Topic: Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin? (Read 1306 times)

Just found this thread.

This appears to be a "reverse vault" as it were. I can see the Ethereum NFT therein is this one:

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0xa5d2b92091df326007cb5b856dccd702aefaf361/0

(for those not knowing what's going on DesktopCommando has created a way via Emblem Vault to lock NFTs on Ethereum and re-create them on Bitcoin as a Counterparty asset)

Did you end up making progress regarding this? Haven't heard much about it beyond this but I would totally port my CryptoKitty to my Counterparty address just for the lulz.

Thanks, and I appreciate all the work that you do to help bring attention to the innovation being delivered to Bitcoin via the Counterparty platform.

On the topic of "who decides what to have how much value". This analog-NFT with the colors of the Ukranian flag is valued/priced at $46,000,000. That's two commas and six zeroes ser, thank you very much.



Analog-NFTs are better, you truly own them. NFTs that don't truly "live" in the blockchain should not be as valued in my opinion.

As far as the connection is concerned, I don't think any of it exists lol. People just believe this and keep buying.

You have a point, but it’s “blockchains”, not altcoins. I believe all “penny-shitcoins” will be generated in the remaining 3 - 5 remaing blockchains instead of boot-strapping their own networks. It’s currently happening since 2017, some of the earliest were before that.

I seriously doubt it. The idea of "penny stocks" is perfected in cryptocurrency world because it is so much easier and cheaper to create altcoins/tokens than it is to start a penny stock and sell it. There is also the benefit of anonymity so things like scams and money laundering will continue happening in altcoin market. Hence we will continue seeing the altcoins grow in number and in 15-20 years we may have more than a million worthless altcoins.

But the network/blockchain where the NFT resides is also the most important if you ask me. I believe in 15 - 20 years there will just be 3 to 5 blockchains that exists, and Bitcoin remaining at the center like the Sun of a solar system, still chugging along.

It depends on the game. The free games I've seen that have in-game purchases are really free and whatever you buy is just cosmetics that won't affect your game. Like DOTA2 from Valve.
In any case, the flaw actually exists in NFTs because you have to buy the token otherwise you won't be able to play the game in first place! In other words "free game" is not defined in the NFT world.

Many games are marketing themselves as being free, but then they earn millions of dollars each year with in-game purchases. If the idea is to fight such a system, I would understand. It's either free or it's not. Don't tell me I can play a game for free if I can't do it normally because I have to separately purchase all kinds of things.   

If the community thinks that NFT or blockchain games are money-grabbing scams, OK, they have a point. Why support a group of developers earning money on their players? But at the same time, why isn't the same attention given to in-game purchases in traditional games, where you are required to purchase similar types of things, but this time the money goes to the software companies?

Jack Black had a funny encounter with in-game purchases, take a look.

Honestly, I hate maximalism too, but during the last 2 years of my cryptocurrency journey I've concluded that it's all about Bitcoin. Those “toxic” Bitcoiners do point fingers very often, but I've found none who's done it unreasonably. Take for instance us, who're trying to understand why NFTs.

I like thinking that the freedom of Bitcoin leaves room for other projects to grow, but I can't unsee that its technology promotes the exact opposite; one blockchain. The point of it is decentralization. There's literally no other reason to distribute a database if it's not to avoid the central point of failure. If this isn't your project's priority, then you're doing things wrong. And 99% of those cryptos with “potential” lack in this part.

So, if we're going to build interesting things in a flawed way, it's a big no from me.

Another argument that contradicts with gaming & blockchain is the source code. The developers of an online game should not reveal their source code, but the blockchain ideology works by the assumption that everything's transparent.

Me too, but I want to keep an open mind about it. I don't think that the future of the cryptocurrency movement as a whole is for Bitcoiners to throw garbage on everyone else and point fingers. Unless they are like Craig or scammers who deserve it. And I am someone who is 90% in Bitcoin when it comes to crypto. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you are doing that.

Good point. Live and let others live. Speak up if you notice something is off and smells like a scam, advise and correct, but don't be like Steam.

Gaming needs to be visually attractive and appealing. Most of the times at least. Blockchain games look like something created in the 90s. The graphics are mostly awful. That could be one reason a larger part of the community doesn't like them. Still, I don't see the point in gamers supporting Steam to ban them altogether. If I want to play ugly looking games, leave me be. Imagine Steam deciding to ban all racing games and everyone who doesn't play them and hates those types of games supports that decision.

