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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.