Blockchain may be the machinery of mischief, but it can't help telling the truth

One of the many joys of blockchain is that it generates even more heat online than a Chinese Bitcoin mine pumps into the atmosphere. This month's posterchild is the NFT, the Non-Fungible Token, which is seen by all the right-thinking fold as practically the fundamental particle of crypto-scam physics. You may have avoided this …

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's little point in stealing physical objects if they can't be traded without their NFT."

Because stolen art is usually traded legally? NFT may be good for things like the first tweet or some kind of digital art that have their whole value into the NFT itself - physical objects which people think have a great value themselves, can be still traded illegally with an NFT or not. Rich criminal collectors in their volcano lairs won't give a damn about who owns the NFT.

[Pascal Monett]

This article is just another variation of the whole "look, we've created a digital thingamajig that some of us shall refer to in real life - all our problems are solved !".

The limits of NFT are simple : when you have no power, you can't check it. It isn't tied to whatever object it represents, so the object can move about without it, meaning that the NFT cannot prevent moving the object.

NFT is nothing but a dork tower. It is absolutely predictable that it would be used in the arts area, where people make "art" made out of feces and idiots pay tens of thousands to buy it.

Am I a bit pissed ? Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe Duchamp may have liked the NFT idea... slap one on anything, and that becomes art - the the very "objet trouvé". Think about his well known "Fountain" which disappeared but in the Stieglitz photo - if it had a NFT attached you could still sell it.... or maybe an NFT could still be created and sold?

[Charlie Clark]

Yes, but (Marcel) Duchamp would also have revelled in the idea of then being to dispute originality later on. Pace Picasso in F for Fake.

[tiggity]

Ironically with NFT as provenance "proof", there are allegations Duchamp stole the fountain idea

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/comment/did-marcel-duchamp-steal-elsa-s-urinal

[Charlie Clark]

I think that was one of the points Duchamp was making: the veneration of the artist and supposed originality. But that's a difficult current to swim against as the harder you try, the more attractive your output tends to become…

[juice]

>The limits of NFT are simple : when you have no power, you can't check it. It isn't tied to whatever object it represents, so the object can move about without it, meaning that the NFT cannot prevent moving the object.

I suspect you're somewhat missing the point the article is trying to make.

The thing is that it's the NFT which is unique.

Sure, you can clone the original item as often as you want, and each copy will be identical to the original. Or you could even clone it and edit it to produce something new.

(In fact, every time you transfer a digital item, all you're doing is sending instructions on how to make a copy and then deleting the original. There's distinct shades of the old philosphical question around "I've replaced the handle three times and the blade four times, but this is still my axe" in all of this...)

But it's the NFT which says "this particular arrangement of bytes is the original arrangement". And it's the ownership of this statement (or more precisely, the first formal declaration of this statement) which is being given value.

Personally, I think the value of this statement is pretty low. On the other hand, I tend to think that about a lot of high art ;)

[batfink]

Re: "There's little point in stealing physical objects if they can't be traded without their NFT."

But without blockchain, how can they be sure they own their volcano?

[Anonymous Coward]

But without blockchain, how can they be sure they own their volcano?

You'll have to question that with the sharks and their lasers....

[Gavin Park Weir]

Re: "There's little point in stealing physical objects if they can't be traded without their NFT."

One of the big worries in the illegal art work (apparently) is that fakes are sold to dodgy types because they have little ability to check if its real.

NFT would also prevent stolen art work from even being brought back into the market after its been "found" 10 years later. The buyer can check if the person selling has the original NFT. If not they are either flogging a fake or stole it. This massively devalues stolen / illegal art work.

Imagine the scene: Evil genius has been lording it over the other lesser evil types, inviting them round ot his underground layer to show off his Picasso when BAM the same Picasso come up for auction but auction version they have the NFT* to prove its the original. imagine the sniggering at the annual evil convention. What a dupe...

* OK so Picasso is a bad example due to the recent NFT thing but you get the picture.

[BazNav]

Re: "There's little point in stealing physical objects if they can't be traded without their NFT."

But the NFT doesn't prove which version of the artwork is original. Evil genius steals the original painting and shows it off. Someone now has the NFT without the painting that it references. Even more evil genius buys the NFT on the black market, gets and evil art forger to make a passable copy of the paining and then sells the copy with the original NFT.

Which one is the real painting according to the art world - the one the original artist created or the fake one sold with the NFT?

