• mihor@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why? It could be enforced in the same way that a BTC transaction is validated, just adding a rule that a wallet, specified as the author, should get a percentage of the trade.

    • chameleon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can easily end up with A gifting B a million and then B sending A the NFT for free, potentially with a trusted escrow service in between to make sure both of these actually happen. The NFT marketplaces are essentially already acting as escrow, so this isn’t weird.

      Only thing you could probably enforce is that moving something from one key to another requires a fee to be paid to the original artist, but that’d also trigger if A wants to move their assets to a different key (eg in or out of some hardware wallet, online wallet or marketplace). And if A and B trust each other strongly they can simply share the key.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or they set up a multisig wallet, each creating one keypair directly on approved (tamper resistant) hardware wallet models, transfer it to the multisig wallet, and now control of the collection of multisig wallets means you control the token.

        So now you trade it by trading the set of hardware wallets. Validated by each original participant including results from an audit of the key generation procedure with the hardware wallet.

        No trace on the blockchain, and the trust model is more robust than simply taking the word for it as one of them share the private key claiming they did not keep their own copy.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The protocol doesn’t support covenants like that in smart contracts. It has been discussed a lot but not implemented.

      It gets complicated fast.

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the second the rule becomes inconvenient there will be a fork or some kind of bullshit that removes the rule. This has already been done a couple of times when money got stolen from big investors. The thefts followed the rules set up on the blockchain and nothing in those transactions were different from a normal transaction but humans looked at them and said that they weren’t valid and did whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them.

      • TitanLaGrange@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them

        Apparently ultimately this involves hitting the person hiding the encryption keys with a $4 wrench until they provide the keys.

      • mihor@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree, forks can be made but in reality nobody cares, 99.999% still follow the ‘main’ repo. Sometimes shit like that happens (looking at you, Buterik!), but that kinda misses the point that the validation is not implemented optimally.

        • Fisk400@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hope you are aware that you went from “this can’t be broken” to “I trust that people wouldn’t break it” to “sometimes they do break it but it’s not that often” in a very short comment.

          • mihor@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the nuance is in the number of people who confirm the change, they must be 50% +1.

            • Fisk400@feddit.nu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So if 50%+1 of people decide that they don’t want to pay artists they can just stop doing that. Sounds iron clad to me.

              • mihor@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s simply the way real decentralization works, I’m afraid.

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, that’s the way the blockchain works. It’s one way to do decentralisation, a very bad way based on property and absent of trust.

                  A much better way to do decentralisation is what you are currently participating in. Federation is based on trust and building communities, not cold maths dictating who owns a bunch of imaginary bullshit.

                • Fisk400@feddit.nu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s what I am fucking saying! You cant design around greedy fucks. Also this whole discussion I participated in the delusion that those 50% were individual people. We both know that they are not because there is nothing to identify individuals so the system is entirely decided by wealth so it isn’t even decentralized. It’s all just a scam that regularly collapses by design because that is how the rich people extract real money from it.