast feed the data false information...

Again, I'm not talking about copyright infringement. I'm talking about the buyer wanting to protect his particular investment, not the company that created it.

in the end its the same thing..
whats to stop a person putting in a different public key that has lots of coins thus pretending 2000 printouts are pre-paid(my solution registering the user and giving a public key linked to a privkey kept by artist/copyright)
but..
whats stopping me removing the checker (cracking)
whats stopping me preventing the image from checking a true blockchain, and feeding it false data
whats stopping someone from when just viewing it on screen. just screen grabbing the image and printing it a non altcoin image editor
what incentivising people to want to replace current image editors/printer drivers that force them to pay

and lastly.. can you please call this asset token an altcoin... the whole bitcoin 2.0 is just crap PR.. its nothing to do with bitcoin.. its an altcoin with separate services

[cbeast]

imagine microsoft office that asked you to register first and then supplied you with a download, and the licence key was a public key. to use it you just needed to pay to that public key.

because microsoft owned all privkeys. then people cannot simple use random public keys, and key gens would be useless due to the fact that any key not linkd to micosofts privkeys would be useless..

now things you still have issues with.
people that can crack the DRN/blockchain checker. or atleast feed the data false information...

Again, I'm not talking about copyright infringement. I'm talking about the buyer wanting to protect his particular investment, not the company that created it.

in the end its the same thing..
whats to stop a person putting in a different public key that has lots of coins thus pretending 2000 printouts are pre-paid(my solution registering the user and giving a public key linked to a privkey kept by artist/copyright)
but..
whats stopping me removing the checker (cracking)
whats stopping me preventing the image from checking a true blockchain, and feeding it false data
whats stopping someone from when just viewing it on screen. just screen grabbing the image and printing it a non altcoin image editor
what incentivising people to want to replace current image editors/printer drivers that force them to pay

This isn't about copyright infringement. It's about protecting the buyer's interest. The original creator/artist could die for all I care. In fact, that usually makes art more valuable.

First, you would not reveal your original copy, that would be like giving away your private key. You would only do so to sell the asset. The buyer would then create a new token from your token and there would be a blockchain history. Screen grabs would not be provable as authentic print releases from the artist. If you have the original digital print and the hash, you can sign your token to prove ownership.

Sure, you could make a million pirate copies, but they would not be traceable to the original colored coin that was issued. Really, having special software is for your own protection but not necessary if you have better means to secure the asset.

[cbeast]

In the case of software like microsoft or magic the gathering, you could use Verisign, but web based tokens are not as secure as the blockchain.

[franky1]

i used the microsoft analogy. because when you have the artwork. you become microsoft. so th point about you holding the privkeys and anyone wanting a copy of... art.. pays a small fee..

blah blah

the point that is the same is. by never showing the art publicly is in it self protecting the investor... that is a human attribute not a code/protocol.

and if the investor wanted to sell the art on he could do that again without code..a genuine art collector would not make copies anyway. and a dodgy art collector who your trying to prevent from making copies.. would still find a way to make copies. and i can already see ways to make each copy be validated as the authentic original..

so in my out-of-box thinking... what will it achieve...

oh and as for real canvass art.. lets take mona lisa

which version of mona lisa made a museum the most money?
the original?
the copy?
answer: the copy. imagine it $10 a poster x millions of art tourists to the museum gift shop each year

after knowing the answer you will see your trying to solve a non problem by using a blockchain. without realising there is still cracks in the plan and work arounds, even if there was no need to have an authenticity code.

im still trying to think up a scenario that would require such technology, and how it would be uncrackable

[cbeast]

If you have an original copy that was sent to you by an artist, how can you prove you didn't copy it before selling it and sell another copy to someone else as an original print?

All I'm saying is that you add a bitcoin transaction into the mix to prove it is legit. You could do it without a Colored Coin and just use any cryptocurrency, but it would require keeping an off blockchain registration list. Colored Coins are publicly unique and don't need a central server to register them.

