@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.
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 you wouldn't squat on land represented by an NFT https://unhabitat.org/un-habitat-oict-and-lto-network-release-first-open-source-urban-land-registry-solution-for-the
"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
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.
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…
But then, how is this not centralized control?
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)
#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.
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.
@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens Well, let's say ICANN would demand DENIC to get rid of example.de 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?
@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.
Definitions of decentralised Vs distributed go back to Baran's 1964 paper ( https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf ), 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...
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...
chaos.social – a Fediverse instance for & by the Chaos community