How I became Leonardo da Vinci on the Blockchain
art blockchain satire technology · 50 comments · 550 words · read ~29,434 times.
Yesterday at the CogX conference, I sat in a room listening to companies pitch their blockchain based startups. Because I hate myself.
One in particular caught my attention. On the surface it seems to solve an important economic problem - art forgery and provenance.
By putting your artwork on the "BitCoin Blockchain", Verisart will ✨hand wavy magic✨ increase the trust in art dealers and reduce fraud.
That's a pretty neat idea. A distributed public ledger of who I have sold my art to. And, if they sell it, they have a cryptographically signed certificate proving its provenance. The seller can sign the certificate with their private key to say they've sold it to the new owner of a specific public key. Nifty!
Except… and I hate to bring the art industry into disrepute… what if I sell a fake and keep the original in my Underground Vault?
There's no way to permanently attach a digital certificate to a physical work of art.
Incidentally, this is the problem with all the startups claiming the blockchain will revolutionise the integrity of global logistics markets. Sure, you can slap a QR code on a crate - but nothing stops an unscrupulous middle-man from replacing or adulterating the contents of the crate.
Let's get back to Verisart's other issue. Proving that I am the creator or owner of a piece of artwork.
Long story short, I convinced them that I painted the Mona Lisa. An excellent situationalist prank. Much avant-garde, so postmodernism.
For this "proof" I provided Verisart with...
- An email address
- A photo of the Mona Lisa from Wikipedia
- …
- Er…
- That's it!
That was all that was required. I didn't have to provide them with a public key, a certified copy of my passport, a high resolution copy of the artwork. Nothing.
Because the blockchain is immutable, that "proof" is there forever now. You mustn't make mistakes when irrevocably signing something.
So, what does this mean? Can I waltz into the Louvre and ask for "my" painting back?
No, obviously not. Not even a moron in a hurry would think that I was a time traveller or that I owned the most famous portrait in Europe.
But, if it is certified on the blockchain, it must be true!
I'm sure there are many sensible uses for this technology. I'm also sure there are many investors who will throw money at any pitch which contains the right buzzwords.
It's almost as if we can't just throw technology at the social problem of trust…
I don't understand the blockchain hype.
A startup has certified my artwork & placed their verification on the bitcoin blockchain.
Now art dealers & auctioneers can feel secure that I am the original artist.
One small problem… I am not Leonardo da Vinci!
verisart.com/works/23f2c64a… pic.x.com/msjqmctt0y
Week Notes - Sick Note
Week Notes - A Year In Review
Stop this digital ownership madness. NFTs are bullshit. And the stupid makes me angry.
Certified Blockchain Professional - Part 1
Interview: Open source is good for AI but, is AI good for open source?
Alex says:
I often think the same when I hear people pitching blockchain based identity solutions (especially for the developing world). They correctly identify a problem: lack of a provable identity presents hurdles for poorer people interacting with the economy. But they fail to understand the root causes or the specifics of the problems. The software industry has a habit of viewing problems in other fields/professions as "simple" if you throw technology at them; it's almost a collective Dunning-Kruger effect.
I would slightly quibble with your point that "Incidentally, this is the problem with all the startups claiming the blockchain will revolutionise the integrity of global logistics markets". Blockchain may allow automation of some of the paper processes for bills of lading etc and the nature of the logistics industry with lots of counterparties involved in one transaction might make a distributed system attractive. It wont make it much more fraud resistant than the current paper processes, but it could make it faster and more transparent which could be of value.
Qhartman says:
Your complaints about this system are legitimate, but I think you’re mis-attributing them to blockchain. When you cross from the physical to the digital world, blockchain still works, but only if you keep humans involved to validate the data entry. In the case of the art, that would require physical inspection and possibly tagging the piece. I’m imagining an RFID tag embedded in the frame or similar. Once that piece is done, then this becomes a useful piece of tech for managing provenance because of the transparency it allows.
The general supply chain problem is similarly improved. You still need tamper-evident seals on crates. You still need people verifying at the end (at least) that what is stated in the blockchain manifest is actually there, but you can do it with less human interaction and less verification and more transparency.
