I'm not sure it's the same, IPFS would be another (valuable) thing entirely. I would be tempted to say that the torrent filesystem should be kept strictly in the scope of torrents.
When you sell valuable physical objects that have a high risk of counterfeiting, the secure way is to associate a "digital twin" of the object that has verifiable provenance and this is exactly what NFTs as a technology are good at.
edit: Thanks to everyone that downvoted this to -4 despite the numerous good remarks in comment that spark a solely technical discussion on the topic. Please come over your hate.
Yeah, doesn't even make sense for something like this to be decentralized, it should be run by Rolex so they can catch edge cases and correct them by fiat
Yup. If your father dies, and leaves you a Rolex, but does make a way to give you access to the keys to the nft, would the Rolex stop being authentic?
When we are talking about digital proof of ownership of physical goods, any solution that can fail synchronization of the record due to entirely foreseeable events like death, ownership disputes, etc is a failed solution.
Good remark. I think it is simpler to just use a public blockchain that having Rolex properly build "open" cloud services to do that and maintain it themselves over the long run.
Software engineers forget that the general public isn't capable of or willing to generate a private key and keep it secure for the long term. It's a deal breaker. Crypto isn't the answer.
It's also over engineering. A serial number and a registration process can go a long way.
This would only work if the NFT was signed by a key kept on the real watch in a Secure Enclave of some kind, but then you don’t need the blockchain, just a database maintained by Rolex. The blockchain doesn’t buy you anything here.
Essentially PKI, store a certificate signed by rolex and it's corresponding private key in the enclave.
The only thing you need is the root Rolex certificate and you can authenticate the watch. You also need to have a signed copy of the serial inside the enclave so it can't be transferred (inside the certificate)
We already solved this problem decades ago with certificates of authenticity and standard record-keeping, which if I understand correctly, Rolex (and a number of other high-end watch companies) already employs.
Not really, that just punts the problem to another area. This problem has been about as solved as it's going to get ages before the idea of crypto. NFT's don't actually add much other than a different layer and one technique of digital record keeping.
The devices can ship with an embedded hardware security module that holds a private key. The private key has its public key whitelisted by Rolex, and can be used to sign a message transferring the ownership to the current owner's public key. If you can do this transfer action, the device is legitimate. Of course you'd need to check that the public keys/addresses match Rolex's.
Synchronisation is the hard part. I suppose there are a few different ways to do it. One way would be to use a hardware that holds a private key in a secure chip, and whoever has access to the physical watch can sign a message with that key to point to an arbitrary address. This can then be submitted to the blockchain.
Confirmation is easy, as the blockchain takes care of that. It would be emitted by a verifiable/trusted public key. If the address is not Rolex's address, the item is fake.
Right, so if you're not the hiring manager, how do you know someone is a "diversity hire" though? Isn't it racist to just assume someone was hired as a "diversity hire"? Most importantly, people tend to hire people like themselves, if the hiring manager is white it's most likely they'll hire someone who is white regardless if they're more qualified, but I doubt anyone ever questions those hires.
You should not know and should not take it in consideration but in the USA this is part of the application. I understand the whole point is to make sure diverse candidate are not discriminated against (and of course that would be a ridiculous thing to do), but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.
> but it seems to have been perverted into caricaturical discrimination _for_, even favoring a diverse incompetent candidate over a non-diverse competent one.
That's a crazy claim told without any proof. I don't see any studies, sources linked in your comment. That just sounds like your own anecdotal perspective.
If it's already open source, GitHub can almost (depending on license) use it as they see fit anyway.
reply