Topic: Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin? - page 4. (Read 1260 times)

Yes, every person who has the image can gain satisfaction by looking it, but that is just missing the point. What matters is the rights of the image. The fact that I can now go outdoors and start writing on sites that I'm the damned owner with a proof. Obviously, there has to be consensus on which chain there's agreement. So, that I don't have the same rights on each.

I like seeing it that way:
The fact that NFTs can work on bitcoin, but haven't shows me that Solana, Ethereum etc. are pure hype. I don't want to own anything from such chains, but I would be interested on purchasing the rights of a Yu-Gi-Oh card by Konami, say for instance, if they were working on bitcoin instead.

You took the example too literally. Imagine if you could pull the painting Leo drew in an alternate universe to our universe
To be more precise without an example it means everyone can get the exact same copy of the the digital art that they sell as NFTs.

Ok. I concede.
But in my view when you are giving up something you have to gain something significant in return. If we are going to endure the hardship of decentralized blockchain then the reward we are getting has to be worth it. I do believe it is worth it in case of bitcoin since the utility bitcoin provides is so valuable and useful that it justifies all that but I honestly cannot see the same benefit provided by projects known as Smart Contract Platforms that nowadays focus on NFTs.
I hope some day things change and I start seeing real utilities though so that I can change my mind.

Be careful with it then. Behave same like you would with your private keys.

It's because it doesn't just have a version of it. It has the original, authentic painting drawn by Leonardo da Vinci. Whether new painters draw the exact same painting, using the same palette Leonardo used in 1503 or not, they can't recreate Mona Lisa, but only replicas.

And yet, the most censorship resistant. Can't you acknowledge how significant it is if we, two, came into an agreement that we have no need for notaries? That we can exchange our rights this way, in this block chain? Same thing happened in 2009. Some people switched from legal money to bitcoin, because it was more satisfactory to them.

You can't really deny that there's not even one valid argument in favor of NFTs.

What do you mean? The responses of this thread show that NFTs never left the Bitcoin network. They're just called Colored Coins.

Yes, back in 2015, there was a service to tokenize ownership on the Bitcoin blockchain, ascribe.io. I started to create 'NFTs' even without knowing the name NFT.

https://twitter.com/bbgc58
https://opensea.io/collection/bbgc-bitcoin-blockchain-gold-coin
''Originally, Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coins were registered in 2015 through ascribe.io (a service to tokenize ownership on the Bitcoin blockchain) to test what we call now Non Fungible Token (NFT). To have a fixed number of pictures in the set, something new should be tested: first, creating "empty frames" as editions (registering) and then linking the different pictures to these "empty frames" (minting). The idea behind that is, to avoid an increase of the number of pieces in the set in the future. Unfortunately, ascribe is no longer active. Now, Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coins are on the Ethereum blockchain. The 32x32 pixel images are coins with a Base58 character.''


If you can bring NFTs to the Bitcoin blockchain, I will bring back my 2015 'NFTs' to your project.

NFTs already existed in Bitcoin well before they became such a popular trend. Rare Pepes are probably the most well-known one. Bitcoin NFTs never had as much hype and marketing as other blockchains and the Counterparty protocol didn't have much development along with the high fee issues never allowed NFTs to gain significant traction on Bitcoin.

That's not like that at all. Bitcoin doesn't represent something else in real world. Each bitcoin is its own and is a unit of currency. Each NFT token on the other hand represents something else in this case a piece of art, and if that piece is destroyed for example that token becomes meaningless.

It is more like if anyone who wished to could summon an exact version of a painting like Mona Lisa that was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in their home hanging on the wall that was identical in all aspects each others. The fact that Louvre museum has a version of it with a certificate doesn't mean much any longer.

The question always is not about what you can do but why would you want to do that.
In this case storing such things on a distributed global ledger is meaningless! Storing it in a centralized database in that county or country is already working well enough.

This type of cost won't go away. Regular people would have to still rely on other entities to tell them what the hell an NFT is and how to search it in some blockchain and how to transfer the title through it.
Considering that people are reluctant to run their own full node to handle all these acts (which costs a lot too) they will rely on these entities that would ask for a lot more money since this would be a new thing and there would be little competition among those who can handle this kind of stuff.

same thing though. private businesses might find a benefit/cost savings by using blockchain but they don't necessarily pass any of that on to the consumer. for example car insurance. rates are going to be based on real world data not how much money the blockchain saves them.

Maybe not in Los Angeles, or anywhere else in CA. I could see this happening in other parts of the country.

There are taxes associated with transferring property from one person to another, however, the costs I was referring to were things such as performing a title search, and title insurance, both of which are paid to entities other than the government.

The tricky part about these types of transactions is how to handle situations in which the owner claims to have lost their private key. Technically speaking, there are ways the issuing authority of the NFTs could transfer the NFT/token (for example by having a smart contract have the ability for their private key to be able to transfer an NFT unilaterally), but this would raise some questions about the benefits of using the bitcoin blockchain (or any other blockchain) to track property ownership. Maybe one option would be for the issuing authority to attack a court order to any transaction in which they unilaterally transfer ownership of a property.

Some things you just don't see like this headline:

"Register of Deeds moves to NFTs to lower costs for real estate owners."

I could see them using blockchain tech but not to lower the costs for citizens that type of thing doesn't happen.

You are accurately describing how NFTs work today, however, NFT as a concept is something that could potentially translate into real-world use.