Thats where this, and the general supply chain problem, get helped by blockchain. The current paper systems used in global commerce allow for many opportunities for fraud because of the many many manual, paper-based steps they involve. Those get driven out as distributed systems shine lights on bad actors. Once a problem is discovered and someone asks “Who caused this?”, the immediate answer isn’t “I don’t know, it will take me a few weeks to go through the paperwork.”. The answer is “We got this thing from Joe at XYZ place, let’s go talk to him.”. Therein lies the value.
Blockchain can’t solve for garbage-in/garbage-out, we still need other controls for that. That’s not the problem it’s trying to solve though. Look at the work Maersk is doing for example of how applying blockchain well can be helpful. Ibrahim Gokcen talks about it here: https://events.technologyreview.com/video/?event=business-of-blockchain&year=2018
Lots of good talks there, but that and Frank Yiannas’ talks are the most relevant.
@edent says:
What stops my physically moving the RFID to another frame? If you have tamper evident seals - why do you need a ledger? Could the problems be solved with a normal database based on PKI? If pirates can take over 50% of your chain, can they hide their smuggling?
Blockchain is amazing technology - but it is a solution in search of a problem.
Vulture says:
Yes, and the people checking the painting could fraudulent.
Using a blockchain does not prevent:
Events that are happening that are not registered Events that didn’t happen are registered Wrong events are registered
So far the only ‘reasonable’ use case seems te be cryptocurrency, as long as nobody controls more than 50% of the chain. Then still I don’t get why entries in a secure distributed database should be worth anything. Anyone can start a coin or a fork of bitcoin, so why do they have value at all?
James says:
Anyone can also print their own paper money, doesnt mean you will get a large network of people who accept your paper money.
Qhartman says:
"What stops my physically moving the RFID to another frame?" Nothing. That's only there to make data entry easier and less error-prone. Maybe you could build one that it tamper evident. This portion is really an aside, a value-add.
"If you have tamper evident seals - why do you need a ledger?" So that you have visibility into the paper trail easily and quickly, anywhere you have Internet access. A sealed container doesn't on it's own tell me where it came from or what's in it, or what stops it made along the way.
"Could the problems be solved with a normal database based on PKI?" Sure. But those systems have failed to generate buy in. Blockchain has created that. Is it because people don't really understand it? Maybe. Is it because it's genuinely unique and better suited? Maybe. In the end though, neither of those details really matter. We've been trying to go paperless and distributed for decades, and none of the other advancements we've made have made significant progress on those end-to-end. Blockchain looks like it will.
"If pirates can take over 50% of your chain, can they hide their smuggling?" If you use a permissioned chain, rather than a public chain, not likely. At least, no more likely than any other Internet-connected system getting taken over by bad actors.
"Blockchain is amazing technology - but it is a solution in search of a problem." I used to think that too. Seriously, go watch some of the talks I posted above. It's likely your opinion will shift a bit.
MD says:
Your complaints about this system are legitimate, but I think you’re mis-attributing them to blockchain. When you cross from the physical to the digital world, blockchain still works, but only if you keep humans involved to validate the data entry. In the case of the art, that would require physical inspection and possibly tagging the piece. I’m imagining an RFID tag embedded in the frame or similar. Once that piece is done, then this becomes a useful piece of tech for managing provenance because of the transparency it allows.
How does a blockchain make this better than a “simple” 3rd party that you pay to transfer verified ownership of a registered object to another account in their database? They also offer a nice API so you can integrate. Seems much less complicated. For example I can still use my password and if I forgot it I can recover it (even if that may involve some kind of strict check). That is not possible if I somehow screw up my key (as far as I understand blockchains in general). If (as it appears) the whole blockchain part is behind a web interface, then why blockchain? Wouldn’t a classical (PG, MSSQL, even Mongo) make things easier and faster while retaining the exact same outward functionality?
Qhartman says:
The part that makes blockchain applicable and interesting in this space (and where this implementation seems to miss the mark) is the distributed pseudo-immutability part. That has been an important level in getting large organizations to be willing to participate in consortia and open their records and/or rely on records held by third parties. That's what drives transparency into the system, and wherein the value lies. This particular implementation fails there, and so it's not better than using a traditional RDMS or other traditional storage system. Saying that's a failing of blockchain though is incorrect. A car built with square wheels isn't likely to work right, but that's not the engine's fault.
