I think this is a natural evolution.
Just look at the evolution of signatures in the last few decades.
From signing everything per wet signature to e signatures to biometrics.
The more unique and identifiable something becomes, the more useful it will be for society.
Another example that comes to mind is in forensic science with fingerprints, blood type and DNA.
I think this progression in the technology is inevitable.
Imagine not needing an expert appraiser for an antique/painting and doing it with blockchain technology.
Topic: NFT vs HASH ID | comparing different approaches to things tokenization (Read 80 times)
June 07, 2022, 01:26:50 PM
March 14, 2022, 09:30:56 AM
Firstly, the 3DPass video talks about 3D objects and not 2D pictures which is what most NFTs of today are. Granted that if we get to tokenizing 3D models then there will be a need for a digital representation of a 3D object. If 3DPass works it could be used for that. I don't know if 3D pass will work for paintings and drawings as we know it.
Their site says, they're going to work for different types of things: https://3dpass.org/proof_of_scan.html#recognition_algorithms
"Types of things to recognize: 3D objects, 2D objects (drawings), 2D fingerprints, face recognition, voice, melody, radio signal, everything recognizable by means of machine processing. "
We'll see..
My view on the current mechanism of NFT is that if an artist creates a picture or other work of art and signs the file with his or her account into the blockchain then that artist is the owner and creator. The chances of the same work of art suddenly appearing elsewhere and a claim that the second is the original will be difficult to prove as the transaction where the work of art was written to is time-stamped. The second claim will not be able to write it to the blockchain at an earlier date. The second claim will therefore have a very difficult time to prove that the second file is the original. That is unfortunately how intellectual property works.
I can give a few other examples: Firstly, If a traditional painter creates a painting, then there may be another painter that copies it, so the risk we have now is not different from the traditional risk. The only difference is it is easier to do so with a digital file. So it is not a new risk, the likelihood has just increased. The second example is if you have a new idea and want to take out a patent, it is in your interest not to talk about the idea in public or leak the idea because then it will become difficult to register the patent. It would be best to keep the idea private until you have registered the patent and created notarized and tim-stamped evidence of your idea. If someone else later finds out about the idea they will have a difficult time to prove that they created the idea earlier.
I can give a few other examples: Firstly, If a traditional painter creates a painting, then there may be another painter that copies it, so the risk we have now is not different from the traditional risk. The only difference is it is easier to do so with a digital file. So it is not a new risk, the likelihood has just increased. The second example is if you have a new idea and want to take out a patent, it is in your interest not to talk about the idea in public or leak the idea because then it will become difficult to register the patent. It would be best to keep the idea private until you have registered the patent and created notarized and tim-stamped evidence of your idea. If someone else later finds out about the idea they will have a difficult time to prove that they created the idea earlier.
I see some more problems here, besides "who published first":
1. There is no connection between the artist and the blockchain account. How do we know for sure that it's his or her?
2. We need a human being, getting involved in, to identify if those two works are the same or similar to one another.
3. There is no connection between the image, making by the painting, and the file signed.
4. The hash doesn't include sufficient data, however, it is tethered to just one blockchain platform, depending which wallet was used for signing. There is a problem with decentralization, since then.
So, it's going to be equally difficult to proof the ownership for the real owner as well, as for the fake one.
I would rather say that the current NFT technology should be improved in two ways:
- Create a mechanism to add a watermark or other digital mark/content tied to the real NFT creator into an NFT before writing it to the blockchain. I read a lot of threads on the forum and saw comments on something similar elsewhere on the forum.
- Create an anti plagiarize mechanism where a digital file can be uploaded and features compared with other uploaded files. Two things can be compared, a digital signature of the file itself and a feature similarity score. Between these two it would be possible to determine how close one work of art is to another known work of art. Something like 95%+ is plagiarized. Such a tool can scan all NFTs on the various platforms or owners can upload their NFTs to the service. It may also be that NFT market places can introduce such functionality. It should be possible to do this now as photographs can be used for biometric recognition. In a similar way an NFT creator could register the NFT for "biometric recognition".
That's would be useful, for sure!
March 13, 2022, 11:04:11 AM
Firstly, the 3DPass video talks about 3D objects and not 2D pictures which is what most NFTs of today are. Granted that if we get to tokenizing 3D models then there will be a need for a digital representation of a 3D object. If 3DPass works it could be used for that. I don't know if 3D pass will work for paintings and drawings as we know it.
My view on the current mechanism of NFT is that if an artist creates a picture or other work of art and signs the file with his or her account into the blockchain then that artist is the owner and creator. The chances of the same work of art suddenly appearing elsewhere and a claim that the second is the original will be difficult to prove as the transaction where the work of art was written to is time-stamped. The second claim will not be able to write it to the blockchain at an earlier date. The second claim will therefore have a very difficult time to prove that the second file is the original. That is unfortunately how intellectual property works.
