9 votes

Cryptographic Digital Art Tokens, a concept

Hi folks. I'm posting this in ~creative because I want to see what other artists think of it; the technical side is important too, but artists and art are the focus of this project.


Cryptographic Digital Art Tokens are a concept I've been working on for a while, to provide some of the benefits of crypto tokens without perpetuating the harm they create.

CDATs are not NFTs. They are not designed to facilitate investment, but rather collection. They do not use a blockchain and do not rely on distributed consensus at all. Instead, they use traditional cryptography to validate the ownership of art.

How CDATs Work

Let's say an artist Adam creates a piece of art called One. He decides he wants to sell a CDAT of One, so he creates a CDAT key and publishes his public key on his website, adam.art.

A collector, Beth, decides she wants to buy One. She e-mails Adam and they agree on a price, and exchange keys; once she has paid, Adam sends Beth a CDAT, which he has signed. Beth then cross-signs the CDAT and sends it back to Adam. It ends up looking like this:

=== CDAT DATA ===
Artist: Adam <adam@adam.art>
Collector: Beth <beth@betawork.codes>
Date of Sale: 2021-12-08T19:50:56Z
Title: One, a Digital Story
Work ID: art.adam.one
Cover Hash: e82c294938320bf4fab56970f52e1ddf
Work Hash: 3179c999f1d4fab4bcc8a57bca1c9d8c
Artist Key Fingerprint: c634d0420f825b91
Collector Key Fingerprint: 3b2e3bbf91ec96c2
=== CDAT SIGN ===
Artist Signature: YTtsc2tkamY7bHNramY7bGtqZDtsa2pmYTtsZGt...
Collector Signature: cXdpZXVwcXdpeXR1djtsbmFvdWNuZWN2cHdl...
=== CDAT META ===
Cover URL: https://adam.art/images/one-cover.jpg
Work URL: https://adam.art/art/one.zip
Artist Key URL: https://adam.art/static/cdat.key
Collector Key URL: https://betawork.codes/
=== CDAT OVER ===

In an ideal world, with all the software enablement I want to do, Beth would be able to take this token and put it in a digital gallery or on her website, where the art piece, and her ownership of it, would be proudly displayed for all to see in a user-friendly, beautiful format.

Structure

The CDAT has three sections - DATA, which is signed, META, which is not, and SIGN, which contains the CDAT's cryptographic signatures. Hashes and key fingerprints are in the DATA section, but URLs are in the META section, which means they can be changed later; artists and collectors can re-host their art and keys, so long as the files' hashes or fingerprints remain exactly the same.

Semantics

Because the CDAT is cross-signed, anyone can see that both Adam and Beth have agreed to the sale. Assuming the signatures and keys all check out, Beth can now prove to people that Adam sold her his art, and Adam can prove that Beth bought it.

Implementation

In order for this interaction to work, we technically need only existing technology: you can validate such things with GPG and some manual reordering. Ideally, though, we'd have a few tools:

  • A CDAT validation program. This should include a command line program and a GUI (maybe even a mobile app?), and would validate the following information:
    • The given signatures are valid and correct for the given CDAT.
    • The keys used to sign the CDAT match both the given fingerprints and identities.
    • The linked key URLs, if any, in fact point to the indicated keys.
    • The linked art and cover URLs, if any, in fact point to files with the given hashes.
  • A CDAT creation program. This should include a command line program and a GUI. It would take as input the relevant keys and names, provide a way to set the date, and ensure that everything relevant is online at the given URLs.
    • This program would be used by both artists (to create CDATs) and collectors (to cross-sign CDATs).
  • A CDAT hosting service. Obviously there could be more than one of these, and people could host their CDATs and art on their own machines - that's decentralization, baby! - but it would be very nice to be able to host CDATs, art, and keys for free or a nominal fee.

