looks like those who don't waste their money on , are wasting their time being angry about them instead 🤔.

· · Web · 1 · 1 · 3

@sofia somewhat, yes, at least I do -- but that's because I care deeply about digital human rights, rights of artists, and access to culture.

All of these are threatened by NFTs, and I notice people either:
1. have no idea about NFTs
2. are very pro and vocal
3. are quite against but not very vocal

End result is that NFT proponents are much more vocal and visible, and are effectively controlling the debate. I find that dangerous.

@rysiek i don't think NFTs can really do that. if they really can, than only as a tiny extension of the plague called intellectual property. i'd wish people were more vocal about _that_ instead.

im my filter bubble, i've never seen a positive mention of them. but i've seen a redfash wanting "all coinbros on the wall" 🙄…

and like technically NFTs aren't really about claiming ownership of artworks, it's more of a solution waiting for a problem.

@sofia consider the following:

Agreed on the whole imaginary property thing. But NFT-infused IP laws would not even have any exceptions (fair use, quoting, satire, etc) whatsoever.

Meanwhile, people who do push for copyright reform, I feel, ignore or underestimate how big, potentially, the NFT problem is.

And it's big. It's not just a bunch of ill-informed coinbros, there's plenty of money sunk into this. Demands for "protection" of these "investments" are already out there. 🤦‍♀️

@sofia and while I agree on the "solution waiting for a problem" angle, plenty of NFT-pushing is done using language that either suggests or outright claims they are "a way to own digital art":

If enough people believe this crap and sink enough money into it, there will be enough pressure to make that into, well, an actual thing somehow.

And I find that possibility to much of a risk.

@rysiek @sofia Yes, it's easy to think that NFTs are nonsense because of technical or even basic reality reasons, but the people who make the laws do not understand technology or much of reality. e.g. F12 is hacking. The laws are made on the stories they are told, and they are told by people who want to protect their money.

@river @rysiek @sofia Dual integration - where an enforceable legal contract is paired with a blockchain based smart contract - might be a way to get NFT enforcement. We'll be seeing this in patent and property/ip law before art, I suspect.

Tho zoro already has a smart contract system that enables artist royalties when stuff is resold. Not much of a leap into using something like that to enforce tax code on a hybrid deed to a land claim.

@river @rysiek @sofia do you have a JWT to prove you own a license for that copy of photoshop? :blobugh:

@rysiek @sofia

We need more legislators who delight in making investments tank. The public needs to be slapped with the reality that if they can't afford to lose it all, they couldn't afford to have invested any of it in the first place.

@portpupper @sofia I would put less emphasis on blaming the potential victims of scams like that, and more on the scam artists.

@rysiek @sofia To be fair. Most NFT art is trash atm. Who would want to remix that? Then again, it might become popular 👀
@rysiek @sofia "the concept might become popular", I meant. not "the art"

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek This is either incredible satire or a testament to the sad state of NFTs 😂

"guarantees of the uniqueness and long-term value of NFTs"

A license that has to be enforced by a centralized court system can't possibly be reconciled with the core values of blockchains and NFTs.

If their NFT isn't "unique" then it's not nonfungible. And if their decentralized blockchain solution requires a centralized court system to work then it's not decentralized 😂

@rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia I think it's interesting because it clearly indicates that some people using NFTs misunderstood what an NFT does and now they're trying to shoehorn NFTs into a solution that satisfies their real need.

But if the problem is solved through copyright, then the NFT component is just a energy wasting buzzword.

@rysiek who am I to say whether a cryptographic signature is worth something to someone else :blobshrug:

And if it's hosted on a proof of stake blockchain I would even support that persons right to use it.

But yeah, an NFT hosted on Ethereum is just a waste of energy.

@rysiek @rune @sofia NFTs don't always waste energy (see proof of stake) and they are not always a useless buzzword (if domain names were NFTs resolved by a blockchain lookup then that would make them decentralised for a change). NFT 'art' is absolute bullshit though, I agree

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune domain names on any kind of blockchain will lead to pool of names being depleted gradually, as people forget their passwords, lose access their private keys, and so on.

They also (by design) do not provide any possibility of human intervention. Somebody tricks you and steals your domain from you? You're shit out of luck my friend, time to change the name of your company or organization. Nothing can be done.

Unless of course, like with DAO, the developers decide that this is bad…

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune …and just hard-code certain changes (like in the case of DAO-related ETH hard-fork).

But then, how is this not centralized control? :thaenkin:

Finally, proof-of-stake means whoever gets to control >50% of voting power on the blockchain, controls the blockchain. Money equals power, yet again.

Thanks, I'll take the current (imperfect) DNS system over anything blockchainy.

(full disclosure, I work for the .IS registry; make of it what you will)

@rysiek @sofia @rune
The Ethereum devs were only able to do that with the consent of the nodes. And they weren't 100% successful. Nodes that did not agree, stayed with the old version of the blockchain, and that's the origin of Ethereum Classic.

As for PoS being rule of the rich, well, everything is rule of the rich, including DNS. How much do you have to pay to own a TLD again? I'd also prefer the possible middling centralisation of PoS over the explicit and extreme centralisation of DNS anyday.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune that's a fair view, of course.

My problem is that even with the "extreme centralization" of DNS, there is a way to stop some bad outcomes (remember .org sale that got stopped?).

