Another Interesting NFT thread from today twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112… .

Moxie's recent post is a fantastic illustration of how NFTs as they are currently implemented are bullshit, twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112… I'm not sure I'd go so far to call them an outright scam, but they're highly fragile assets that likely won't stand the test of time. I would be interested to see if someone is working on implementing NFTs in a way that I can feel confident that the digital art will remain provably attached to the NFT for decades and centuries in future.

There is no limit how many NFTs the artists, or anyone else, can make for the same artwork. NFTs don't contain the artwork, only a URL, and it isn't even enforcing content at the URL to be immutable! twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112… This tech is so dodgy through and through that even the name is a big stretch.

It does not contain a hash, and the image may vary over time or based on the requesting server. See Moxie's tweet thread showing this experimentally: twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112…

This is the tweet where he announced the NFT: twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112… I can still see it on OpenSea: opensea.io/assets/0x5c61afa47570ab2b562…... Maybe it was blocked and later unblocked? Anyhow, I think he is painting too black of an image of Web3. Even if OpenSea blocks his NFT, Ethereum scanners will still show it: etherscan.io/address/0x5c61afa47570ab2b…... It would take an Ethereum hard fork to tamper with it. That is a very big undertaking and rarely happens. So he can prove that he minted it. This is something we do not have on Web2. If FB deletes something, you do not have proof. And you cannot see it anymore. Neither in Chrome nor in Edge nor in Firefox. On Web3, if OpenSea blocks an NFT and MetaMask uses the OpenSea API to display it, you can use another browser and see it again.

Well, if it's not immutable then someone can replace the asset that you "own" just by updating what's served when you try to access that url: twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112… If the asset hosting is both immutable then you're guaranteed to always get the thing that you bought from the url your NFT points too. By being "distributed" I think the idea is the immutability is more guaranteed since no one person will be able to control the database.

iirc many NFT systems use IPFS [1], where content addresses and content hashes are the same. Of course, it still requires someone to actually store the underlying file. A good lesson in buyer beware - many NFTs are being made (and sold) by people who don't know what they're doing. Another quote from Moxie RE IPFS [2]: > another strange phenomenon is that NFTs which host metadata on IPFS often don't use ipfs:// urls, but rather an explicit https IPFS gateway, which isn't fundamentally that different from some random webserver in terms of what clients are capable of enforcing. [1] ipfs.io/ [2] twitter.com/moxie/status/14481623695536…

Like this? twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112…

Then content of your NFT changes twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112…

With IPFS you can pay someone to pin a file (or do it yourself), and bittorrent you can just seed it yourself. But if your NFT is a URL to some random webserver (which might not be the majority of NFTs, but is not an insignificant number according to [0]), you have no control over it unless the previous owner passes along the credentials somehow. Or, they might not pass them along, and modify or delete the file because...what are you going to do about it? Good luck getting a refund. Either way, you have to do something to ensure your investment doesn't become unreachable. [0]: twitter.com/moxie/status/14480665796112…