This would be a great start, but in order to really kick-start the ecosystem, it would be nice to provide some additional enablement software, such as:

  • A drop-in HTML embed that uses client-side JavaScript to display and validate CDATs on a website.
  • A browser extension which validates CDATs found on arbitrary websites, on the user's request.
  • A self-hostable CDAT gallery for artists and collectors which displays who owns what, and which art pieces are still for sale.

Please let me know if this idea is interesting to you, and ask any questions/leave comments!

20 comments

  1. [3]
    Liru
    Link
    I'm not an artist, but I do support and commission a bunch of them. I definitely fall into the "collector" bucket you mention, considering I even have my own booru/wiki for such things, so I'd...

    I'm not an artist, but I do support and commission a bunch of them. I definitely fall into the "collector" bucket you mention, considering I even have my own booru/wiki for such things, so I'd already have a place to display any CDATs with a few tweaks. There's some potential there, since YCHs ("Your Character Here"s) and adoptables have been "things" on DeviantArt and other sites for decades now.

    I should begin by saying that as a techie and a collector of art, I absolutely love the idea. But...

    I floated the idea by a few artists and art communities I know, though, and the replies have been... well, let's say "less than stellar". I immediately had to explain how these aren't NFTs, so much so that I had to begin prefixing stuff I went people with "just because it has "cryptographic" in the name doesn't mean it's cryptocurrency-related". One person thought I had my account hacked for a bit. Even then, people were on high alert and making comparisons.

    This is a collection of responses I got, and who you'd basically have to convince to adopt CDATs.


    One person mentioned:

    <[redacted]> I mean I'm not an artist, but tokens seem unnecessary for commissions
    <Liru> How so?
    <[redacted]> Because even if the artist doesn't acknowledge it in a post, I already have a token that says it's mine: the receipt
    <[redacted]> Even if there's no actual transaction, if it's requested on behalf of someone else there will be a way to trace it. So it just seems excessive and like they're trying to get more artists in on NFTs
    

    ...at which point I posted the text from this post you made, and their response was

    <[redacted]> Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with the processes involved, but I can't really imagine a situation where an NFT gives you more than the artist writing a thank you or this belongs to in the description. In the situation where someone is buying the art to support the artist, that sounds no different than a standard NFT sale just reframed.
    

    A conversation with an artist:

    <Z> Well unfortunately just like crypto currency I gotta ask: what's the point?
    <Z> We already have currency to exchange
    <Liru> It's not currency
    <Liru> It's more like a way of saying "I, the artist, am stating that person X bought/commissioned this art"
    <Z> Uh, okay, is there a reason the artist can't just... ya know, say it?
    <Z> o.o
    <Z> Just smacks to me of "NFTs but under a different name"
    <Z> I read how they wanna do a version that is ecologically responsible which is... okay I guess?
    <Z> The whole concept though is just kinda unnecessary though
    

    Finally, one that encapsulates most artists I asked:

    idc, couldn't care less


    A lot of the artists that were willing to engage seem to be concerned about proving authenticity, ie "someone else can just do the same thing with this art and point the key URLs and work URLs elsewhere". Quoting another artist, "[...] i am not registered with every website there is - somewhere out there may be a [$ARTIST_NAME] rping as me i have no idea of existing". You'd basically be fighting the taint of NFTs the whole way through.

    6 votes
    1. [2]
      mtset
      Link Parent
      Well, thank you for going through the work of asking some off-site artists about this idea. Yeah, this is unfortunate but, I guess, unavoidable. I will say that this isn't quite accurate; as...

      Well, thank you for going through the work of asking some off-site artists about this idea.

      You'd basically be fighting the taint of NFTs the whole way through.

      Yeah, this is unfortunate but, I guess, unavoidable.

      It's more like a way of saying "I, the artist, am stating that person X bought/commissioned this art"

      I will say that this isn't quite accurate; as PapaNachos says here, it's more like digital book signing.

      4 votes
      1. Liru
        Link Parent
        Oh, the book signing metaphor is really nice. It seems more like a thing in and of itself than a token representing a piece of art.