What i wanted to emphasize isn't Steam banning blockchain-based games, but most popular comment/reaction which support the ban or stating that they hate blockchain-based game/NFT. It means many (or even most) gamers don't need/want blockchain or NFT on their game even with advantage it could offer.

It doesn’t matter if there’s no value in it for you, what matters is it has value for it in the market. It’s like Warren Buffett saying that Bitcoin is “Rat Poison Squared” and has ZERO value to him, but we can sell it for more than $30,000 per coin in the market.

I'm just trying to make my point clearer by comparing with bitcoin, not trying to "advertise" it.

As @BlackHatCoiner said the discussion here is on usability of NFTs, to see if we should even bother looking into them in the context of Bitcoin.
One of the reasons why I keep asking people who are supporting tokens or altcoins to tell me what their utility is in real world is not me trying to dictate how they should think but it is mostly my personal interest in the technology trying to figure out where it has gone after Bitcoin. Sadly I'm greatly disappointed in "alternatives" so far.

Who's using a blockchain just for payments? I'm using it solely for the entire financial sovereignty pack. There's no trust required, which eliminates tons of flaws. It's always online. It's hard cash. It's censorship resistant. It's faster than banks.

There's no way to have the above without a blockchain. Therefore, blockchain exists to satisfy these needs.

We're trying to comprehend their way of thinking, though. We're having this discussion to conclude if the NFTs can indeed have a legitimate and practical usage.

If the general public losses interest in it, people aren't going to play it anymore. It's the same for blockchain or traditional games. I am not sure what exactly you mean with shut down.

Yes, an action game developed by company X could have the same type of characters as one developed by company Y if the two entities made such agreements. Or the same characters as a newer version of the game. You could than use a character you already developed in the past or sell it if you no longer have a need for it. You really don't need a blockchain for it, you are right. You don't need a blockchain to make payments either, but we have it. My grandparents and parents don't understand why I need and want Bitcoin because they have lived their entire life without it and did just fine. And so did their parents. Blockchain games allow players to monetize their time, and if that's what people want, I don't mind it. Traditional games could do that as well and there wouldn't be a need for blockchain games. Instead, they prefer to fill their own pockets by forcing people to purchase in-game items and what not. None of that goes to the community of players.

This is the first time I hear that Steam is censoring and banning blockchain-based games. Like I mentioned before, I am not a gamer so I don't know the story behind it. At a first glance, I find it pretty pathetic and not that much different from what banks were or are still trying to do with Bitcoin and crypto. Or how YouTube censors things it doesn't like and doesn't suit them. I guess their is a certain fear there.     

I am sure there were such games, and there probably are a few right now. But that's maybe not a standard and a direction the gaming world is heading towards. Maybe gamers want more control, like we do when we use Bitcoin.   

You don't have to sell me on Bitcoin, I understand and appreciate it already. The thing is, you and me don't get to choose what others think. If a big enough community decides that's the correct path forward for various reasons, I wish them luck. It doesn't affect me the slightest if NFT gaming becomes a thing or the whole movement dies like the rest of the hype. Maybe this gaming thing will be the only thing still breathing a few years from now because people like to play games.

You see one of the biggest problems with your arguments (and a lot of others like it) is that you always say what you can do not why you should do it this way. It is like saying "If you want to travel to another city, you can walk thousands of kilometres." And you wouldn't be wrong, you can walk to another city, that is what people did hundreds of years ago (or used camel!) but it  doesn't mean you should do it this way.

I'm not really a gamer either but I've played some games back in my days. There was a game called Dragon Age where you could create your own character and save it both on your disk and later on EA servers or when it came to Steam you could save it in your Steam account. Then after they released Dragon Age 2 you could import that character (from your disk or your cloud) into that and follow the story that way since all your decisions in 1.0 affected some of the story in 2.0.
You owned that character since you had paid for it and you could transfer it to another game.
No NFT needed.

---

Now lets compare bitcoin.
With traditional currency (fiat) you have to use a third party to transfer it, specially large amounts and long distances. There is no other option but using a third party when sending money over the internet. That third party has been a nuisance for many reasons from security, trust issues and fraud to reversibility, high cost and slow speed.
When bitcoin came, it addressed these problems and solved them. Now you don't need a third party to send/receive money, it is very secure, it can not be reversed (after proper number of confirmation), it is cheap and fast, protects your privacy and a lot more.