I can't see any way that you can incorruptibly tie the NFT to the original artwork which makes the whole thing seem like a load of hype with little in the way of real world application

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, but the hysteria comes with racist douchebros, libertarian grifters and QAnon paranoiacs. And I just can't even."

Is it really just the Right that uses it for debatable usage... Are all the Left truly upstanding and perfectly woke people ?

This is the kind of narrative that makes one realise that journalism, or should I say pseudo journalistic gas lighting, is now 100% biased and this in turn removes any and all of it's interest.. Is it no longer possible for journalists to write something without it reading like some kind of Daily Mail clickbait ?

[Tom 7]

When one side finds all the racist douchebros, libertarian grifters and QAnon paranoiacs stuff works then they may be tempted to join in,

[Dave 126]

> Is this the kind of narrative....

The author was merely quoting someone. The author was quoting them to give an example as to how crypto currencies are seen by *some* people. The author then continued to give a faily even-handed, factual account of what NFTs are, albeit with some scepticism about how they might be used by people.

Reading this article did not make me rush out to buy NFTs, nor did it make me feel that NFTs are completely without merit in all circumstances.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The author was merely quoting someone"

Of all the quotes about Blockchains that would not be one that I would have chosen complety by hazard...

If a journlist has a obvious political agenda, then that's propoganda not journalism.

El Reg usually has interseting IT reviews and articles but increasingly, and most notably from the San Fran office with it's not so subtle gas lighting is making the site far less appealing.

Please push the politics on Twitter or elsewhere... Unless it's done with suitable sarcasm ...

[Dave 126]

Many people who support Cryptocurrencies specifically point to political reasons - the relationship between the individual and the state - as their reason for their interest. Eg, State-backed currencies can, and have been, devalued by states in the past, or Some states seek to prevent their citizens from leaving by controlling their currency.

The author of this article would be remiss if they didn't reflect the reality of political ideas affecting people's view of cryptocurrencies.

This is hardly controversial - politics has always been related to economics.

[Claptrap314]

It's tarring by association. Yes, [e-mail] was a hotbed of technolibertarianism, and the common ideology supporting coin remains heavily libertarian. HOWEVER, tying with with "racists" and some other sleeze-du-jour links libertarians to these other groups in a way which is...propagandistic, and to a degree that far exceeds the Right-Pondians.

[Potemkine!]

You can find racist douchebros at the far left too.

Are you part of the paranoids? ^^

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what side anyone is on, I would prefer things to be neutral.

All this Left/Right shit is just dividing people, it's as if everyone is waiting on a civil war.. And for what, nothing more than they already have.

Every time someone mentions this extreme left/right crap they are simply amplifying the overall effect .

[Blazde]

Plenty of 'left wing' social libertarians too, some of them grifters. Of the three only QAnon is explicitly a value system(*) of the right. Anonymous Coward's own political bias bleeds through in their comment, and Rupert's characterisation seemed to me to capture the situation fairly well. The common theme is not politics per se but groups who worry about societal collapse in some form, whether due to a race war, authoritarianism, rampant corruption, or whatever version of judgement day Q is preaching this week. If you think existing legal power structures can't be trusted then blockchain and cryptocurrency has a lot of appeal. If you think existing legal power structures will stomp all over blockchain's power then it's nothing more than a potentially useful tool.

(*) Hah, just kidding. Moscow-based cult.

[Tom 7]

There's little point in stealing physical objects if they can't be traded beacuse their NFT

wont be transferred by the blockchain cloud for several hours and you've got a flight booked.

[sbt]

Re: you've got a flight booked

I'm sure there'll be a Steven Soderbergh caper film out next year where they work out a way to grift one anyway.

Cue the David Holmes (or the Scott Joplin if you're old fashioned).

[PghMike]

Why blockchain?

Couldn't Christies, and any other trusted name in the art world, just sign NFTs with a secret key, which could be verified by anyone with their public key? You'd save the energy burned by block chain updates, and still get certified authenticity.

And isn't the idea of NFTs for physical objects sorta silly? Aren't you signing a checksum of the object? And how do you generate a replicable checksum of a physical object?

This is all a bad joke.

[Dave 126]

Re: Why blockchain?

I think the concept is that the sums of money are so huge that even a respected institution *might* become corrupted. Or, maybe more likely, said institution won't actually be corrupted, but someone will seek to benefit from spreading rumours that it has been.

The point is, neither situation is ideal.

