Ask HN: Legitimacy/sensibility of digital art NFTs – authorization
4 comments
[deleted]
This is a variant of the oracle problem; it's not solvable. It also assumes that NFT art is a real thing and not just an excuse for pump and dumps.
This is not about the blockchain oracle problem. This is about meaninglessness of NFTs without a certificate of authorization of NFT, this authorization is unrelated to blockchain.
Without some real thing, there could be no excuse.
The simple way to implement NFT authorization is to require that the NFT contains a statement signed by the author of the work that the NFT is authorized. This seems to work only when the work is well-known enough: there is a robust consensus on "who the author is", that is, the way to verify the signature; and if the work is less known, unauthorized NFTs can be created with nobody noticing.
Is there a way to certify authorization of an NFT when the work is less known and thus establishing authorship is impossible through consensus?
Also, how much commonly accepted is the described way of NFT authorization for well-known works? How much population disregards NFT authorization, and why? And I also wonder why people use NFTs at all for non-well-known works.