        Oh, the book signing metaphor is really nice. It seems more like a thing in and of itself than a token representing a piece of art.

        3 votes
  2. [6]
    PapaNachos
    Link
    Okay so A and B have their public keys hosted on their personal websites and if I want to verify that B owns the piece of art I can check the signatures and verify they match. So C comes along and...

    Okay so A and B have their public keys hosted on their personal websites and if I want to verify that B owns the piece of art I can check the signatures and verify they match.

    So C comes along and creates a personal website where they put the artwork and claim they made it. They can just sign it with their own private key. Sure they can't generate a signature that matches A's, but their website says they own it and they have their own fancy math fingerprint.

    It only really works if people know how to identify which signature is the real one that comes from A. Which, judging from the NFT space right now, people don't give a shit about.

    Contracts, commissions and sponsorships already exist. I could hire an artist right now and agree to pay them for their work. And we can link to each other on our websites already. If I pay them enough they'll probably even be willing to put a big "Sponsored By" notice somewhere.

    Seems like a lot of work and the only real benefit I can see is that it lets A and B both prove they agreed to the sale. So like if A and B had reason to distrust each other in the future and one of them thought the other was untrustworthy. But I don't think that would provide legal remedy beyond what is already available through contract law.

    Unless I'm missing something?

    But I'm glad your proposed solution doesn't require proof of work. Fuck everything about proof of work, it's such a god-damn waste.

    4 votes
    1. [5]
      mtset
      Link Parent
      Thank you for your comments! These are all really valid points, and I think they speak to something fundamental: what is the point of digital tokens and certificates? Yes, 100%. The real value...

      Thank you for your comments! These are all really valid points, and I think they speak to something fundamental: what is the point of digital tokens and certificates?

      I could hire an artist right now and agree to pay them for their work. And we can link to each other on our websites already.

      Yes, 100%. The real value here, from my perspective, is for collectors rather than people who want to use the artwork they're purchasing for a personal avatar, an album cover, or what have you. I see this as less of a way for people to buy access or rights to art, and more of a way for people to support artists and prove that they've done so - like buying a special edition vinyl of music you mostly listen to digitally, or the culture of high-priced patches and pins at hardcore and post-punk shows.

      In this way, it fills the part of the NFT promise I believe in - getting social gratification from supporting artists - and doesn't support the part I don't believe in, which is the investment and speculation aspect. (And, yeah, no POW nonsense.)

      5 votes
      1. [4]
        PapaNachos
        Link Parent
        Ah okay, I see more of where you're coming from now, thanks for clarifying. So like if I really like a particular artist, I could show my friends my gallery of all authentic digital artwork or...

        Ah okay, I see more of where you're coming from now, thanks for clarifying.

        So like if I really like a particular artist, I could show my friends my gallery of all authentic digital artwork or signatures. And my friends who are also into art and appreciate this sort of thing would know how to validate the authenticity. Sort of like having a numbered piece from a limited physical print run.

        I can definitely see the appeal, though it's not my particular jam.

        It creates an interesting conundrum regarding resale though. Say I buy #69 (nice). I post it on my website with its authentic token. Someone buys it from me and I cryptographically sign the receipt. They can prove they bought it from me, but I still have my original token, which I could keep or continue to resell, possibly multiple times. So it's not really enough to know it was authentic at one point, you need to know what the latest version is. And now we're back to blockchain or some other form of ledger.

        2 votes
        1. [3]
          mtset
          Link Parent
          Yeah! And because it costs, you know, a few milliseconds of CPU time to create a new CDAT, rather than ETH gas or physical paper, the artist is totally in control of how exclusive they make these...

          So like if I really like a particular artist, I could show my friends my gallery of all authentic digital artwork or signatures. And my friends who are also into art and appreciate this sort of thing would know how to validate the authenticity. Sort of like having a numbered piece from a limited physical print run.

