A book (say in PDF or ePub format) and the NFT of a book are different.
(1) the PDF is not freely accessible to / downloadable by the public but the NFT is?
(2) in essence the NFT is not storing the entirety of the text of the book, just some metadata about it. This metadata can, for example, be used to detect any subsequent unauthorised alterations to the PDF.
If they right, the only original value added by NFT is stopping people from altering the original text and passing off the modified version as the original.
In its original form, it does not help store the book against catastrophes. So for example, if all PDF copies are destroyed, there is no way to resurrect the PDF from the NFT alone.
Of course, there can be derivative benefits from this feature of NFTs. May be it encourages social changes that are beneficial in many ways.
But shouldn’t we start by asking whether prevention post hoc alterations of PDF is a problem to worry about?
If it isn’t (at least in case of literary novels), wouldn’t it suggest that (a) no problem is actually being solved?
And (b) that pp are unlikely to be attracted to this technology and the derivative benefits wouldn’t follow?
Is this right for Liker Land? understand is this.
A book (say in PDF or ePub format) and the NFT of a book are different.
(1) the PDF is not freely accessible to / downloadable by the public but the NFT is?
(2) in essence the NFT is not storing the entirety of the text of the book, just some metadata about it. This metadata can, for example, be used to detect any subsequent unauthorised alterations to the PDF.
If they right, the only original value added by NFT is stopping people from altering the original text and passing off the modified version as the original.
In its original form, it does not help store the book against catastrophes. So for example, if all PDF copies are destroyed, there is no way to resurrect the PDF from the NFT alone.
Of course, there can be derivative benefits from this feature of NFTs. May be it encourages social changes that are beneficial in many ways.
But shouldn’t we start by asking whether prevention post hoc alterations of PDF is a problem to worry about?
If it isn’t (at least in case of literary novels), wouldn’t it suggest that (a) no problem is actually being solved?
And (b) that pp are unlikely to be attracted to this technology and the derivative benefits wouldn’t follow?
感謝你的回饋！❤️ 事實剛好相反，可以自由下載的是EPUB和PDF，不是NFT。NFT是獨一無二的，只由一個錢包（一個人？）擁有。下載的書檔可以無限傳播和複製，也可以改動。要回去證明哪一個才是原版，就靠那個NFT了。附帶在NFT上的那個版本，就是原版。這是用NFT來證明原創性的方式，但並不妨礙複製和改作。而且還有另一步，就是在鑄造成NFT的時候，同時上載至兩個分散式儲存系統，包括IPFS和Arweave。上存兩個系統的連結會寫在NFT上，即是在區塊鏈上，所以，對的，檔案內容沒有寫在NFT上，但連接分散式儲存系統的鏈結卻寫入了。從這個位置可以追溯和重組檔案內容。不滅的不會是PDF或EPUB，而是放在分散式儲存系統的內容。前提當然是這些系統的技術真的能做到永恆不滅。不知道這樣說會不會清楚一點？😉
以前（現在不知還是不是）念 computer science/engineering 的，劈頭第一科就是 C lang，老一輩如我的常戲言「寫 C / 詩」，過了二三十年，AI 似乎真的讓寫作和寫 code 越來越接近了。
關於 skeuomorphic，另一個我聯想到的是 iOS。蘋果從 Mac 起很多年來的 UI 都是仿實物，calendar、calculator、notebook、反正全部都是同一套路。但從 iOS 7 起，Jony Ive 開始不再讓 app 假裝實物，更多善用整個畫面以及手機的特性。
參考蘋果用了那麼多年把群眾養起來才轉過去，NFT 出版應該還需要很多年吧。
https://ckxpress.com/digital-doesnt-mean-virtual-and-isnt-inferior-to-physical/