TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A new $69M NFT was sleepminted

35 点作者 rbjorklin大约 4 年前

5 条评论

bellyfullofbac大约 4 年前
Bah, are we all supposed to know what &quot;sleepminted&quot; mean? You click on the word and a DIV pops up that doesn&#x27;t explain what the fuck it even means. A &quot;disease&quot;?<p>Guess I&#x27;ll google what &quot;X’s wallet minted an NFT&quot; meansif I want to care about the whole fraud involving NFT.
评论 #26903352 未加载
tsujp大约 4 年前
The hype around NFTs currently is just that: hype _BUT_ that doesn&#x27;t mean that there is no value in an NFT. Remember, NFTs are non-fungible digital signatures and there is value in something being provable and forcibly unique. The easiest non-hype example I can think of right now is identity. If you literally own your identity then you&#x27;re in control.<p>Anyway, the problem here is that apparently, via this hack, the ERC721 standard (which is implemented via a contract) is not as secure as we thought. That&#x27;s fine, it can be improved, and I hope it will.<p>Art NFTs being hyped to the point where people invest tens of thousands or millions in something they don&#x27;t know about is a layer on-top of this which is regrettable. I&#x27;d like to see someone present an example of the first implementation of a standard being secure for all time though.
评论 #26899503 未加载
评论 #26899212 未加载
Quenhus大约 4 年前
To me, the author doesn&#x27;t fully understand how Smart Contract, NFT and ownership work.<p>It is as if he wrote &quot;NFTheft owns the Joconde&quot; in a Word document, printed it, signed it and tried to prove to the world that he truly owns the Joconde. It doesn&#x27;t work that way with NTF, nor in real life. Ownership is a consensus.<p>You can verify the real owner of the token with [0] &gt; Contract &gt; Read &gt; &quot;16. Owner Of&quot; and type &quot;40913&quot;, as explain on the original marketplace [1].<p>However, what he highlights is that Smart Contract doesn&#x27;t prevent the code from being malicious, in the same way than HTTPS doesn&#x27;t prevent a website to be hackable. To be even more precise, ERC721 is a code interface. Its implementation is not universal, and thus can be malicious.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;etherscan.io&#x2F;token&#x2F;0x2a46f2ffd99e19a89476e2f62270e0a35bbf0756#readContract" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;etherscan.io&#x2F;token&#x2F;0x2a46f2ffd99e19a89476e2f62270e0a...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;onlineonly.christies.com&#x2F;s&#x2F;first-open-beeple&#x2F;beeple-b-1981-1&#x2F;112924" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;onlineonly.christies.com&#x2F;s&#x2F;first-open-beeple&#x2F;beeple-...</a>
评论 #26902436 未加载
themodelplumber大约 4 年前
I will admit I don&#x27;t get it. Is this the website of the thief? And re &quot;There are no rights or protections preventing the theft and mis-use of their art,&quot; were artists expecting to get perpetual royalties from their NFT-tied works?
评论 #26896955 未加载
评论 #26898355 未加载
评论 #26904948 未加载
homedepotdave大约 4 年前
This isn’t a big deal. This guy just created his own smart contract with a special code snippet that, after he mints an NFT to beeple’s address, allows his address to still transfer it to another address (himself). On Rarible&#x2F;etc this then makes it appear that Beeple minted it and then transferred it to him.<p>This is why you need to publish the code for NFT smart contracts... which pretty much everyone does, which makes real NFTs auditable and secure (enough). He wouldn’t be able to mint a duplicate NFT from the same smart contract Beeple originally used.<p>Lol, self-proclaimed “banksy of NFTs”, come on
评论 #26899547 未加载
评论 #26899843 未加载
评论 #26899548 未加载