          Yeah! And because it costs, you know, a few milliseconds of CPU time to create a new CDAT, rather than ETH gas or physical paper, the artist is totally in control of how exclusive they make these things. You could do a promotional run of hundreds, or reward loyal fans with the opportunity to buy just one or a few.

          Someone buys it from me and I cryptographically sign the receipt. They can prove they bought it from me, but I still have my original token, which I could keep or continue to resell, possibly multiple times.

          Yep, you're spot on! This is (to me) a feature, not a bug; it incentivizes supporting artists directly, and disincentivizes using collectables as an investment vehicle.

          Thanks a lot for taking the time to look at this concept and forcing me to clarify this stuff. The good ol' Socratic method strikes again :)

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            PapaNachos
            Link Parent
            Oh shit, that makes total sense. I read what you said about supporting artists, but it didn't click for me that intentionally preventing reselling was part of that plan. I originally read your...

            Oh shit, that makes total sense. I read what you said about supporting artists, but it didn't click for me that intentionally preventing reselling was part of that plan.

            I originally read your proposal through the lens of the trashfire that is NFTs and what not, and made some assumptions that you were intentionally subverting.

            I still have concerns about getting people to adopt it. And proving that a given artist is in fact who they claim to be. But conceptually I like it a lot more than I thought I would. It's so much more wholesome than what's currently out there and works in a way that could actually benefit artists.

            4 votes
            1. mtset
              Link Parent
              I'm really glad you think so! Your concerns are definitely valid, and in my heart of hearts I expect to have to combine it with non-distributed systems like displaying what albums folks have on...

              I'm really glad you think so! Your concerns are definitely valid, and in my heart of hearts I expect to have to combine it with non-distributed systems like displaying what albums folks have on Bandcamp and whatever to make it really attractive - but I think it'll at least by fun to try to get it going.

              3 votes
  3. skybrian
    Link
    The workflow sounds to me a little like buying a license of IntelliJ IDEA. When you buy a license with a credit card, as part of the payment flow they get your name and email and after the...

    The workflow sounds to me a little like buying a license of IntelliJ IDEA. When you buy a license with a credit card, as part of the payment flow they get your name and email and after the purchase they email you a license file. You separately download the software and start it up, select an "add license" menu item and paste the license in. And then when you launch it, there is a dialog box saying "Licensed to <your name>." You keep the license email and that way you can reinstall the software on a different machine.

    There are probably a lot of shareware programs that work similarly?

    Based on this analogy, I think sending an email with the license after purchase would be good for having a backup of the license but I'm not sure that the cross-signing step needs to happen that way. Maybe that could be done with an API call when the customer installs the license. That is, assuming it's needed. I guess it's confirmation of a successful install and good for tracking the artist's audience? It seems like this needs to be optional depending on how ok you are with letting the artist know something more about you.

    Also, it sounds like you're assuming the artist is manually processing each order (at least at first) but I expect something closer to buying music online might make sense, where the artist has some kind of e-commerce system for selling files and generating and sending the CDAT is part of the order flow?

    Although this is intended as an open protocol, I think it would be more likely to become popular if it were integrated with nice software for art collection and management like iTunes. I guess that could be online with your CDAT hosting service.

    A question would be where the art files (mp3's or whatever) are hosted or cached and how you can get another copy if needed. I guess they could be downloaded again from the artist's site but you probably want backups in case the artist disappears. Maybe the CDAT hosting service would keep backups? Having an online place to store your collection that doesn't back up the media file seems like it might be confusing to some, because it looks like you have a copy but actually you don't, it's just the CDAT file.

    2 votes
  4. modern_prometheus
    Link
    I think ideas like this, including NFTs, have great value in so that they can make us reconsider what "ownership" of art, and perhaps even "ownership" as a general concept, mean in the first place...

