I'm quite thrilled about this accurate analysis of the problematic aspect of using blockchains to solve arbitrary problems.
However, I'd like to point out an issue with this paragraph:
> For a long time, the only accurate applications were to cryptocurrency. But that is changing: the current non-fungible token (NFT) boom is a prime example. The fact that MetaKovan holds a $69 million NFT of Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” is not independent of the blockchain. Quite the contrary: his holding that NFT depends entirely on the blockchain’s saying he does. The blockchain dictates who holds which NFTs.
Specifically, this sentence
> The fact that MetaKovan holds a $69 million NFT of Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” is not independent of the blockchain.
is not entirely true because it claims two things, not just one, and only one of these things is defined by a blockchain (i.e. "accurate"):
1. MetaKovan holds an NFT
2. This is an NFT "of" Beeple’s "Everydays" artwork
Only the first of these two statements is "accurate", i.e. defined by a blockchain. The second statements is "inaccurate", i.e. defined outside of a blockchain.
Yeah I disagree with his assertion that blockchain accuracy extends to NFTs or house ownership. Whilst the former is true in a very limited sense, there's nothing to stop you minting multiple NFTs relating to the same item. On the former, the original input owner is surely subject to potential inaccuracy.
Not the same idea at all. An NFT doesn't allow you to control the use of anything. It'd be analogous if a patent allowed you to authoritatively claim you were the first person to patent it (at least on that specific blockchain), but didn't grant you any exclusive right to use of the idea.
Who would have a legal base to hold an image of a site?
Indeed. The copyright owner if there is one and then probably the site holder.
There's no single lawful correlation between NFT's and the real world. And people are literally buying this, they don't even know what they are buying.
So someone else explained to me that we are all misunderstanding NFTs. They dont relate to ownership or even authenticity. They in theory could do these things, but nothing in the setup explicitly gives any of that right now with any real meaning. Simply, it shows you associated an image/string of text/tweet/whatever to a token with a supply of one. I cant think of a good real world analogy other than that company that used to sell the naming rights to stars. No one recognized their naming claims except for themselves. While I get the people trying to make a quick buck off NFT, "theres a bigger idiot somewhere", let's just stop fooling ourselves that it's any more than that. This makes folks who thought Beanie Babies were a sound, long term investment seem intelligent. If I'm going to invest in a digital currency, EVE ISK has more sound backing than crypto.
2nd... the author never mentions the word "oracle" and I think a better way of reading about this topic is to skip the author's article and pick some links from a search engine results about the "blockchain oracle problem" : "https://www.google.com/search?q=blockchain+%22oracle+problem...
The author makes no mention of immutability or the contrast between a sql database. The author misses the point for which a blockchain db is more useful for recording a record of history and the lineage of any subsequent transactions or transfers. I never even saw a real argument as to why enterprises shouldn't use it.
Furthermore the analogy with the birth certificate is misleading. The blockchain doesn't determine your dob, the person who enters it does, and now it can't be altered later and if it does there's a record of it.
Blockchain is really just an ultra logging mechanism that's already setup where you would have to design that setup yourself in sql. Throw in immutability and voila you have something that is designed to be more dependable and trustworthy.
You can have immutability with an append only log.
What's key in btc is the network and the consensus which gives strength to the immutability claim.
If you have trust (eg. with a centralised system) you don't need consensus.
A commercial system is likely offered by a company who has stakes in the operation and can therefore provide trust without wasting all that energy and without consensus.
Then the author should only be making the claim against consensus for validation. Why would a private org need a public consensus, that is obvious. Take a look at Amazon QLDB, enterprises can make use of blockchains because sql doesn't connect the dots as well. Developers have to write the code that creates the connections between data. Blockchain has dots that are already connected in a sense, that's how it already is. Now it's more than a log, it is a real representation, because of the age, kind of like domain names. Their value increases over time though they are the same thing and only exist digitally or ina database.
Isn't the entire point of this article that we want mutability? Sometimes a record is wrong and needs to be corrected. A blockchain works when the only facts it records are completely dependent on the blockchain itself. If you're trying to record facts about the world, the actual world is the authoritative source. The author's point seems to be blockchain is not likely to work for applications in which a misrecorded or forged fact would require you to discard the entire blockchain and start over if it was discovered. It only works when the facts you care about are facts about the blockchain itself.
Those changes you speak of in the real world should be recorded and would be the purpose of blockchain to have those errors included. Then you have the real history, not what someone else decided to erase and replace with what they now believe to be accurate.
Literally everything you just said is what the article argues about. You skimmed it and missed the point. Theres nothing blockchain can do more special than a decently setup relational DB, except burn a hell whole lot more energy. Blockchain wins, handsdown on the being ineffienct race. Puts bureaucrats to shame.
16 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 30.9 ms ] threadHowever, I'd like to point out an issue with this paragraph:
> For a long time, the only accurate applications were to cryptocurrency. But that is changing: the current non-fungible token (NFT) boom is a prime example. The fact that MetaKovan holds a $69 million NFT of Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” is not independent of the blockchain. Quite the contrary: his holding that NFT depends entirely on the blockchain’s saying he does. The blockchain dictates who holds which NFTs.
Specifically, this sentence
> The fact that MetaKovan holds a $69 million NFT of Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” is not independent of the blockchain.
is not entirely true because it claims two things, not just one, and only one of these things is defined by a blockchain (i.e. "accurate"):
1. MetaKovan holds an NFT
2. This is an NFT "of" Beeple’s "Everydays" artwork
Only the first of these two statements is "accurate", i.e. defined by a blockchain. The second statements is "inaccurate", i.e. defined outside of a blockchain.
There are already reports on vanishing NFT'S because the image doesn't exist anymore.
It's a fancy description. But it ain't real ownership. They are spending money for a link to an image:
Relevant free link ;): https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nft...
A patent can be enforced in court.
Who would have a legal base to hold an image of a site?
Indeed. The copyright owner if there is one and then probably the site holder.
There's no single lawful correlation between NFT's and the real world. And people are literally buying this, they don't even know what they are buying.
They just trust the description... Lol
2nd... the author never mentions the word "oracle" and I think a better way of reading about this topic is to skip the author's article and pick some links from a search engine results about the "blockchain oracle problem" : "https://www.google.com/search?q=blockchain+%22oracle+problem...
Furthermore the analogy with the birth certificate is misleading. The blockchain doesn't determine your dob, the person who enters it does, and now it can't be altered later and if it does there's a record of it.
Blockchain is really just an ultra logging mechanism that's already setup where you would have to design that setup yourself in sql. Throw in immutability and voila you have something that is designed to be more dependable and trustworthy.
What's key in btc is the network and the consensus which gives strength to the immutability claim.
If you have trust (eg. with a centralised system) you don't need consensus.
A commercial system is likely offered by a company who has stakes in the operation and can therefore provide trust without wasting all that energy and without consensus.