Meanwhile, if it's blockchain, seller sells buyer buys, and that's it, whether you like it or not.

@rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia A blockchain solution would also completely break the very intentional rules laid out for some TLD's.

For example rules that help deal with typo squatting and domain squatting.

The ethos of blockchain is removing regulation, and that ethos is bad.

@rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia OTOH you could decentralise DNS somewhat by replacing ICANN with a consortium made up of the national registries, and require a number of root servers at each of them. At least as an outline of a solution, that is.

@rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia The point here is, it's theoretically very easy to decentralise DNS, because other than the root maintenance, it's already decentralised - via delegation.

@jens @rune @Hyolobrika @sofia and, spoiler alert, this is kinda sorta where we are now. Almost.

#ICANN was forced to create certain governance structures and procedures that make it possible to get involved and have a say in their decisions. Plus, with the global scrutiny on them for quite a while now, they are really doing their best to tread lightly.

It's far from perfect, but way better than some blockchain-based techbro controlled contraption that would have curious bugs in its smart contract.

@rysiek @jens @rune @Hyolobrika @sofia and even with ICANN in place there are still independent root servers that serve own TLDs 😱

All it takes is adding one line into your DNS resolver's config and magic happens.

Not to mention that national domains are also not simply ruled by ICANN, these organisations are able to make independent decisions. And thanks to "Too big to fail" a lot can't just shut down by ICANN.

@sheogorath @rysiek @jens @rune @sofia
>these organisations are able to make independent decisions. And thanks to "Too big to fail" a lot can't just shut down by ICANN.

Those independant root servers can clash with each other and if we just pick one that will bring us back to where we started. Blockchains can clash with each other but everyone agreeing on one will not (if it's implemented correctly) cause centralisation.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens Well, let's say ICANN would demand DENIC to get rid of which DENIC refuses, what ICANN could do/try is to remove the entire de TLD from the root servers or put in some legal thingys at DENIC. But it's quite unlikely that ICANN would remove the whole .de TLD. Not only would this cause a gigantic outcry, it would break all trust in ICANN and also open up more legal thingys against ICANN. So basically TLDs are too big to fail.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens Talking about these independent rootservers, yes, they have to arrange with the other ones, but so far, that works quite well. Also you actually can force one or the other root servers for a TLD in the resolver config. So while they technically can clash, your resolver could still fix it.

That brings us to the blockchain example, which, as you said, due to everyone using just one, is actually more centralised than existing DNS? What was the goal again?

Show newer
@rysiek @jens @rune @sofia
>#ICANN was forced to create ...
Tell that to @peter

>curious bugs in [the] smart contract
But the danger of curious bugs running on opaque root servers never crossed your mind.
With a smart contract you can verify that a certain binary (and with reproducible builds, a certain source code file) is running "on the blockchain" (on the mining nodes).

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune @jens well there's only one way I can read that toot. Thanks for that clarity.

@rysiek @sofia @rune @jens Hey, if you get to call us names, we get to call you names. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia Actually, DNS is distributed, and far from being decentralized. A tree is, by essence, hierarchical, and hierarchy is, by essence, opposed to peer systems. One could decentralize one node of the DNS tree, and a branch could be composed of decentralized nodes, but each delegation acts as a bailliwick, both technically and organisationally.

@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia That's a lot to unpack.

Definitions of decentralised Vs distributed go back to Baran's 1964 paper ( ), where the main criterion he uses to distinguish distributed systems from decentralised ones is whether the destruction of a node or link affects the availability of nodes (in a nutshell).

Conceptually - in name structure and resolution order of full names - DNS..

@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... is not in the slightest distributed. What makes it distributed technically is that at every level in the name hierarchy it's possible to have redundancy, such that destruction of any individual name server does not affect resolution.

Organisationally, it's not distributed, either. Here, we don't even have this kind of redundancy. It's not as if - commonly speaking - any name...

@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... component is managed by multiple legal entities. So I don't really know where the claim comes from that it's distributed.

It's very much decentralised organisationally, though, in that no central entity controls the entire name assignment space.

TLDs at the root are a bit of an exception simply because they're a single root, because the names are hierarchical.

Are we talking about...

Show newer
Show newer
@rysiek @sofia @rune ICANN is an org run by humans, and humans can be compromised. Whether it's by being forced by a powerful government who wants to remove criticism of it, paid off by a wealthy person or org, or just by plain old politics. "Governance structures" can't stop those bad outcomes, can they.
@rysiek @sofia @rune That's a fair point. I suppose maybe a petname system is in order (although I don't really understand everything about them).
Or maybe, one could set up an m-of-n multisig wallet with (n-1) friends, and if you lose your private key, m friends can work together to transfer your domains to a new wallet. Maybe with the help of a smart contract, one could make it so that if the owner's key is used, they don't have to get the consent of (m-1) friends, but if it isn't, it becomes m-of-n.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune and then somebody will offer a service of being some of those ms, and lo and behold we are back in registry model, just with way more wasted cycles. 😉

Joking, but only slightly.

@rysiek @sofia @rune No, we are not. The difference is that people have the option of relying on their friends or just taking the risk. You got a problem with freedom of choice?

Sign in to participate in the conversation – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community