Natoshi Sakamoto says:
Blockchain is all BS, only innovation in this space is proof-of-work/mining to secure a network for payment and the incentive(token) and the game theory behind it. Everyone saying blockchain is interesting, bitcoin not sure - are fooling themselves IMO. All the banks and private sector hyping up private blockchain is utter non-sense and same with companies claiming to do authenticity or putting healthcare data on blockchain are either frauds or delusional. Their blockchain if centralized is meaningless, they can do this with databases/existing technology.
Well done Leonardo!
If you're interested in attribution problems in contemporary art, check out Richard Prince, who declared as his own art pictures made by other people, without their permission (it's a little more meta than that but not less ass-hat-y); and Peter Doig, who had to sue to prove (legally anyway) he did not paint a certain picture.
Also, I think you might mean "situationist" prank.
Koen says:
Art is special in the sense that there are a lot of forgeries on the physical product, and the it's the physical product that drives the ownership-document, not the other way around.
Take ownership of a piece of land for example. It is the document that is the main driver of the ownership. And no forgery on the land itself can occur, only on the document. And forgery on the document is rare because it is centrally stored by land registry. With cars it's a bit less like that, but still the forgery will occur on the document, not the car.
Right now, when you want to transfer ownership of land, you need to pay an expensive notary to do the transfer. And even then the transfer is not atomic. Large sums of money still take several days to clear over separate banks. If we would live in a blockchain world where ownership of land is stored in the blockchain, and you could pay with cryptocurrency, you actually don't need any notary to do the transfer. A smart contract can verify that all is in place (correct ownership and correct sum of money), and to the transfer of both atomic. With land this might seem strange to you, but with cars this would make perfect sense.
Buying and selling a car is not risk free. Is the money forged? Will he wire-transfer the money? Will I get the ownership document after I pay? Is this the correct ownership document of this car? etc. In the future, the smart contract that does the transfer of ownership could also include the car-key, when this is stored in your smartphone or fingerprint based, instead of a physical key.
To really see the value of blockchain application, look at what notaries and escrow services are doing, and append 'way cheaper' and 'algorithmically correct' to it. I like to comparison of snail mail to email. The latter is free, and more reliable in delivery. Sure the first one still has benefits over email, but which one are you using the most?
Dismissing all blockchain application because one startup didn't do proper verification seems stupid to me, and is in a niche that is less benenicial for blockchains. Like I said, look at what notaries and escrow services are doing, combine that with ownership documents, cryptocurrencies and smart contracts, and see what happens.
@edent says:
I don't think you've made a compelling argument.
Cars are often forged - either fake plates or altered VINs.
In the UK, large sums of money can be bank transfered almost instantly. Certainly much quicker and cheaper than a blockchain transaction.
What happens if I'm scammed? I can go to judge and a transaction can be reversed. How does that work on a immutable ledger?
If the car I've bought is a dud, I can ask for my money back. If the seller refuses, I can ask my bank or credit card to reverse the transaction. Again, can't do that on a DLT, can I?
It sounds like what you really need is cheaper legal services and faster banks. Not a blockchain.
I'm happy to say that land registry should be public - but seeing as it relies on a centralised authority (to uplhold land rights) I again fail to see how a blockchain helps.
Marc Aniballi says:
All fun and games! The digital world hasn't changed, but there are more ways to do things today, than yesterday - generally a good thing;
To the art world scenario; Cascading Trust is necessary to make this work; It is part of the world today and won't vanish until AI gets a lot better. To register an asset on any art chain, you need to verify its authenticity prior to registration. This means reliably ascertaining the identity of the owner (identity issue mentioned above) as well as reliably ascertaining the validity of the art (asset). In the latter case, you need physical inspection by an expert whose reputation is tied to the inspection results and who is also reliably identifiable (identity again!). As time goes by, and more inspections occur, they are attached to the asset on the chain. Sooner or later, there is a sufficient amount of validation to support the validity of the asset and the ownership. Nefarious inspectors are blacklisted quickly (if the identity component works). Fake assets that are validated and later proved fake damage the reputations of all verifying inspectors.