I can give a few other examples: Firstly, If a traditional painter creates a painting, then there may be another painter that copies it, so the risk we have now is not different from the traditional risk. The only difference is it is easier to do so with a digital file. So it is not a new risk, the likelihood has just increased. The second example is if you have a new idea and want to take out a patent, it is in your interest not to talk about the idea in public or leak the idea because then it will become difficult to register the patent. It would be best to keep the idea private until you have registered the patent and created notarized and tim-stamped evidence of your idea. If someone else later finds out about the idea they will have a difficult time to prove that they created the idea earlier.
I would rather say that the current NFT technology should be improved in two ways:
My view on the current mechanism of NFT is that if an artist creates a picture or other work of art and signs the file with his or her account into the blockchain then that artist is the owner and creator. The chances of the same work of art suddenly appearing elsewhere and a claim that the second is the original will be difficult to prove as the transaction where the work of art was written to is time-stamped. The second claim will not be able to write it to the blockchain at an earlier date. The second claim will therefore have a very difficult time to prove that the second file is the original. That is unfortunately how intellectual property works.
I can give a few other examples: Firstly, If a traditional painter creates a painting, then there may be another painter that copies it, so the risk we have now is not different from the traditional risk. The only difference is it is easier to do so with a digital file. So it is not a new risk, the likelihood has just increased. The second example is if you have a new idea and want to take out a patent, it is in your interest not to talk about the idea in public or leak the idea because then it will become difficult to register the patent. It would be best to keep the idea private until you have registered the patent and created notarized and tim-stamped evidence of your idea. If someone else later finds out about the idea they will have a difficult time to prove that they created the idea earlier.
I would rather say that the current NFT technology should be improved in two ways:
- Create a mechanism to add a watermark or other digital mark/content tied to the real NFT creator into an NFT before writing it to the blockchain. I read a lot of threads on the forum and saw comments on something similar elsewhere on the forum.
- Create an anti plagiarize mechanism where a digital file can be uploaded and features compared with other uploaded files. Two things can be compared, a digital signature of the file itself and a feature similarity score. Between these two it would be possible to determine how close one work of art is to another known work of art. Something like 95%+ is plagiarized. Such a tool can scan all NFTs on the various platforms or owners can upload their NFTs to the service. It may also be that NFT market places can introduce such functionality. It should be possible to do this now as photographs can be used for biometric recognition. In a similar way an NFT creator could register the NFT for "biometric recognition".
March 13, 2022, 04:21:36 AM
Hello!
A few weeks ago I've learned about a new different approach to things tokenization. It got impressed, so I've tried it out as much as I could. I would appreciate if you gave your independent opinion about it.
Compare:
NFT - you can sign a file by your wallet signature and then mint NFT using a smart-contract.
You can NOT identify what's inside of a file. For example, I have a 3D model or just a picture signed. If I've changed the file with just one byte, the signature will have changed but the picture will not. Therefore, I conclude, NFT does not have anything to do with the object. The chain "Object - NFT" is broken, more over, you have no control over the copy-cats.
Relationship: One object - many files - many NFTs with no control
HASH ID - you can identify an object by means of processing of its 3D models and then mint tokens, backed by the object (not by a file). The object authenticity is getting verified by Nodes-validators using Proof of Scan consensus.
So, HASH ID will remain the same, no matter how many times you getting the object scanned. You can not make copy-cats. The chain "Object - Token" is closed.
Relationship: One object - One token with full control proved by math
You can try it out yourself, just download pass3d tool: https://3dpass.org/pass3d.html, https://github.com/3Dpass/pass3d/releases
Proof of Scan description: https://3dpass.org/proof_of_scan.html
--
Watch this video explaining the difference in simple words: https://youtu.be/zbuDLB_NMOI
A few weeks ago I've learned about a new different approach to things tokenization. It got impressed, so I've tried it out as much as I could. I would appreciate if you gave your independent opinion about it.
Compare:
NFT - you can sign a file by your wallet signature and then mint NFT using a smart-contract.
You can NOT identify what's inside of a file. For example, I have a 3D model or just a picture signed. If I've changed the file with just one byte, the signature will have changed but the picture will not. Therefore, I conclude, NFT does not have anything to do with the object. The chain "Object - NFT" is broken, more over, you have no control over the copy-cats.
Relationship: One object - many files - many NFTs with no control
HASH ID - you can identify an object by means of processing of its 3D models and then mint tokens, backed by the object (not by a file). The object authenticity is getting verified by Nodes-validators using Proof of Scan consensus.
So, HASH ID will remain the same, no matter how many times you getting the object scanned. You can not make copy-cats. The chain "Object - Token" is closed.
Relationship: One object - One token with full control proved by math
You can try it out yourself, just download pass3d tool: https://3dpass.org/pass3d.html, https://github.com/3Dpass/pass3d/releases
Proof of Scan description: https://3dpass.org/proof_of_scan.html
--
Watch this video explaining the difference in simple words: https://youtu.be/zbuDLB_NMOI
Jump to: