The way I read the article, the “worth millions” is the sum of the ransom demand.
The funny part is that the exploit is in the “smart” contract, ya know the thing that the blockchain keeps secure by forbidding any updates or patches.
The way I read the article, the “worth millions” is the sum of the ransom demand.
The funny part is that the exploit is in the “smart” contract, ya know the thing that the blockchain keeps secure by forbidding any updates or patches.
I mean low key it’s supposed to be a receipt that can’t be copied. The receipt being slapped onto an image is what most associated with NFTs but it’s more just like a code that provides proof of purchase/ownership because you can trace the history on the block chain
Except more like a star registry because there’s nothing to say you actually own the image. Other people on other blockchains might also claim that they own the image. Other people on the same blockchain might also claim the exact same image, just at a different URL.
It’s a receipt with a link to an image. The image is entirely unrelated to the NFT outside of the link that’s embedded into the NFT. It’s kinda like how you can embed an image from one website onto another separate unrelated website
The rub here being that you really only own the receipt, it doesn’t confer any legal rights or ensure exclusivity of the content it’s attached to. I get why people uninterested in being part of a PNG are excited about them, but I haven’t personally seen a use case for them that isn’t exploitable or already solved by current technology.
Back with GameStop the hope was the ability to sell/trade digital content like games. Because you actually own the digital content and the proof of purchase, closest to digital ownership I’ve seen.
PlayStation out here taking games after people bought them and shit is a strong reason for NFTs imo
How would NFTs make any difference for Sony losing rights to a game and removing it from their servers? They still know who purchased it from their own records but still removed access entirely.
That’s not what’s being said here. Not Sony losing rights to a game, just entirely being unable to provide proof of ownership on digital content.
I’ve had Microsoft do this to me for Minecraft during their transition to owning it where they claimed I didn’t own the game. I had to legitimately email them a picture of a receipt I owned to get my account back. Had I not had that receipt I’d not have the game.
I’ve never had Sony do this but I hear they’ve done this exact thing to people in other ways usually DLCs.
With NFTs there’s a third party undeniable proof of purchase and ownership. It takes that whole side away from the distributor giving power to the consumer.
In a better world I could then sell that NFT and proof of purchase and the company would honor it for the person I sold it to allowing for the resale of digital content.
It seems like this would solve the wrong problem with digital ownership. Even now the problem is not how to prove it, the problem is that you have to prove, and also that it’s not ownership