In terms of on chain verification, one could use high resolution photography to create an analysis of the actual tone gradients and stroke components of the art (color is too difficult, today) creating a representational map at the micrometer level which could then be hashed and stored as the fingerprint of the piece. A forger can fool the naked eye, but won't likely replicate the piece to this level of complexity (unless the replica was created using 3D printing technology). This is just meant as an example of a validation routine that could allow an end user to reasonably quickly determine if a piece was highly likely to be the same piece that is registered on the chain.
AI (much more advanced than today) could remove the need for human authorities, and increase the identifiers possible to fingerprint the work; but as with all tech, this AI technology could also help fraudsters to up their game too.
Blockchain transactions work best when there is verifiable trust in the IDENTITY protocols in use to identify the parties involved and the assets. This is no different than what happens today without blockchains; the improvement is that once identity is established, it doesn't need to be RE-established at every point in the supply/value chain.
Now; to answer the "What if I get scammed?" question: You are correct, you can't UNDO a transaction. You CAN update it. If you get scammed, then there was a failure of IDENTITY on the platform; There will necessarily be parties who have guaranteed one or more identities that were party to the transaction. Those parties are now legally on the hook for their failure. This could be a KYC provider, an inspector, or even the owner of the smart contract/blockchain company. You have recourse, and if the company isn't prepared (and insured) to handle this, then you probably don't want to use their services. Properly implemented; scammers will avoid these platforms due to their transparency and lack of anonymity.
In terms of the REFUND process; this works the same as it does today. No one returns to the seller and says "UNDO my transaction," they say "It doesn't work, I want a refund." It's a NEW transaction (just ask the sellers bank or ERP system); These scenarios are easily handled in blockchain.
As far as speed of transactions goes; sending funds door to door within a highly advanced banking system is AS fast as most crypto platforms designed for the same purpose (BTC was never meant to do that); the fees are lower and the most telling difference is that the speed and fees in crypto is the same whether you send it across the street or around the world. Try sending funds from South Africa to Mexico and see how long it takes, and how much it costs.
@edent says:
That's not true. I ask for a refund, the seller says no. I compain to my credit-card provider, they reverse the transaction and give me back my money. They then either get it back from the seller or commence legal proceedings.
Again, the average customer can't do that with Cryptocurrency. All sales are final. No refunds. No exceptions.
https://transferwise.com/pricing/ Quicker and cheaper than Bitcoin. Much easier to use as well.
Marc Aniballi says:
Nice credit card company! Where can I get an account like that?!! Mine demands proof of fraud and internal review before they'll try to reverse a valid purchase.
Actually, Transferwise (my favorite service!!) is not quicker than BTC for international and Bitcoin is SLOW (I said so above - it was never meant for speed - Confirmation takes 60 minutes!). ETH is slow too, but it still transfers value in 1 - 5 minutes, and then there are the protocols like Ripple and NEO which are much faster.
@edent says:
Literally every credit card in the UK has Section 75 protection.
But, let's go back to blockchain. How do I demand a refund on a fraudulent cryptocoin transaction?
Qhartman says:
I the current system, that's hard. It's one of the problems that layer-two technologies are working addressing. Smart contracts look like a promising mechanism to address this. In this case, it is setup to look for confirmation entries from both parties further down the chain before the transaction actually happens. It ends up becoming a simultaneous transfer and you close the window on the timing attacks that transactions currently have.
Look harder at the space beyond currencies. I personally think they're mostly a distraction. There's a lot going on in other areas that I think will ultimately offer more. To use a car analogy again, we're in Model-T days still, but that's going to change quickly.
Koen says:
The Nano cryptocurrency has 0 fees, transact in seconds, does 7000 tps on the power of a single windmill. Please explain which bank can compete with that.
Do you know what happens when you get scammed by doing a wire transfer? Here in Europe absolutely nothing in reality. Yeah that's right. That your transaction will be reversed by the bank is just your (and a lot of other people's) imagination. It's called invoice fraud, look it up and be amazed how people are not getting their money back.
