6 ms·

> [...] NFTs instead contain a URL that points to the data. What surprised me about the standards was that there’s no hash commitment for the data located at th

> [...] NFTs instead contain a URL that points to the data. What surprised me about the standards was that there’s no hash commitment for the data located at the URL. Looking at many of the NFTs on popular marketplaces being sold for tens, hundreds, or millions of dollars, that URL often just points to some VPS running Apache somewhere. Anyone with access to that machine, anyone who buys that domain name in the future, or anyone who compromises that machine can change the image, title, description, etc for the NFT to whatever they’d like at any time (regardless of whether or not they “own” the token). There’s nothing in the NFT spec that tells you what the image “should” be, or even allows you to confirm whether something is the “correct” image. How did we go from trapdoor functions being the foundation of everything in the space to forgetting to hash a link? Is the rational that these links should only ever be IPFS links? That's fine I guess, at least those are hashed. Why does the protocol allow for this to happen?

ptudan 5y ago
There are plenty of use cases for NFTs with updating data. Many exist already. Most high quality NFT art project do use IPFS, yes. But that is not the only use case for NFTs
- jagger27 5y ago
  I believe that it's possible for there to be a reasonable use case for a pointer to something that changes, though I'd appreciate an example because I can't come up with one. If it links to something that's not on some sort of blockchain, then what's the point? If an NFT contains a normal URL, how could that possibly be valuable? The domain could expire or be transferred, or the original server hosting it could go down. I can't imagine any NFT that holds "ownership" of a real world tangible asset having any meaning whatsoever.
  - ptudan 5y ago
    Imagine a logistics system that uses the existing capability of NFTs to give all interested parties a clear and transparent view of ownership transfers, eg factory to container ship to port etc. The data underneath can only be modified by the current owner of the NFT. The off-chain data could be encrypted and fit the particular companies standard. The blockchain need not contain 100% of the business logic for a use-case, but instead only the parts that are relevant to being trustless and public.

ptudan 5y ago

There are plenty of use cases for NFTs with updating data. Many exist already. Most high quality NFT art project do use IPFS, yes. But that is not the only use case for NFTs

jagger27 5y ago
I believe that it's possible for there to be a reasonable use case for a pointer to something that changes, though I'd appreciate an example because I can't come up with one. If it links to something that's not on some sort of blockchain, then what's the point? If an NFT contains a normal URL, how could that possibly be valuable? The domain could expire or be transferred, or the original server hosting it could go down. I can't imagine any NFT that holds "ownership" of a real world tangible asset having any meaning whatsoever.
- ptudan 5y ago
  Imagine a logistics system that uses the existing capability of NFTs to give all interested parties a clear and transparent view of ownership transfers, eg factory to container ship to port etc. The data underneath can only be modified by the current owner of the NFT. The off-chain data could be encrypted and fit the particular companies standard. The blockchain need not contain 100% of the business logic for a use-case, but instead only the parts that are relevant to being trustless and public.