NFT the DP

daleharvey 5 years ago |

This is fairly gross, pretending to be socially concious when if the technical claims were true it would be a horrific potential for abuse (revenge porn etc).

NFT's have nothing to do with ownership, if someone puts up your data illegally or even just breaking copyright, get the police / a lawyer involved and they will take it down, luckily NFTs are heavily centralised so it wont be difficult.

beaner 5 years ago | |

The funny part is the image itself isn't even on the blockchain, it's centrally hosted somewhere. The token is just a pointer. You can ruin it by having the actual content taken down, wherever it is.

asciimo 5 years ago | | |

The Interplanetary File System is a decentralized solution.

https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/mint-nfts-with-ipfs/#mint-an-nft...

beaner 5 years ago | | |

True, but my comment that the image isn't on the blockchain is still accurate. IPFS is not a blockchain and content can be changed.

gruez 5 years ago | | |

Doesn't IPFS use content-addressing? In other words, the url of a file is the hash, so the contents can't be changed.

beaner 5 years ago | | |

Can it not be removed by the original uploader, or anyone else to acquire their credentials?

heckerhut 5 years ago | | |

correct

capableweb 5 years ago | |

> luckily NFTs are heavily centralised so it wont be difficult

Interestingly enough, most NFT would disagree with you as long as they are backed by content-addressable systems. What do you mean with that "NFTs are heavily centralized"? The metadata itself is stored on Ethereum or similar while the actual bytes of the media is stored in IPFS. How is that centralized?

Qworg 5 years ago | | |

Who is pinning it?

https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372163423446917122?s=19

gruez 5 years ago | | |

Some digging shows that tweet is totally misinformed. He seems to think that because niftygateway's json response returns an internet-facing url, that the underlying NFT must also be referencing an internet-facing url (as opposed to an IPFS url/hash). This is incorrect. The URL he's seeing in the API response is simply a IPFS proxy service offered by the NFT website. If you extract the identifier of the NFT from the url he linked[1] and plug it to etherscan[2], then scroll down to "trumpVictoryIPFSHash", you can see that the NFT is actually referencing the IPFS hash directly, and not the internet facing url. You can confirm this by plugging that value into an IFPS gateway[3]

[1] https://niftygateway.com/itemdetail/primary/0x12f28e2106ce8f...

[2] https://etherscan.io/address/0x12f28e2106ce8fd8464885b80ea86...

[3] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmTu6rr8o8CwbWDf2AbP13gdLFQKbqk1xaHZhFm...

Qworg 5 years ago | | |

The responses to that thread go into more detail, but I'll ask the more direct and pertinent question:

IPFS requires someone to pin the data - who will be doing that going forward? The platform? The artist? The owner? Thus far, it isn't anyone's responsibility to make sure the IPFS hash returns.

asciimo 5 years ago | | |

TIL that NFT would have been different if Trump had won.

dheera 5 years ago | |

> NFT's have nothing to do with ownership,

Exactly! Finally someone said it. I really don't understand these people selling NFTs of a vase or a framed artwork.

If I obtained that vase legally (by payment in USD or BTC or whatever) and it's sitting in my apartment then I own it by default. Someone else can have an NFT for it if that makes them all giddy and happy but at the end of the day it's my vase, it's staying in my residence, and I can do whatever I want with it.

Maybe I should start selling some NFTs for a blue pixel on my screen. Seems like a good cash cow opportunity since it seems that people love to "digitally own" (whatever that means) things that they don't have and that other people actually own.

thesuitonym 5 years ago | |

I've wondered about this. Is there a reason you can't store a text encoded image on the actual NFT?

dezmou 5 years ago | | |

Check this https://github.com/dezmou/cryptoghost.art

motohagiography 5 years ago |

Blackmail as a service. Well done, internet. But you're 25+ years behind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bell

Not completely sure what the impact of revenge porn is, but I would posit it could reduce your chances of having and raising a kid in a two parent household. Making lists like this have as bad an impact on society than they do on the individuals involved. It's difficult to articulate what someone could reasonably see as the proportionate response to this would be, but it doesn't seem to have a top. I'd recommend to the authors to think these things through, but really, they should just try to be better people.

beaner 5 years ago |

It's funny till you realize the same thing can be done to people who aren't weirdos too, like for revenge porn and hacked nudes.

mekkkkkk 5 years ago | |

Yeah, the whole idea of holding data "reverse-ransomed" (pay to have it removed) is a bit unpalatable. Can't see any wholesome uses for it.

godot 5 years ago |

All grossness and legality aside, as someone who didn't know much about NFT or the minting/selling process, this was surprisingly the easiest to understand guide about it I've seen anywhere, in plain English that most people could understand.

tripu 5 years ago |

This is bad. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not to minimise the seriousness of cyber-flashing, but sharing with the world intimate/sensitive data/media without the consent of the other party is reprehensible (too). I don't think that “but what they did was 10× worse!” makes this site defensible. I surely hope there are better strategies to deal with unsolicited naked pics.

capableweb 5 years ago | |

Hm, I'm not sure you miss the point of the website. It says: "If you feel the urge to send a no-context jpeg of your junk, we’ll give it the audience you clearly think it deserves", so this website is for the people who want to share their intimate junk to the whole world, not for others to share other peoples intimate junk (which I'm pretty sure is illegal in most places)

mekkkkkk 5 years ago | | |

No, I think you are the one missing the point. This is clearly for people to post unsolicited DP's that they have received from others. The sentence you quoted is tongue-in-cheek.

tripu 5 years ago | | |

That's way too charitable a reading. See context (Twitter, coverage): it's clearly intended as a tool for victims of cyber-flashing, to be used _without_ the consent of the person sending the photo(s).

gruez 5 years ago | | |

A few lines down:

>You’re done! Now send the NFT link back to Mr. Creep and laugh all the way to bank.

Presumably "Mr. Creep" is the sender of the DP, and not the person using the site and minting the NFT.

boredumb 5 years ago |

Repulsive and vindictive people masquerading as socially righteous? Glad this hasn't been mainstreamed into an acceptable personality type in the last decade!

tfang17 5 years ago |

NFTs are following the same trend as 2017 ICOs. Bubble is going to pop at some point. The survivors will be the projects with real long-term value.

gruez 5 years ago | |

what's the "real long-term value" of a NFT? At least with ICOs you can say that the tokens could be used for something.

heckerhut 5 years ago | | |

People building real infrastructure with dumb money. If you cannot see what that would be in case of NFTs that’s okay. Other people do.

dezmou 5 years ago | |

The survivor will be the NFT that pictures are actually on chain

chessmango 5 years ago |

MetaMask link goes to https://mintable.app/ FYI Real link is https://metamask.io/

1123581321 5 years ago |

It seems like the NFT wouldn’t have much blackmail value if created from an image saved locally. It would be the provable association with the social media account that would give it teeth.

JakeStone 5 years ago |

Since I've never sent a DP to anyone, I think this is hilarious, folks sending them out to people are "obviously" proud of what they're displaying, so I'm not seeing what's the problem here. (tongue in cheek, but I still find the outrage hilarious)

amelius 5 years ago |

Not HN-worthy.

interdrift 5 years ago |

Weird.