The point is that bitcoin did address an existing problem and did actually solve it. Bitcoin is not just another way of doing things in a poorer way, it is actually an alternative way of doing things in a better way.
My point is that you can't say the same thing for NFTs or tokens in general.

Actually you can transfer your account/character if creator/owner of the other game support it it. While i don't know if there are any game which allow do it, forum "AltcoinsTalks" allow you to transfer your rank from Bitcointalk with few condition[1].


Only true if it's offline game and you never make backup.


I don't play game much, but i've seen few game which allow you to import your character appearance/progress from previous game. If your game doesn't support it, you're out of luck.


While you made good point, i wonder how many gamers who actually care about advantage of NFT for their game when many of them hate it[2].

[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5290710
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/q8rc4x/steam_will_be_kicking_all_blockchain_games_off/

And what happens if the game shuts down?

Doesn't that mean that the developer has to use the same kind of character properties? Also, what's the need for a blockchain if that's all you want? Export your character in a .chr format and import it wherever and whenever you want.

But, a character from, say GTA V, should only be playable in GTA V or even into few other versions of the game. Don't you already trust Rockstar Games for keeping their servers running? Isn't there already a central point of failure?

Forget about the digital artwork non-sense. People will lose interest in that sooner or later.

Imagine you guys are gamers. You play a blockchain-based game that supports NFTs where you create your own characters. Those characters need to be trained to acquire skills. Fighting skills, armory, speed, etc., etc. Let's compare this character evolution in the game to activity points on Bitcointalk. It takes time and hard work to build-up your account/character. With traditional games, you never become the real owner of that character you spent time creating. You can't transfer them between games. If your hard drive fails, your data is lost, and your game progress and characters are lost as well. When the game developer released a 2nd edition of the game, you have to start from 0 again. But if you could make it your own NFT, it's yours. Now imagine if you could import/export these characters and use them in different games. There is your use case, and that creates a market and demand. I am not a gamer, it doesn't affect me personally, but I understand how this would appeal to those who are.       

some nfts don't really any value adding proposition i think we all can agree on that but that doesn't mean they're all like that. some people buy nfts to gain some added benefit such as a membership to some exclusive "club" for example:

When you buy a Bored Ape, you’re not simply buying an avatar or a provably-rare piece of art. You are gaining membership access to a club whose benefits and offerings will increase over time. Your Bored Ape can serve as your digital identity, and open digital doors for you.

whether those benefits are valuable and worth the price paid, i dont know.

1993, I swear Hal invented BTC, every time I jump in the rabbit hole it leads to him.

I consider it worthless for the reasons I outlined. Alas if I cared how people evaluate things.

It's advisable to state that value is a vague term, in contrast with price. There are sub-terms such as personal value, intrinsic value, market value etc. If you sell a bitcoin for $40,000, it'll have a $40,000 equivalent market value, but a $0 intrinsic value. Or, if you sell me a toy I had when I was 5, nostalgia will affect me and I'll personally evaluate it differently than the rest of the buyers. Therefore my personal value will be greater than the current market value.

True but there is a difference between having a price and being valuable in my opinion.
You can sell anything to people, even complete garbage and they buy it but that never means that what you are selling them has value. Value comes from utility, if you sell people dog shit for a million dollar a bag, that still doesn't give dog shit any utility. But at the end of the day, bitcoin still has a lot of utility to provide.

I had the same opinion. I called NFT the “Tulip Mania 2.0” of the current bull cycle, but I remembered what Hal Finney said,



I changed my opinion, because it’s not in my position, as a mere pleb, to call something valuable, or worthless. The open market decides what is valuable or worthless, not the opinions of individuals. Which we have experienced as Bitcoiners, those opinions are 99.9% WRONG.

I began thinking like there's even one thing legitimate about them, but I honestly can't find any. Are they promoted as an alternative method to transfer rights of digital property? I already explained why this fails in practice theory. Let alone if there's more than one blockchain to distribute it...

It is not about art per se. It is about finding a way to "wash" dirty money. Which is why I use the general category of tokens rather than NFTs. It is actually a lot harder and costs a lot of money to launder money using art.
When using tokens, the laundering costs nothing because the creation of the token costs nothing whereas there has to be some art that has some minimum quality to not raise suspicion. The tokens already have no quality and they are not regulated and the "buyer" (who is also the seller putting dirty money from one pocket to another) can be anonymous.

I don't see it.

Considering the fact that people have bought coins that didn't even have a blockchain (ie. they were dead) mainly during 2017, I don't think they care whether the same NFT is being sold elsewhere!

It doesnt matter what I think they think they are buying. What matters is the terms and conditions of the sale, what rights were bestowed upon the buyer. of course, then that brings up other questions about how those terms and conditions are inherited upon future sales if using a different marketplace than the original sale happened on...


does the artist give up their rights to the work?

The bitfinex hacker (or the people who are very likely to be the bitfinex hacker, IMO) used some of their stolen coin to buy NFTs. See the article and court documents linked here.

I don't disagree that many people are laundering money via NFTs, as I understand that many people also launder money via the purchase of art, and for the most part NFTs are a form of "digital art" (although there is the potential for non-art NFTs).

I also don't disagree that a lot of people buying up NFTs are speculating, but I don't think NFTs are tulip bulbs. I think there is some underlying value in NFTs. I don't think there would be demand for a NFT that could potentially be sold on another blockchain.

I have not seen a single person who isn't buying a token for profit making. The people you mention are also "investing" in these tokens thinking they would appreciate in time. Something like the dotcom bubble but without the bubble.

No, you can't create bitcoin out of thin air but you can create an unlimited amount of the same token out of thin air with virtually no cost.

Yes, the same you can do with BTC... right clicking it, you can create Bitcoin... who would buy it?

NFT is basically sign that you're owner of specific content. I seriously doubt it's biggest group when cryptocurrency marketcap is very small compared with other investment and it's very easy to pirate the NFT. Some people even decide to pirate almost all NFT[1].

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-nft-bay-asks-if-you-would-steal-all-the-jpegs/ar-AAQSzsM

And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.

And this third group is by far the largest 

There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.
First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.

What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT? Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?

i dont think most people that buy nfts have any type of ownership over the artwork itself thus the above is a mute point. just because there is only one up for sale on some marketplace on some blockchain doesn't mean they can't go and sell the same thing on other blockchains. buyer might not like it but that's how it goes. now i think where it might seem unethical to do is to go and sell it on some other marketplace using the same blockchain. but buyers have no control in any event.

The issuer will need to make a representation of if the buyer is going to own exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the buyer is going to own non-exclusive ownership, the issuer needs to represent how many other others of the asset there could possibly be. If the issuer does not do this, there would be no reason for any buyer to pay anything of value for an NFT because the issuer could continue selling a similar NFT until everyone owns one.
As I mentioned, the issuer needs to represent if the NFT represents exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the issuer says the NFT represents exclusive ownership of an asset, then tries to sell a similar NFT on another blockchain, they are selling something they don't own, and would be committing fraud.

There's no law enforcement in NFTs, that's the problem. Currently, to prevent copyright infringement, the creators have to declare their property, but there're intermediaries involved. Transferring rights using a blockchain is a completely unofficial procedure and does not transfer the ownership legally, yet.

However, I'm not convinced such actions will be taken any time soon from the states.

You could simply validate with a signature.
Sig points to physical asset. Serialized objects make it easier.
I did a proof of Burn Signature binding concept a few years ago something's misaligned now and the signature doesn't check out anymore but it did at the time.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/auctionproof-of-burn-notes-something-different-bwatartadeco-last-hour-5150524

I guess in a way I designed the BTC NFT or what could be.
You could add terms to a sale with signatures and DChain the sig with historical TX ID , a itemized Blockchain within a Blockchain. Like a human read smart contract kinda.

Now I want to mess with this concept....

why is that though? the creator of an nft can sell it anywhere and as many places as they want to. no one is going to come after them for doing that.

maybe what you meant is if a buyer of an nft tries to do that. completely different story.


yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money. but i guess that's relative. like if their nft is worth $200,000 vs $2.

and then what about people that get hacked and lost their nft that way? you dont know who the hacker is so there's no legal recourse, only technical solutions to stop the hacker from profiting off their stolen artwork.