Scammers on car deals do person-to-person deals, no way you will see your money back. You don't even have the identity of the other person. You are going to pay $15000 with your VISA card to a private person? How exactly?
Or a DAG 🙂
I can communicate just find with people over snail mail. I can even perfume the letter to my girlfriend, so why would I use email? Everyone has an address, not everyone has an email address. I don't see email going anywhere soon, snail mail offers everything we need and more. A letter takes a few days to arrive, but that's no problem. Because if you need urgent communication, you pick up the phone. That one is still faster than email. Like I said, email is a hype and it's going nowhere.
CryptoBaob says:
Poor execution of a good idea doesn’t rubbish the idea. Blockchain and AI/ML face the same garbage-in, garbage-out problem. Human intervention is needed to verify/clean data/ input before in goes through a ‘chain’ .
Most compelling use case for blockchain as a game changer beyond crypto currency is this piece on tokenization of physical assets indeed such as art, real estate etc.
https://hackernoon.com/the-security-token-thesis-4c5904761063
When stuff is tokenized, asset allocation and trade becomes frictionless due to interoperability. I.e you can have all these assets in one wallet and exchange them seamlessly and speedily across geographies. Example. ERC20 creates a standard where it’s possible to exchange/ transfer value of different types of asset from one instance. I can buy factional ownership of real estate , land or art etc from one wallet or trade these with other assets without having to contact lawyers, notaries etc.. all in a matter of minutes. Still early days but this is a compelling
Future:-)
Marc Aniballi says:
Amen, brother! 😉 Spot on!
NaCl says:
That still doesn’t offer any solution to negotiability, if someone misleads you or tricks you there is no recourse as long as the party who mislead you chooses not to sign your assets back to you aside from hard forking, and if you’re going to hard fork your silly blockchain every time someone gets screwed by piss poor tech then what is the point of having the block chain at all? The biggest benefit of a block chain is that you can proceed with 0 trust but the fact that you’re going to have to do all of the same due diligence that you would normally need to do to buy or sell valuable art there is literally 0 benefit at all to adding blockchain nonsense to the process.
Qhartman says:
Governance (avoiding forks) and simultaneous transactions (avoiding some forms of fraud) are actively being worked on. Give it a minute. The biggest benefit of blockchain isn't zero trust, but distributed trust. The zero-trust piece is kind of a lbertarian fever dream that has been tied to blockchain that I think is wrong headed. If you tweak it though, to be distributed trust, then it's a tangible benefit.
To use the buying and selling of valuable art example. You're right, this implementation is bad. It's not distributed, it doesn't really solve any problem. If they tweaked it though, and created a consortia, it could be good. Imagine an "Art dealers collective" where they used an OSS blockchain implementation (maybe Decred with Politea?) to store their blocks on a partially permissioned blockchain. Anyone can read it, but only verified dealers can write to it. They add the ability to add photos, videos, etc and have them validated on the chain, but are probably stored off-chain. Any dealer who wants to buy/sell with it participates in the chain and runs a node. If any particular dealer does shady stuff, it happens out in the open, making it more likely to be found. If a dealer goes under, their records don't disappear , but maybe their off-chain documents do. Incentivising off-chain storage of extra data is still a problem, but probably solvable. If a buyer in the US wants to validate transaction history for a particular piece, they just ask the system, rather than running down numerous dealers all over the world. If something seems fishy about a piece, you can view the previous pictures / whatever and have confidence they haven't been tampered with.
There's lots of value being added here. They just didn't build it right, and that's not blockchain's fault.
Collin says:
I think that, perhaps, the intention of Verisart is not quite applicable to the use case you supplied it with, and actually think that Verisart has behaved as expected in your case.
"Verisart applies blockchain technology to combine transparency, anonymity and security to protect your records of creation and ownership." (taken from the Verisart home page). I believe the important part here is the word creation.
We know about older pieces of artwork. We know where they are, who has them, who created them and when. What Verisart did, was certify that you have a reproduction of the Mona Lisa (in the form of a digital image). If you were to sell this reproduction, the buyer would see that it does not have the expected paper trail and know to pay accordingly for a reproduction (if at all).
