Benefit of the hindsight
Benefit of the hindsight
You're viewing a single thread.
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
Wait just a second! You have a bridge for sale? Tell me more.
I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, that's possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.
And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.
It's kind of like selling a website that redirects to Facebook, and thinking that therefore you own Facebook.
I mean we use fiat currency
the issue isnt that it is virtual
Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.
I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.
In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).
If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it
This is such a funny thing to say since NFTs were all about "owning" stuff on the blockchain.
Indeed. The blockchain provides no media hosting, no enforcement, I guess. It can mark something as owned (and require their private key to decrypt or whatever), but ultimately that ownership is as beholden to reality (read: arbitrary purseholders) as any other system. It’s just a record.
With your scheme you can't prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can't be extracted from the camera.
Trusted, cryptographic timestamps exist, and have for some time. NFTs don't add anything new.
Okay good. I thought it would, just didn't know any specifically. I wasn't trying to suggest a public blockchain would be the only solution or even the best of multiple solutions, only that they needed to consider more angles beyond just making a hash.
Those would probably be a part of it.
Comparing a hashcode implies you have a verifiable source for the original footage.
You can do this manually and dig for the author but thats not always that simple.
A second step would be to build In a reference to the record in each media file, expressed as a small clickable logo.
You grandma deserves to be capable to verify.
surely so does a block chain? at the heart of it a block chain is just a series of hashes too.
Exactly my point why i think they would be a part of it.
Too often information about original media and potential hashes get lost. A decentralised ledger is the perfect tool for the job.
buh, i mean, what would it add over just a single hash?
If i give you any video from online would you or your grandma be able to find the hash of the original footage which is not provided?
i thought we were talking about the opposite situation, archival.
so in this situation we're not actually talking about using a block chain, as in a progressive hashing function, but the blockchain, as in a massive network of computers used to verify anything.
You might have more technical knowledge about this than i do. I never considered a blockchain versus the blockchain. But your brief explanation does make sense.
But yes, the potential i saw in it is in a decentralised network of verification that no one party can control.
i thought you were talking about independent verification of each frame of a video and storing it in a block chain to accompany that file, so that's my bad on missing the point.
but with using "the" blockchain, we're still dealing with the problem of massive emissions to keep it running, except now there's no profit motive. or rather, that's already true for a lot of things so it would need some sort of verification token to incentivise actually including our video hashes in the calculation. i think the ethereum people call it "gas money". so it would be pay-to-verify.
an alternative is to have a foundation like the internet archive host the verified hashes. way less energy use, and they need the money more anyway.
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.
This is correct.
This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.
The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.
If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.
You don't have to stage a scene, you can use modern displays, optics, and sensors to inject 'digital' strategies into the 'analog' approach.
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that's very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I've searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn't look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn't be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
That's security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there's nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It's a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
You're falling for the classic paradox of security: it has to work for someone. OF COURSE if you get all of the keys and every detail of the process you can crack it. That's true of ALL CRYPTOGRAPHY. If someone knows everything including the keys, it's too late for any 'secure' device.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
Yes it is. The scheme is that when you take a picture, the camera signs said picture. The key is stored somewhere in the camera. Hence the secrecy of the key hinges on the the attacker not knowing how the camera accesses the key. Once the attacker knows that, they can get the key from the camera. Therefore, security hinges on the secrecy of the camera design/protocol used by the camera to access the key, in addition to the secrecy of the key. Therefore, it is security by obscurity.
And how do they get the camera? You could make the same exact claims about SSH being useless because "if an attacker gets the key, it's over!"
NO SHIT!!
They buy it at a store.
There are decentralized oracles. That's how DAI tracks the price of USD.
The blockchain is distributed.
For example, you might use it as a trademark registry or to certify a chain of legal evidence. You can validate a presented copy matches the original and what the chain of ownership was. And you can do this without the single point of failure of a nationwide database
Who holds and validates the original you're comparing to?
That’s the point, a use case where no one has to. It’s only the record of ownership.
And clearly you’d still need to make arrangements to prevent multiple chains of ownership for a copied artifact
NFTs make the mistake of assuming that somehow makes it unique, forgetting you can just copy the original. However these use cases work from the opposite direction: given an accused infringement, does that match?
Consider the current use case for trademark. Someone creates a trademark and registers with an authority. At some point they may renew modify, or sell. After some time, that authority has a database containing the original and a chain of ownership. Blockchain could serve this identically, with the potential advantage of the chain being self contained and distributable
That is not how the chain has worked or could ever work. There is a reason after over fifteen years people are still speculating how blockchain can be useful.
This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what's coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.
A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that's hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).
The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).
The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.
This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.
The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.
