Topic: Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 1198 times)

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.

Yeah, there's been one around for years.

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.

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.

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...  

These examples are using other blockchains as support.

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

NFTs have been on Bitcoin.

Not been through colored coins yet, however there are these as well.

The first on Namecoin - d/bitcoin (April 21, 2011)  https://www.namebrow.se/tx/6047ce28a076118403aa960909c9c4d0056f97ee0da4d37d109515f8367e2ccb/ (this is a .bit domain name)

The first on Counterparty - test - (January 13, 2014) https://xchain.io/asset/TEST (the image was added afterwards)

Using emblemvault you can trade these on Opensea Eth/Polygon, as well as BSC, Gnosis (xdai) and Fantom

https://opensea.io/collection/emblem-vault

Here's a quick ad on Coval/emblemvault https://youtu.be/aBoDzzHZtY0

but also, soon you will be able to trade Ethereum NFTs on Bitcoin - https://xchain.io/asset/A709923891251641011 (this is the prototype vault)

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

I have a couple rare pepes myself.

If you haven't already, you should read up on Single-Use-Seals. Here's a great entry point: https://petertodd.org/2017/scalable-single-use-seal-asset-transfer

RBG Protocol is building a bunch of stuff based on that (and several other) idea.

Yes, great idea. If we made it here on bitcointalk.org, I would give away 57 out of the 58 pics (except #1). It started in 2015 on the Bitcoin blockchain and we could continue it and test our idea on the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin NFTs ... wow.


We have a proof on the Bitcoin blockchain of the project:

I wanted to test how it would be possible to have a prefixed number of pictures in a collection: first, creating "empty frames" as editions (registering) and then linking the different pictures to these "empty frames". The idea behind that is, to avoid an increase of the number of pieces in the collection in the future, to protect the holders (value).

The BBGC collection contains 58 pics, simple 32x32 pixel coin images with a Base58 character on them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, that are used for Bitcoin addresses.

Right, that's correct. But I think it should be implemented in a way that doesn't require those to work. For example, in my 'NFT implementation' idea, I could sell you an image's rights by directly sending you the image and proving ownership using any block explorer or even just Bitcoin Core. Or posting the image somewhere / even hosting it myself. It should really be super independent on where the image is stored; a hash and signature should suffice for ownership proof.

Does it work like that with current 'OpenSea' NFTs and BBGC's 'Bitcoin NFTs' as well? Because I agree that what you describe is how an NFT should work. Independence from any specific centralised (or not) site / service / marketplace. I should be able to advertise and sell NFTs even on this forum in my opinion.

You need these sites to present your work. They must work as escrows where the seller gives the marketplace their piece of work and people start bidding. I haven't ever purchased anything, I've just seen them.

How would colored coins be any different? Wouldn't you need to present them somewhere?

Whoever has the image and runs a full node can calculate the hash and therefore, verify the ownership of an NFT/colored coin.

This is one big issue I see with current NFTs to be honest. Even though they're 'blockchain-backed', they seem to require (centralised?) marketplace websites to be able to trade them. How is it possible that BBGC's 'Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin' project went down together with a single website (ascribe) going down?
That doesn't seem to align very much with Bitcoin spirit to me. Way too much trust involved.

An analogy would be if you had the rights to the Mona Lisa, but couldn't prove or transfer them anymore due to one website shutting down due to interest in art ownership proofs dipping down for a couple years.

In my mind, coloured coins based NFTs would be much simpler and much less reliant on such websites. Since the utxo is 'tainted', you could transfer it like any other Bitcoin transaction (e.g. with dust limit amount) even without any NFT explorer or marketplace. Just with your regular wallet app / software. And 'NFT browser' could be implemented client-side; showing a received transaction indeed contains a coin coloured in a way that proves ownership to X - as well as in any regular online- or self-hosted block explorer.

Thoughts are very interesting, in principle, this is most likely what happens. But that's why Bob should buy this art, if the first owner can be traced through transactions ... The value of this art will most likely be devalued by Bob, I think, although I may be wrong.

I think one of the issues with NFTs is that there's no real need to have a blockchain for it.

Bitcoin had colored coins a long time ago, which is basically a predecessor of NFTs.

There were some startups using this concept many years ago, but the largest one of them ended up shutting down in 2018, and had something very interesting to say about this idea:

There is one, https://xchain.io/ works very well and is designed well for NFT's. The concept of burning XCP to mint tokens creates a good economic system. A direct clone of OpenSea would be anti-bitcoin in terms of values and ideals imo. Counterparty doesn't charge fees for sales on tokens, tx fees are low, and the ability to transact in either bitcoin or tokens is fairly simple which is exactly how a NFT platform for artwork/memes should work. Claiming that "xyz" was a "NFT" by partial definition, NOT intention, is comical though, i.e. colored coins, twitter eggs. People created tokenized memes on counterparty with the full intention of using them as a store of value. Gaming NFT's may be a stretch on counterparty, but I wouldn't dismiss the potential completely. There are already simple sites that can reference your login address and the tokens owned by that address, but its fairly obvious that Solana is suited for gaming NFT's. Rare pepes were the first quasi decentralized NFT project with user curation, following the narrative of what bitcoin use to represent. That narrative is probably long gone though and consumed by the institutionalization of bitcoin. Gaming NFT's should have a completely separate distinction and label to represent them as an asset/token class. Without considering gaming nft's, every other NFT platform is objectively inferior to XCP. Are the others more monetized and hyped? Most definitely. XCP doesn't even trade on Coinbase and its a fairly old stable and reputable project, as well as being below the initial price to mint XCP tokens. Fairly sad to see the environment in crypto where it is at the moment. Rarepepe's were/are the pinnacle of bitcoin, NFT's, and crypto, they actually gave the people that made bitcoin be successful a way to monetize something that was fair and contributed value to bitcoin. Value to bitcoin that now every project leeches from hour by hour and day by day. XCP's position in the crypto system really brings to light the nature of the crypto community, they became the same people that they claimed to detest and wanted to detach from.

I think ''Bitcoin OpenSea'' would work.

My project ''Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin'' was minted in 2015 via ascribe.io on the Bitcoin blockchain:

Oct 30, 2015 8:31 AM UTC, Block 381208
txid: e9a1d1bc79a09779b60af93c35baaf647d753218dc0d087b174e9d7a5fe7a138
ID: 1HUktrGqpfYxcaCiV8kpC473MxnGgRiMd3

Here you can read more on ascribe.io: https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ascribe-for-nft-archaeologists-17ca5481d206

''ascribe was a protocol, backend, and app for blockchain-secured digital art (“NFTs”) starting in 2013. It was built on Bitcoin; Ethereum didn’t exist yet.''

We were too early ...

Very interesting point of view and I include it in my to-get-involved-into things. However, I have some questions such as what if one player decides to leave the game without having any losses? What discourages them to leave instead of staying if they're losing?

Which problem do digital signatures solve? I fail understanding the way you've thought this. Are we going to publish colored coins as cards or not?

Impressed there isn't one.

I meant a marketplace/explorer for NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain like OpenSea or Rarible.

Technically, it could be possible to even use that card in a game, just by producing a signature. I can imagine a system, where both players have some LN channel and use such cards for playing, then the winner could get some satoshis from the loser.