I think where Verisart stands out is going forward. New artwork can be certified, on creation, by the artist. A potential buyer could see the profile of the seller and ensure it's who they expect it to be, or that it has the expected paper trail going back to the artist. If it doesn't, then it's a reproduction or at least highly suspicious.
@edent says:
Do we? How? Why should we trust those records?
They don't need Verisart for that. And it still doesn't solve the problem that the seller could give you a fake and keep the original.
Do you really think people are so stupid as to believe you have somehow "pranked" Verisart? The certificate you created clearly lists YOU as the artist. Do you understand what the word "provenance" means? It means "place of origin". Does anyone really care the title or even image of an art piece? Is that where the value is derived? Or is it the ORIGIN of the piece that matters? Who cares that YOU have claimed to create a piece of art. Who are you? A famous artist? No. Any art work you create would be worthless because you have no artistic talent. So who cares what YOU have registered on the blockchain. Trust me... no one cares and no one will ever care.
If you want to "prank" Verisart then why not register a piece under the name of a famous living artist like Hirst? Do that and you have "pranked" Verisart. But until then... you have done nothing more than disparage an idea with an idiotic argument that only very stupid people may agree with.
Regarding your "switch out the piece" argument. Of course this is possible. Yet another genius observation by you. But so what? Is that the problem in the art world? That rich people are criminals? Really? You think it is rich art collectors who are going to "switch out" an art piece so there is a fake in the world? Seriously? You really think that is the main problem with fakes in the art market? Or maybe it is criminals who create fakes without any legitimate claim to the original? Do you think?
Do you know what a digital certificate of authenticity is? It is simply an infinitely better improvement over a paper certificate. Why? Because a digital certificate cannot be forged whereas a paper certificate can be. Do you understand the value of that? Do you understand this is possible only with an immutable blockchain-based database?
Do the world a favor. Try to think a little before you start blogging about topics you don't understand.
@edent says:
Hi Howard,
Thank you for your polite and well-reasoned reply. I understand that you run a similar service and I'm sure you have a lot of experience in calmly explaining your technology to people. Let me pick up on just a few points.
I chose da Vinci's work because it is out of copyright. There was no verification on Verisign's platform - nor any evaluation of the art. I could easily have used Hirst's name and artwork.
The reason I talk about authenticity is because that's what Verisart were talking about at CogX. I got the impression that they thought stolen and fraudulent artwork was a problem. I'm not an art dealer, so I can't comment on that.
You say that a digital certificate can't be forged. I think we both know that's not true. If a certificate issuer gets hacked, or their credentials get stolen, then fraudulent certificates can be created. We see it all the time with malware. Blockchain reduces some risks, sure, but it doesn't stop human fallibility.
Good luck with your start-up.
The obstinance of your response reminds me of people who did not buy bitcoin at $200. Or who continue to avoid bitcoin. Borderline comical.
You did not register the Mona Lisa as the artist Da Vinci. Understand? You registered the work as the artist "Terence Eden"... get it? The digital certificate you created CLEARLY LISTS YOUR NAME AT THE TOP. Can you understand this simple fact? This means the digital certificate authenticates YOU as the artist. No one cares about any artwork YOU might register.
You claim you could register on Verisart as Damien Hirst and then register a work? Let's see you do that. Because unless you can... your argument is idiotic. If you can register as Damien Hirst on Verisart... and there is no way to prove you are not Damien Hirst... then Verisart is idiotic. But unless and until you register as Damien Hirst... please try not to break things you do not understand.
You imply you cannot register on Verisart as Damien Hirst because of copyright law? This is your dodge to my argument. But there is a simple way around this. YOU draw a smiley face so YOU own the copyright. Then register the smiley face on Verisart as the artist Damien Hirst. If you can do that... then you have "pranked" Verisart. By the way... if Damien Hirst actually did that... if he drew and then registered a smiley face... that smiley face would be worth more than your annual salary. Not because it's a smiley face... but because it was drawn by Damien Hirst. Get it?