Even if people can't get the key out of rom, which I doubt, they can man in the middle the cable going to the photosensor and inject arbitrary images into the system.
Had thoughts like that before, someone pointed that it already exists and is called C2PA - no blockchain necessary. It's not yet widespread, though.
As for NFT, when it came out I had thoughts that it could be used for completely transparent and automated businesses. Something like an AirBnB with a digital lock on the front door and you could buy an NFT for a daily stay that you could use to unlock said lock. But then if there's only one company that accepts said NFT's then there's zero reason for it to be on blockchain, they can just send you the code, and if they scam you there's no use for either NFT or the code. There could be real estate ownership certificates, but then again, there would always be only one authority issuing them - zero reason for blockchain. There could be like crowdfunding NFT, but then again, there could only one party managing the funds. There were tons of ideas for practical usage of NFT's, but all of them hinge on there being some party linking the zero-trust crypto and the real world, and if there's only a single trusted party then it always makes more sense for that party to deploy a normal database in place of blockchain and just provide an API endpoint to verify ownership.
EDIT: Fixed wrong link
The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.
If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they'd sign it and say "yes it's authentic".
Now maybe you can say "Canon genuine" to say it's not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.
Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it's of limited use.
Traditional signing is enough to say "If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed", no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
One would assume that journalism would be more then motivated to proof authenticity of the images they show.
Of course such assumptions fail to consider the events at cern that fucked up any chance of reasonable reality.
still a solution in search of a problem, unfortunately.
We can still tell when something is AI and it's not at a stage where it can fool mainstream news or the legal system.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The problem is “misinformation” and has been since before nft/genai became a thing.
Gen Ai makes misinformation worse but the event that sparked this was a gop shared video of a democrat which was slightly speed up to seem more aggressive.
Also simple framing to cut off context from the original has been a very common form of misinformation for decades.
to be more clear: block chain for images is a solution in search of a problem because no one is looking for mass-verified images, they are looking for source-verified images, because you can still fake something on the block chain at point of creation. In 2025 the main concern about faked images is with AI, but more sophisticated and more convincing images can be made with older, even analog technology like airbrushing.
Your example of a sped up Democrat could still be disseminated on the block chain and it would do nothing to confirm or deny its veracity.
It would but it would be much easier to find/link and compare with the actual original.
Of course i have mentioned this was never a complete finished idea, just some thoughts i had for years.
Nowadays i can conceptualise ai tools that detect near duplicates but those obviously were not a thing when i first came up with this.
I would hope that it would be considered very damning if an official publishers referred to false footage while having all the tools to find and refer to the original. So would it Be damning for the uploader and all footage recorded with their device.
isn't the entire concept just trying to side step journalism though? The block chain is just replacing journalistic standards for something that is more easily corrupted with no guarantee of a better outcome.
And often in tricky journalism such as exposés, you don't want your source to be trackable. That's why Robert Maxwell was such a piece of shit as a newspaper journalist, he would shop his sources to Mossad.
Not at all. I consider journalists the best potential of early adapter.
As a consumer i don't care if i have to copy or screenshot or need to list sources if i am Just sharing to friends.
Publishers however have a responsibility towards the public to provide fair information. And if i post publicly i also try to pay a bit more attention. (Ignoring i failed exactly that just earlier today)
There would be nothing stopping anyone to ignore the system and keep sharing unverified pixels but its a real flex be able to provide open and transparent information about your sources almost upfront.
If enough established organisation start doing this then the ones that don’t will stick out like they have something to hide.
The exposé is an interesting example I had not yet considered but again i think nothing is stopping publishers from publicly stating they cannot provide sources but have the means to get it independently verified.
I also believe its possible for a camera/recorded to exist anonymously on the blockchain, just like you don't know the owner of a crypto wallet.
Yes, people vehemently hate when you point this out because to the general public NFT = stupid overpriced digital art, and they don't care to be convinced otherwise. My personal conspiracy theory is that the two were purposefully conflated to keep the technology from ever being taken seriously.
I was actually going to note that i feel similar about this conspiracy but i left it out in the end.
Glad not to be the only person to conceive this. Kill it before people discover a good use.
I initially thought they were like numbered art prints, with a more robust way of guaranteeing authenticity.
Yeah. Crypto bros ruined crypto with their greed.
Crypto is still really cool but now when people read that word they just think scam. So it's never going to happen
Bitcoin is currently at all time highs
Whats your point?
That it's currently happening and belief that it's a scam is going down.
I had an idea sort of like that - media for your camera or cell-camera that was write once, could not be erased or changed, did not forget (you know ssd's and thumb drives forget as the stranded charge leaks away) - Each picture cryptographically signed with GPS and date and time and author/photographer.