And nor, of course, is it ideal to burn daft amounts of energy just to prove things.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

"Couldn't Christies, and any other trusted name in the art world, just sign NFTs with a secret key, which could be verified by anyone with their public key?"

But let's suppose Christies' security isn't up to much (they're an art house), and somebody hacks them and steals their private key. Aren't you now screwed? Somebody can stream signatures, and any certificate that says "I own X" becomes worthless.

The blockchain doesn't have that problem.

[sbt]

The blockchain doesn't have that problem.

Are you sure? It seems like the valuable side is in the 'wallets'; without that, you can't 'spend' or 'sell' the token. A permanent record is great, until you don't want it to be permanent. And tell me again, how many billions in BTC are permanently 'lost' because the wallets can't be found or opened?

Mine's the one with chequebook.

[Emir Al Weeq]

Re: The blockchain doesn't have that problem.

The BTC are not lost. They are still there in the ledger for all to see which wallet they belong in. The problem is, without the wallet, you can't prove that they're yours.

[sbt]

Re: without the wallet, you can't prove that they're yours

That's my point. Only a matter of time before that happens with one these unnecessarily expensive NFTs.

[druck]

Re: Why blockchain?

Blockchain has the advantage that anyone paying millions for a NFT is indelibly and undeniably marked as plonker with more money than sense.

[Charlie Clark]

f you know anything about the art market you'll know it is a mighty throbbing pustule of fraud and deception, where status, cupidity, ego and far too much dodgy cash swill around in posh accents and mutual blind eye turning.

Well, yes. But it's also developed into the most effective way to launder money. Which is why Luxembourg now touts its freeport, yes port, and the art storage facilities and the ease of customs handling: with the right declaration it's the easiest way to move millions around the world, no questions asked. Lubrication a few Henrys and Lavinias to talk up the market is just the price of doing business.

[Howard Sway]

There's little point in stealing physical objects if they can't be traded without their NFT.

Again, this nonsense.

It's like thinking that Dodgy Dave won't be able to flog stolen goods anymore, unless he has the original receipts for them.

[IGotOut]

Block chain.

Remember that?

Came after "Cloud" but before "AI" and "Low Code".

[Arthur the cat]

Your pet dog Arthur

Ahem! I am not happy with this.

[Arthur the cat]

Possible upside

As predicted by the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal cartoon

[Mike 137]

" boy, can we caveat"

Caveat means "he must beware" (cavere). You can't "he must beware".

[Graham Cobb]

Re: " boy, can we caveat"

El Reg seems to have been invaded, over the last couple of weeks, by a bunch of twits telling us how we can use our language! They don't seem to realise than language doesn't have rules, any more than the universe has rules. Grammar is a way of describing utterances, not a way of constraining them. Just as quantum physics is a world of probabilities, grammar is a world of communication: if it is used in effective communication, grammar needs to describe it. If it can't be described in your grammatical model then you have just found a new particle in your Standard Model and need to work to update it.

You may not be able to, but I can caveat with the best of them. Just like I can "Who's a good boy, then?" with them or "some mothers do have 'em" unimaginative commentards.

[juice]

Re: " boy, can we caveat"

> El Reg seems to have been invaded, over the last couple of weeks, by a bunch of twits telling us how we can use our language

Be reet.

[ecofeco]

Re: " boy, can we caveat"

People called Romanes, they go, the house?

[DaemonProcess]

51% attacks, de-fi, tracing/fungibilty

For a start, the blockchains are hackable if you can get 51% of the vote to roll-back transactions and insert your own. This has happened in a couple of cases, e.g. "ethereum classic". However these are publicly available audit-logs, so everyone will know that it happened.

What is more likely is that your NFT's blockchain will simply go out of use in 10-20 years time, to be replaced by something else, so your 'provenance' turns out of be worthless by the year 2050.

Secondly on fungibility Bitcoin is a token which is fully traceable - a multi-million dollar industry has built up in tracing every transaction through every wallet. This means that if you buy some BTC off a dodgy exchange you may end up with a coin that was created and previously used in funding crime and is therefore subject to confiscation by the authorities, together with a nasty audit of yourself. They may be fungible in theory but you had better know who had it before you or else buy through one of the big exchanges that are approved by the FDA/FCA. Only the deep cryptography tokens like Monero offer the best fungibilty and many exchanges are getting out of that because that's the sort of token the dark web prefers.

