this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
2165 points (99.4% liked)

memes

15405 readers
3695 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it

This is such a funny thing to say since NFTs were all about "owning" stuff on the blockchain.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

surely so does a block chain? at the heart of it a block chain is just a series of hashes too.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

buh, i mean, what would it add over just a single hash?

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 6 days ago

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.