this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1470 points (95.9% liked)
memes
14262 readers
3753 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
The method for unique content is to reference the chainID, Address and token number in the content itself (I.e. in a metadata field). This approach works well for legal documentation, but could equally be applied to monkey pictures (although it usually isn't).
Sure, you can establish a stronger tie between the token and the file by embedding the chain ID, contract address, and token number in the content or metadata, but there’s no way to enforce that tie at the blockchain level. Anyone can still mint a copy with different metadata on a different contract.
As for legal documents, while storing them on-chain might help with transparency or timestamping, the blockchain itself has no legal jurisdiction. It doesn’t have legal authority, and documents stored this way are not inherently compliant with local laws, so they’re unenforceable unless recognized by a traditional legal system.
That would not be an exact copy, because the data is different. Then traditional copyright laws take over.
Agreed. The NFT and legal documentation has to be constructed in such a way as to pass local laws. Having a bill of sale on-chain rather than on-paper isn't that big a difference.
Just transferring an NFT doesn't guarantee that legal ownership has changed.
But it is possible to create a legal structure that does create a legal bill of sale just by transferring an NFT.
As far as I can tell it isn't possible to create a legal structure on a blockchain. Technical limitations inherent in blockchain prevent this from making it possible.
Sure we can mitigate these issues with a central authority which can roll-back transactions on the blockchain, but if we are using a central authority then there isn't any usefulness of blockchain over a traditional database.
Not any more. So let's choose Minnie Mouse instead.
Agreed
Incorrect. An NFT of Minnie Mouse would not be legal, but that doesn't make other NFTs of other art illegal.
Agreed. Stealing the crypto key is as exactly as illegal as stealing a physical key and claiming ownership.
No need to roll back. The legal contract can be made to point to a different nft.
In this case the blockchain removes friction. Real world enforcement of laws is centralised because society demands it.
Right, I agree that not all NFTs are illegal just because one might infringe IP. But the broader issue is enforcement, blockchains, by design, don’t offer mechanisms to remove or suppress infringing or malicious content.
And with legal documents like deeds, I get that stealing a key is like stealing a physical one. But the difference is that if someone steals my house key, I can rekey the lock. If they steal my private key, the blockchain can't "reassign" the NFT unless a centralized authority steps in, defeating the idea of decentralized, immutable ownership.
Sure, you could update the legal system’s contract to point to a different NFT, but again, that requires a central entity with authority to override what's on-chain. So at that point, we’re counting on some central authority to fix blockchain’s problem of not having reversibility.
So this goes back to the main question, if we need centralized enforcement and off-chain enforcement, anyway, what actual value does a blockchain add compared to an access-controlled database?
Enforcement of laws and documentation of ownership are two separate functions. Blockchain does the former only if everything is digital (like money).
Let's take licence to drive as a pure real world enforcement example. There are multiple countries so there are multiple centralised databases. Blockchain allows all those databases to be merged without needing central access control