    I think ideas like this, including NFTs, have great value in so that they can make us reconsider what "ownership" of art, and perhaps even "ownership" as a general concept, mean in the first place —if anything. When an artwork can potentially have infinite indistinguishable copies of itself, rendering the vulgar notion of authenticity/originality dubious, does it still make sense to see its value as predicated on its scarcity? While NFTs seem to double down on valuation based on scarcity this idea of CDATs seems to get closer to a healthier, more true-to-ourselves transvaluation; could it be that when we wish to "own" an artwork we really seek to establish a validated feeling of kinship to the artist, to prove such a connection or likeness? If this is so, is a signed "copy" significantly less valuable than an "original"? I contend that if we stick to conventional absolutist notions surrounding "ownership" of art we'll eventually find that in order to own the art we'd have to own the artist, which seems implausible and rather absurd.

    Anyways, sorry if the above makes little sense or sounds half-baked, it can be hard to elucidate such musings. Whatever the case, I think there's something interesting to be explored here.

    On a practical note, someone else commented that proving the identity of the artist could become an issue since anyone could pose as them to sign CDATs, I think something like Keyoxide could prove useful in that front.

    Good work!

    2 votes
  5. [4]
    Seven
    Link
    I'm thinking that this runs into one of the problems that NFTs have, which is that this does not confer any sort of legal ownership of the artwork. It doesn't seem particularly harmful like NFTs...

    I'm thinking that this runs into one of the problems that NFTs have, which is that this does not confer any sort of legal ownership of the artwork. It doesn't seem particularly harmful like NFTs are, so I don't really have a problem with it, but it doesn't seem to me that the technology actually solves any problem that hasn't already been solved through commissions and contracts.

    1 vote
    1. [3]
      mtset
      Link Parent
      Fair enough! I think I communicated this poorly; the idea is that it's for collectors, not licensing or anything like that. More like a digital patch jacket or vinyl wall.

      it doesn't seem to me that the technology actually solves any problem that hasn't already been solved through commissions and contracts.

      Fair enough! I think I communicated this poorly; the idea is that it's for collectors, not licensing or anything like that. More like a digital patch jacket or vinyl wall.

      3 votes
      1. [2]
        Seven
        Link Parent
        Oh so like multiple people could collect the same piece of art, that sort of thing? That's pretty interesting; in that case, I'd be interested to see where this goes.

        Oh so like multiple people could collect the same piece of art, that sort of thing? That's pretty interesting; in that case, I'd be interested to see where this goes.

        1 vote
        1. mtset
          Link Parent
          Thanks! I'll let you know if I end up developing it further; I'd really like to.

          Thanks! I'll let you know if I end up developing it further; I'd really like to.

          3 votes
  6. [5]
    DataWraith
    (edited )
    Link
    First, I like how the cryptographic signature is base64-encoded hammering on a keyboard ;) I'm a bit confused about the scheme though. I'm not exactly a fan of proof of work, but this does kind of...

    First, I like how the cryptographic signature is base64-encoded hammering on a keyboard ;)

    I'm a bit confused about the scheme though.

    I'm not exactly a fan of proof of work, but this does kind of seem like a blockchain. If Beth wants to sell the artwork to Charlie, they go through the signature dance, and voila, you have a mini blockchain of cryptographic proofs, linking Adam to Beth to Charlie, just one without proof of work.

    Edit: This was addressed elsewhere in the thread

    You say this is for collectors to display their support for artists, but I think that unless you make second-party sales impossible, this will create the same speculation market as NFTs (though tbh I don't know that much about NFT markets, so this could be completely wrong).

    Another thing I don't quite get is what prevents Adam from selling the artwork multiple times to different collectors. What if they promise to only ever sell one, get a lot of money for it, and then decide to renege and sell the artwork a bunch more times?

    And if the Artwork is hosted on a website, doesn't that make it impossible to guarantee its availability? You'd need something like IPFS, at which point I fail to see the big difference to NFTs...

