It’s very expensive to add the actual image picture into the blockchain, so most NFTs actually contain a hyperlink and the NFT owner “owns” (because to my knowledge there’s no legal base to assert ownership) only that hyperlink within their token, not the image itself.
Thats true but they also usually contain things like the pictures hash so as long as you have the file you can always claim it (even if the hyperlink becane invalid).
Pretty much any kind of data related to the image is useless for verifying the actual image. For instance saving the exact same image with a different compression algorithm will make a new hash.
They’re not even pictures. They’re hyperlinks to pictures that may or may not even be there.
Famously, it’s uncommon that your “NFT” ends up hyperlinking to a picture of a rug because the people running it know it’s a scam.
They are actually not hyperlinks, more like certificares of ownership over a picture (or a “token”, as the name suggests)
It’s very expensive to add the actual image picture into the blockchain, so most NFTs actually contain a hyperlink and the NFT owner “owns” (because to my knowledge there’s no legal base to assert ownership) only that hyperlink within their token, not the image itself.
Thats true but they also usually contain things like the pictures hash so as long as you have the file you can always claim it (even if the hyperlink becane invalid).
Pretty much any kind of data related to the image is useless for verifying the actual image. For instance saving the exact same image with a different compression algorithm will make a new hash.
Go away, feddit de you never have anything useful to say
Oh yes, generalizing. At least you didnt write any racist jokes (yet)…