Under our company's provenance platform, it is not possible for you to register as Damien Hirst. Why? Because you do not control Damien Hirst's website. Only Damien Hirst can publish his master bitcoin address on his website, and therefore only Damien Hirst can register with our platform. So even if you hacked our system to register on our platform as Damien Hirst, the registration would not be valid because you would also need to simultaneously hack Damien Hirst's website to publish his master bitcoin address. Eventually hacking Damien Hirst's website won't even matter because his master bitcoin address will become ubiquitous... like his email address or phone number... or even his name.
Finally, concerning your comment that a digital certificate can be forged... this is exactly the same as saying the bitcoin protocol can be hacked. The "certificate issuer" under our platform is the bitcoin protocol, and the users "credentials" under our platform is the bitcoin protocol. So funny how you say "we see it all the time with malware." Bitcoin is one of the most powerful inventions of all time BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE HACKED. That is the whole point. Get it? When you implement systems such as provenance using the bitcoin blockchain you take advantage of this unhackable protocol. If you disagree with this statement, or cannot understand it... I cannot help you. But the rest of the world clearly understands the value of an unhackable database.
@edent says:
My dearest Howard, Once again your wit and calm demeanor grace my blog. To be brief - Verisart did not check my name before publishing. They performed no checks whatsoever. I could have claimed to be anyone. Secondly, Blockchain is an unhackable database - on this we both agree. But the people who put data on it can be hacked, fooled, or bribed. If you've been following the news about certificate transparency, you'll know that many reputable firms have done disreputable things with their cryptographic keys. I hope you have a pleasant and relaxing weekend.
You could have "claimed to be anyone." Sure you could.
Then do it. Put up or shut up.
You won't. You are an idiot that throws rocks at things you don't understand.
Most likely... a poor idiot that missed the boat? Trust me... getting wealthy by understanding technology doesn't suck.
@edent says:
Here is me putting up https://verisart.com/works/3640ea3f-7939-4aff-895d-3ae8a895cf33 As you can see, Verisart don't do any checking. Thank you for your comments.
Hilarious. You just demonstrated to the world that Verisart is a complete joke.
Now pull the same prank on ArtChain.info. You won't be able to. Even if you hacked our database, it wouldn't matter, the hacked registration would be invalid on it's face.
Proving Verisart is a joke does not mean everyone in this space are idiots. It does not mean the bitcoin blockchain cannot be used to track provenance of art.
Of course an unhackable database can be used to track provenance when implemented correctly.
Over 70 artists (many world renowned) have already registered over 370 art pieces worth more than $4.5 million on ArtChain.info. These registrations will be valid and transferable as long as the bitcoin blockchain exists.
Don't really care whether you can understand it, or agree with it. I guarantee the rest of the world will.
Not going to blog about how you tried to prank ArtChain.info and failed? You just like blogging about shit you think you can break? You are a pessimistic fool that will remain poor the rest of your life... because you are a pessimistic fool.
@edent says:
I started looking through your site, but found so many PHP errors, that I didn't think it was worth "pranking".
Good luck with your business venture. I wish you well.
There you go again. Trying to break shit no matter what. Maybe you got the PHP errors because your registration was invalid... you are not an artists... you are a nobody... a poor idiot? Do ya think?
Now you try to hack our website? Really? Terence the hacker? Sitting in your underwear? Trying to hack our site?
Trust me... there is nothing to hack. Our database is backed up every day and stored off-line. Even in the 1 in trillion chance you could hack our off-line backups... it still wouldn't matter!!!! Our platform is based on the bitcoin blockchain. You would have to hack the bitcoin blockchain to make a difference in what we are doing.
You fucking idiot.
Dinusha Mendis said on :
This Article was mentioned on theconversation.com
The Conversation said on :
This Article was mentioned on thenextweb.com
Das ist halt genau das Problem was diese blockchain Lösung für besitzrechte von konventioneller kunst vor Jahren, lange vor nfts als solcher Begriff, auch hatte. shkspr.mobi/blog/2018/06/h… Manche gesellschaftlichen Probleme haben eben keine technische Lösung, auch nicht bLoCkChAiN
Alysa Yamada said on :
This Article was mentioned on medium.com
@Edent @molly0xfff da Vinci should have registered it first. It’s like artists don’t care about the future of art ownership. 🤷♀️ /s