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      mtset
      Link Parent
      Because there's no provision for distributed consensus (no global ledger, like Ethereum), this wouldn't work very well for speculators; as /u/PapaNachos astutely notes, Beth could sell to Charlie,...

      If Beth wants to sell the artwork to Charlie, they go through the signature dance, and voila, you have a mini blockchain of cryptographic proofs, linking Adam to Beth to Charlie, just one without proof of work.

      You say this is for collectors to display their support for artists, but I think that unless you make second-party sales impossible, this will create the same speculation market as NFTs (though tbh I don't know that much about NFT markets, so this could be completely wrong).

      Because there's no provision for distributed consensus (no global ledger, like Ethereum), this wouldn't work very well for speculators; as /u/PapaNachos astutely notes, Beth could sell to Charlie, Doug, and Ethel and still keep her own CDAT. I also don't intend to implement, at least in my software, support for the secondary market at all, so people using the apps and browser extensions I propose here wouldn't see those tokens as Charlie's or Doug's, but as Beth's token just posted on another gallery.

      Another thing I don't quite get is what prevents Adam from selling the artwork multiple times to different collectors. What if they promise to only ever sell one, get a lot of money for it, and then decide to renege and sell the artwork a bunch more times?

      That would be fraud, and thus illegal, but it's definitely possible! You can actually do this with NFTs, too; because there are multiple NFT marketplaces, and the NFT itself only encodes a URL, it's not immediately obvious whether or not more than one NFT exists for a given piece of art.

      And if the Artwork is hosted on a website, doesn't that make it impossible to guarantee its availability?

      Yeah, this is a real problem with all digital art delivered over the 'net. I did address this a bit in the post:

      Hashes and key fingerprints are in the DATA section, but URLs are in the META section, which means they can be changed later; artists and collectors can re-host their art and keys, so long as the files' hashes or fingerprints remain exactly the same.

      I also think it might make sense to sell CDAT's on, like, USB thumb drives or something, with all the actual art materials on the same drive. I haven't quite figured out the interface for that, but ideally it would be very easy for collectors to re-host artwork that has gone down, and change the URLs of the CDAT they display to point to their own hosting.

      First, I like how the cryptographic signature is base64-encoded hammering on a keyboard ;)

      Heh, thanks for looking into this that deeply! You're right, I didn't pull out GPG to actually generate these for the post.

      I do really appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to this, this discussion has been great.

      3 votes
      1. DataWraith
        Link Parent
        Ah, yes, thanks for clarifying that. The other sub-thread was not visible when I first wrote the reply; the subthread answered a lot of the questions. This is semi-offtopic, but this does remind...

        Because there's no provision for distributed consensus (no global ledger, like Ethereum), this wouldn't work very well for speculators;

        Ah, yes, thanks for clarifying that. The other sub-thread was not visible when I first wrote the reply; the subthread answered a lot of the questions.

        This is semi-offtopic, but this does remind me of the Erdős number -- the closer you are to the actual source artist/scientist the more prestigious it is.

        2 votes
    2. [2]
      PapaNachos
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      It uses some of the same technologies and concepts that blockchain uses, but there are some key differences. But at a high level it's more like having your favorite author sign a copy of your...

      It uses some of the same technologies and concepts that blockchain uses, but there are some key differences.

      But at a high level it's more like having your favorite author sign a copy of your favorite book. It's more about the sentiment than the monetary value. They can always sign more, but it's just kinda nice to have.

      It's doesn't convey unique ownership in the way that NFTs claim and fail to deliver on. But it's not really trying to.

      On the signature note: It would be potentially cool to have a field in the token for like a personal note "I loved talking to you at Comic Con, thanks for supporting my work!" or something like that

      3 votes
      1. mtset
        Link Parent
        That's a great idea! I think the "book signing" metaphor is a really amazing one, I'll definitely be stealing that.

        That's a great idea! I think the "book signing" metaphor is a really amazing one, I'll definitely be stealing that.

        5 votes