For example, the Los Angeles County Register of Deeds could issue NFTs to real estate owners representing ownership of their property. The owner of a property could transfer their property to another person by transferring their NFT to another person. In this example, the Los Angeles County Register would need to agree (probably via statute) to recognize an NFT as ownership of a property. If you are buying a NFT representing ownership of real estate property, you would need to make sure the LA County Register actually issued the NFT (which can be done via reviewing the blockchain), and you would need to trust the LA County Register of Deeds, however, you need to do the later anyway if you are buying property in LA County.

The above could reduce the costs associated with selling your property, as it would make things such as title searches much easier, and would nearly eliminate title insurance payouts, which should reduce the cost of title insurance.

I do agree that the concept of using NFTs to transfer "digital art" is more or less bogus. It is trivial for someone to create a similar image of something that already has an NFT with a different hash, and to alter the image in a way such that it is difficult to find the original image (if you don't know where it is).

There's obviously a huge difference between watching arbitrary characters and videos, but I'm just saying it's the same analogy. You don't own bitcoins if you don't provide a proof; you don't own the video if you don't have a proof.

Again, the exact same thing happens with bitcoin. You can't use bitcoin legally as there's no law referring to it (in most countries). You don't pay your taxes using bitcoin. Only people who have acknowledged its significance use it. Same goes for NFTs; only people who have come into an agreement that the block chain is their holy bible and therefore, says the truth, use it.

It reminds me of this:

Everything comes with interest. It remains to be seen if it'll continue succeeding as I have my doubts. I still cannot comprehend what distinguishes other cryptos from bitcoin in this part. It makes you wonder if it's, indeed, just a hype...

Well, the big difference here is that with BTC there's no 'enjoying' / joy in looking at an address, nor can that address by itself be otherwise meaningfully 'used' compared to image NFTs which are used as profile pictures or printed for the joy of looking at them.

NFTs are basically (exclusive?) rights to an image (or something else) but instead of being a written contract, it's on a Blockchain. In both cases however, people can steal / copy your owned object of course. That's why the NFT (or contract) exists: to allow you to go to court, prove the ownership and have the stolen item / image taken down / returned.

In both cases, you need to go through a legal route if someone infringed your copyright / stole your item. NFT doesn't 'fix' this. Worst case (highly probably), in most countries an NFT is not accepted in court at all.

This isn't a problem, but a feature. Yes, anyone can download the art, but none of them can provide a proof of ownership of the art except the current owner. Anyone who gives me this article and tells me NFTs are useless is benighted the least.

It's like telling me they own BTC without providing me a valid signature. Okay, you can enjoy looking at the address, but you don't have the rights to move the BTC. When you transact BTC, you do exactly the same thing; you transfer the rights of those BTC. A sign that says it's not yours anymore.

And that's another fundamental problem with NFTs

This reminded me of another fundamental problem with NFTs, both the owner and anybody else in the world can also download the "art". In fact someone has already done that and shared the whole database of "art" with the world like piratebay called The NFT Bay with 19 terabytes of data!
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdxvw/someone-made-a-pirate-bay-for-nfts

You're supposed to download every art you purchase. You shouldn't leave your products on third parties. The whole NFT thing works as long as there's at least one NFT marketplace. An analogy with bitcoin is to always have at least one centralized exchange.

Doesn't this apply with bitcoin too? It doesn't have a legal power, but people care about it a lot, because it seems useful to them. I can't think of one serious real-world utility of the NFTs in contrast with bitcoin, but I can acknowledge the demand of some people to own an object digitally.

Colored coins prove majority of Bitcoin community don't really care about NFT/token which shown by lack of interest.


For some people, it's not connection between NFT/token with object. NFT is proof that you're legitimate owner of the object, although it has no legal power and many people don't care about it.

You can send zero satoshis in OP_RETURN, it is standard. But I thought about creating spendable zero satoshi outputs, then you can create, move and destroy your NFT directly, just by spending it. You can use taproot public key as the owner's public key and place your NFT, splitted into small pieces, into your tapscript.

The connection is a promise that they are related. In fact these days the "digital artwork" that is being sold for millions to idiots is stored elsewhere on a centralized website not even on the blockchain and if that website's server goes down or if it were shut down by the government, all the "artwork" goes away too. Meanwhile the tokens continue to exist on the blockchain uselessly!

They don't seem to care or maybe they don't understand this either. Both the token and the object are stored centrally and they can go away, I explained it for the object but the blockchain of these tokens like ETH is mutable so they can decide to reverse blocks that would wipe out those tokens.

Not only this. It'll bring even more uniqueness to the digital items. Imagine broadcasting your NFT to the Bitcoin network, which is yet, the most decentralized among all. I don't know about you, but I'd definitely want to own something from the cryptocurrency we all agree, than from Ethereum, Solana etc., which are known for their terrible money distribution and hierarchical structure.

If you're asking how will the trade work trustless-ly, there are bunch of ways. Without changing anything in the protocol, we could achieve this with HTLCs, same as in the Lightning Network.

As said by garlonicon, we'll just burn few sats with the hash included. However, I'm not 100% sure that you can't send 0 sats with OP_RETURN in mainnet.

then it's strange that people think such a connection exists. which is obviously why they are buying.


Not only that but it then becomes the buyer's responsibility to get to store the NFT artwork somewhere. Hopefully they store it somewhere that doesn't cause them to lose the artwork by having their account deleted due to inactivity or some other issue.
Forever is a long time...heck even 5 years is