this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)

memes

20655 readers
1625 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.

Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.

Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.

The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.

If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.

It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.

And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.

[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.

In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Those would probably be a part of it.

Comparing a hashcode implies you have a verifiable source for the original footage.

You can do this manually and dig for the author but thats not always that simple.

A second step would be to build In a reference to the record in each media file, expressed as a small clickable logo.

You grandma deserves to be capable to verify.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

surely so does a block chain? at the heart of it a block chain is just a series of hashes too.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly my point why i think they would be a part of it.

Too often information about original media and potential hashes get lost. A decentralised ledger is the perfect tool for the job.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

buh, i mean, what would it add over just a single hash?

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If i give you any video from online would you or your grandma be able to find the hash of the original footage which is not provided?

[–] lime@feddit.nu -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

i thought we were talking about the opposite situation, archival.

so in this situation we're not actually talking about using a block chain, as in a progressive hashing function, but the blockchain, as in a massive network of computers used to verify anything.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You might have more technical knowledge about this than i do. I never considered a blockchain versus the blockchain. But your brief explanation does make sense.

But yes, the potential i saw in it is in a decentralised network of verification that no one party can control.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 9 months ago

i thought you were talking about independent verification of each frame of a video and storing it in a block chain to accompany that file, so that's my bad on missing the point.

but with using "the" blockchain, we're still dealing with the problem of massive emissions to keep it running, except now there's no profit motive. or rather, that's already true for a lot of things so it would need some sort of verification token to incentivise actually including our video hashes in the calculation. i think the ethereum people call it "gas money". so it would be pay-to-verify.

an alternative is to have a foundation like the internet archive host the verified hashes. way less energy use, and they need the money more anyway.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

With your scheme you can't prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can't be extracted from the camera.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.

It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.

Yeah, that's possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.

And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

There's not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 9 months ago

The virtual deeds would be great for game licences and trading second hand games online

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe -1 points 9 months ago

I mean we use fiat currency

the issue isnt that it is virtual

[–] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 9 months ago

This is correct.

This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.

The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.

If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

There are decentralized oracles. That's how DAI tracks the price of USD.

[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded

[–] phar@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

My first wife was tarded. She's a pilot now.

[–] Ronno@feddit.nl 1 points 9 months ago

It's remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than "art". NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It's a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.

[–] Spazz@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 9 months ago

NFTs are great, the stupid fucking pictures that everyone calls NFTs are not

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We will need an immutable signature for content at some point moving forward since AI is going to be so prevalent and it will be easy to make fraudulent clips, podcasts etc. NFTs would be perfect for this.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

What would be the advantage over current digital signatures?

The idea of NFT was not as much a proof of authenticity, but more like a way to sell and but those signatures.

In the context of AI I don't see an advantage to having a easy way to sell your private key sort of speaking.

[–] TinyLittlePuni@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Every time someone mentions NFT's, I think of this gem and its sequel