I don't care about physical art like the Mona Lisa, but if you had Leonardo's original digital rendering and could prove so cryptographically, then you would sell the original colored coin with the painting.

Let's just forget the physical printing part. It's not important because print technologies are constantly improving.

I think you are conflating two different transactions. The creator of the art can make as many colored coins as he wishes and that number is known when they are issued.

Secondary owners (purchasers) would have to transfer their colored coin with the original digital art. They could keep a copy, but it would not be a legitimate copy they could resell.

[bg002h]

So if I buy a digital print and get the corresponding color coin, why can't I make 10 copies of the digital print and give away 10 copies of the corresponding colored coin private key? As long as all holders of the private key don't remove the funds, all 10 people can use the digital print. Right?

[cbeast]

So if I buy a digital print and get the corresponding color coin, why can't I make 10 copies of the digital print and give away 10 copies of the corresponding colored coin private key? As long as all holders of the private key don't remove the funds, all 10 people can use the digital print. Right?

You could make copies, but only one would have the colored coin to verify it. The person you sold it to would not be happy that multiple copies were released.

Edit: You have to transfer the colored coin, not just give away the keys, just like a bitcoin.

[bg002h]

So if I buy a digital print and get the corresponding color coin, why can't I make 10 copies of the digital print and give away 10 copies of the corresponding colored coin private key? As long as all holders of the private key don't remove the funds, all 10 people can use the digital print. Right?

You could make copies, but only one would have the colored coin to verify it. The person you sold it to would not be happy that multiple copies were released.

An infinite # of users could have the same color coin...only one could spend it

[cbeast]

So if I buy a digital print and get the corresponding color coin, why can't I make 10 copies of the digital print and give away 10 copies of the corresponding colored coin private key? As long as all holders of the private key don't remove the funds, all 10 people can use the digital print. Right?

You could make copies, but only one would have the colored coin to verify it. The person you sold it to would not be happy that multiple copies were released.

An infinite # of users could have the same color coin...only one could spend it

You can say the same thing about Bitcoin.

[cbeast]

I proposed this idea a few years ago to a certain Bitcoin gambling mogul to invest in developing the idea. He didn't think art was a good fit for Bitcoin. In fact, I think most Bitcoiners have no interest in art.

[bg002h]

So if I buy a digital print and get the corresponding color coin, why can't I make 10 copies of the digital print and give away 10 copies of the corresponding colored coin private key? As long as all holders of the private key don't remove the funds, all 10 people can use the digital print. Right?

You could make copies, but only one would have the colored coin to verify it. The person you sold it to would not be happy that multiple copies were released.

An infinite # of users could have the same color coin...only one could spend it

You can say the same thing about Bitcoin.

Yes. Exactly.

The colored coin protection of access to a digital object discourages (but does not preclude) sharing as anyone sharing the object could transfer ownership exclusively to themselves or just take the corresponding funds.

The software allowing access to the digital object needs to be trusted to only allow access when the user has the colored coin private key _and_ the colored coin is funded with the desired amount (do I have that detail right?)...I'm uncertain how that trust model would work.

[Remember remember the 5th of November]

While folks are working on creating asset tokens for Bitcoin 2.0, I would ask for development of an image format akin to DRM that first checks the blockchain for the outputs before accessing the image data. Then anything done with the image like printing, displaying, or selling would require a transaction (with a fee) and would remove the color from the token.

Important documents would be authenticated by the author as a notarization. This wouldn't deter copyright infringement, but would be useful for authenticating original artwork. Rights for displaying lower resolution images in the case of artwork could be granted with different color (and cheaper) tokens.

This would mostly be useful when it is important to authenticate the originality of the document or artwork. For instance, applications could be developed that prove that "selfie" images were taken by the camera installed on the device. Games like "Magic: The Gathering" could sell virtual cards displayable once on a device. And of course, contractual tools could be developed.

Horrible idea, I hope it never see the light of day. This could prove to be...a serious anti-piracy tool and it can cause the destruction of...quite a lot of things.

Lately, I keep wondering how people can sit around and think these kind of destructive ideas, like not just this thread, many more.