I did not know that.

OK, I change my mind about NFTs. Although the NFT market currently is Tulip Mania 2.0, it might also have a purpose not only as an “asset”, but a technology of expression of socio-political viewpoints, and other such messages.

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.

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 

That point can be easily solved by using zero satoshis. Then, you never move any coins, you create zero outputs just from thin air, in this way you can easily create and destroy any such output in any transaction. Of course, currently you can only do that in test networks, in mainnet you have to use at least dust amount. And of course you have to always cover transaction fees, even if you move zero coins.

Of course. But you don't have to make such transactions by hand, you can have some client doing that for you.

Obviously!
What we need to keep in mind in topic of NFTs (or by extension tokens) is that there has never been any connection between the token and the underlying object whatsoever. For example in case of artwork (digital or physical) it is an arbitrary data (eg. a hash) that is stored in a blockchain and a non-existent link between that data and the art.

For example I could sell you a pen and store a string mentioning "your name and the name of the pen" in blockchain as a NFT showing I sold you that pen. Whether I deliver the pen or if the pen exists at all doesn't prevent my ability to create that NFT and selling it for real money!

So obviously it could be done using bitcoin's OP_RETURN outputs. You could even define your own smart contracts that are completely different from bitcoin's smart contracts (scripts) and push it after the 0x6a!

I haven't yet read up enough on NFTs to confidently answer your question, but I'm pretty sure that they work a bit different from what you described.
Also, I already came across 'Bitcoin NFTs', which are sold on https://raretoshi.com/. While it's 'on BTC', it actually uses the Liquid sidechain.

But it is definitely possible to implement NFT directly on Bitcoin; simply through using a coloured coin.
To be honest, we have these for years and they can directly act as an NFT without any modification to the spec.

I guess in theory something like this could work but it seems like too much effort to involve bitcoin as most people that buy nfts online probably don't going to go to the trouble of checking the bitcoin transactions and hashes and stuff.  nfts are an ethereum thing not a bitcoin thing. as well, a hash doesn't really stop someone from counterfeiting an nft image.

It's a very nice conception though because it's gonna look self explanatory to most peeps who are unimaginably skeptical anyways
Point one:
These is not going to make Bitcoin decentralized anymore because you're trying to say that everyone that has traded with those coins must inherited those transaction histories just for clarifications and that will mean downloading piles and piles of histories which makes it very cumbersome.
Point two:
 Uhmm.. but don't you think if it implies in Bitcoin, most likely when they're sold or swapped to a scammer because(it isn't written on the face neither the addresses) don't you think if the person involved was supposed to begin the trade and probably sends btc first and he/she was scammed that it will mean lifting up voluminous trade histories and hashes just to possibly find a way to get him (the scammer)?
We'll, perhaps I was only referring to these antiquated Bitcoin not  when we'll nutured programmers will make all their efforts to creat  "Bitcoin pro" in it's highest dexterity!
Point three: Alice and Bob traded digital arts with money and they didn't trade money ITSELF I think it's not gonna look proper because these images doesn't have:
*Value *it isn't a legal tender* it can't be sold to anyone except upon request,.
 ...as the currency it was bought with...
This is just to my own discreetion 🙂
Been a while,
Trojane ❣️

First of all, I'd like to confirm that I have the correct technical background of the way NFTs work in my mind. So, let's say Alice wants to sell her digital art (image) to Bob.

1) She hashes her image and announces to everyone that this hash is owned by her.
2) Bob gives Alice an invoice which says she gives the rights of her art from her address to Bob's.
3) Once she announces it, it's Bob's. Now Bob can prove to anyone it's his art and Alice can prove it was her art before she handed it out to Bob.

In order for Bob to upload his now-owned art, he chooses as many NFT marketplaces as possible and uploads the file plus the hash. Any seller can verify it's Bob's and that he hasn't lied.

Let's see how can this work in Bitcoin:

1) Alice creates a transaction containing the hash of her image next to OP_RETURN and the state of her art. (Currently hers)
2) Bob gives Alice his address.
3) Alice creates another transaction which contains the hash of her image and a statement which reveals she wants to give the rights of her image to Bob, revoking her previous transaction rights.

Therefore, people can see where the first transaction of that art was made and follow the spent outputs to reach the current owner.