Most of the comments made in this thread about NFTs could also be made about digital signatures, HTTPS, Signal, PGP and traditional forms of crypto.
“I can open up devtools and change the words on this page. HTTPS has no value.“
“I can photoshop you digitally signing a different document. Digital signatures have no value.”
I fairly obviously disagree with those statements but if you do too - you may wish to put your pitchfork down for a moment and think deeper about the value of digitally signed artwork.
1. Sites like https://nft.storage/ (which I dislike as they have a silly bug with content types) or Pinata also go to IPFS. Just because the https URL doesn't look like a well known IPFS HTTP gateway doesn't mean it's not on IPFS.
2. Good point. I haven't investigated this but I should.
> Put simply, ~10% of NFTs are on-chain, ~40% of NFTs are on private servers and are doomed, and ~50% remaining are on IPFS.
40% is the doomed figure. Which is way too high but there’s a lot of idiots minting shitty NFTs. Since the study wasn’t limited to NFTs on marketplaces (like we’re discussing here) that doesn’t surprise me.
if the data you’ve pinned to IPFS is not accessed within the 6 month period, our garbage collecting system will delete the data. In order to keep data around indefinitely, you will need to access it somehow at least every 6 months.
“I can open up devtools and change the words on this page. HTTPS has no value.“
“I can photoshop you digitally signing a different document. Digital signatures have no value.”
I fairly obviously disagree with those statements but if you do too - you may wish to put your pitchfork down for a moment and think deeper about the value of digitally signed artwork.