On the subject of using certification (private/public) instead - the difference with modern blockchains is full de-centralisation (de-fi) which means that they aren't in theory capable of being taken-over by someone gaining control of the root CA because there isn't a root. Transactions must be approved by an accepted number of nodes. Bitcoin is terrible for commerce because of 500+ nodes need to approve everything so it takes hours to do anything. Other modern sharded chains hope to fix this in the next 2-3 years. It's still early days and largely you are betting on a lack of bugs, quality of testing and market take-up. In my opinion there is a lot of FUD being thrown around for and against this, but the tech is incoming regardless.

[sbt]

worthless by the year 2050

Good points, all. Saved me a post, have a pint.

[Arthur the cat]

Re: 51% attacks, de-fi, tracing/fungibilty

the tech is incoming regardless.

Some tech is incoming and has been for longer than I've been alive - flying cars, jet packs, meals in a pill, invisibility cloaks, …

If it's useful enough to enough people then almost any technology can be made to work, but honestly, apart from those with paranoid fantasies about The Deep State™(*), I can see no use for block chains that can't be done quicker and more efficiently by trusted third party services. If we end up in a world where you can't have trusted third parties then civilisation has collapsed and technological fixes are going to be the least of our worries.

(*) Or other equivalent bogeyman, to personal taste.

[Claptrap314]

Re: 51% attacks, de-fi, tracing/fungibilty

Ironically, one of the most obvious wins for blockchain is lubricating internal currency exchanges. In fact, my understanding is that the SWIFT system is actively piloting.

Blockchain --> MORE profits to the big banks. At least, for now...

[Stratman]

I keep having these thoughts that a blockchain would be a reasonably good solution to 'proof of vaccination', should one be required.

Why am I wrong?

For the sake of the question, I'm not necessarily saying one should be required.

[Graham Cobb]

Only in the sense that it is a solution looking for a problem and vaccination certificates are a possible problem.

Blockchains have several important capabilities and come at a high cost - most notably. a complete lack of scale. Vaccination certificates come with very simple requirements (most notably, very few fraud concerns - vaccines are cheap and having one is a lot cheaper than trying to create a fraudulent certificate) and have to scale to billions.

[Crypto Monad]

Why do you think that blockchain would be at all applicable to this situation?

A vaccination record ("person X has been vaccinated") has no value in the blockchain if just anyone can put it there. But if it's signed by a trusted third party - the NHS, say - then it's the signature that matters, not the fact that it's in the blockchain. Vaccinations aren't transferrable, so a record of "ownership" of the vaccination being transferred from one person to another doesn't mean anything.

For the same reason: "The holder of this token is the only legitimate owner of the original artwork Pig In A Frock Playing Poker With A Chimp, Bill Gates 2021, pixel-in-DRAM" has no value, unless you can prove that the person who put it there in the first place was Bill Gates (or someone with delegated authority from Bill Gates)

[Gene Cash]

Typical cloud/IoT issue of "if the server goes down, yer f*cked"

https://twitter.com/thatkimparker/status/1375981283487064065

To summarize a very good tweet about the situation:

The blockchain just points to a URI, which points to some JSON on a server, which points to the actual JPG (or whatever) on yet another server.

So of any of these servers go down, or the companies hosting them go out of business or just plain decide to not host them any more... your NFT is gone and there's nothing you can do about it.

And something the tweet doesn't cover: if I go to that URI, then I can simply download your NFT.

[Crypto Monad]

Re: Typical cloud/IoT issue of "if the server goes down, yer f*cked"

> So of any of these servers go down, or the companies hosting them go out of business or just plain decide to not host them any more... your NFT is gone and there's nothing you can do about it.

The NFT should just contain an SHA256 hash of the image or whatever. It doesn't need to provide a way to retrieve it. Ownership of a URI is useless, because the content at that URI can change anyway.

> And something the tweet doesn't cover: if I go to that URI, then I can simply download your NFT.

That's missing the point. You're not downloading the NFT, you're downloading the image that's linked to it. You have a copy of the image, but you don't "own" the image. The NFT asserts ownership, and allows you to transfer that ownership. It's not a copy-protection mechanism. It's more like a certificate of authenticity.

[Fonant]

Metadata

Wouldn't you need a metablockchain to record WHICH blockchain is the correct one holding the NFT in question?

[ecofeco]

One thing I've learned in life

The more convoluted a thing is, the more it's likely to be a scam. All shouting and claims to the contrary.

[Claptrap314]

Re: One thing I've learned in life

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the shouting itself is a significant flag of a scam.

[Stuart Halliday]

So if I print a hash of a NFT, could I sell that for a million quid?