A serious technical challenge :)

I am posting this here in hopes that the best and brightest, or better yet the most creatively intelligent may have a crack at this.

I am in search of an elusive property for virtual objects: value.



Background:

I am trying to create a class of item that has an opportunity to appreciate in value by virtue of its *verifiable* rarity.

For example (hypothetical): A beautiful, complex, no-copy/no-modify sculpture made by a well-respected resident artist, whose account has been permabanned. Perhaps it sold for $L 100 initially, but now it may go for upwards of $L 1000 or more.



I'm well aware of object key ID's - it is true that a creator could make a list of ten items named 1/10 through 10/10 and publish their unique identifiers.

But that still leaves room for a creator to flood his own market with 'original' knockoffs - much like Salvador Dali allegedly (factually?) did:

http://www.pixi.com/~hicatt/abuses.html



1. I would not consider intentional banning of the creator's account an acceptable solution.

2. I am making the great presumption that an effectively similar work by a copycat creator is not a significant issue and can be ignored (think: cubit zirconia -vs- diamond).

3. I am *not quite yet* concerned about users porting Second Life data in/out of the metaverse.


Challenge:

In blunt terms: if I were to sell say, a series of ten unique individual works, is it possible to *verifiably prove* that I have destroyed all of my own copies?

Short of staging my own death or permabanning, of course.

Obvious feints, such as hiding the object in inventory under the name of "Watermelon gun" must be considered.



Anti-challenge:

Can anyone *prove* by example or logic that such verification is not possible?


Thank you for the time you spent reading this, and I look forward to your creative solutions.

- Desmond Shang

Take object to Inventory. Rerez it. Key changed.

Yes and no.

Yes, there are ways to certify only 10 copies of an "almost" identical item exist in world. It however would require an LSL script to regulate this. While this could not remove the original item from the creator's inventory, it would prevent an unmodified copy from existing in world (basically llDie() on rez). However, this will not prevent the creator from removing the script and keeping the item sans-script. Or the possibility of rez'ing it on non-script land. Now mind you, if the item requires a script to function and be worthwhile, this would work (you could embed the necessary license code into the main code). If it is just a piece of art, the script really does not add value.

There could be a possibility to somehow utilize the DMCA to remove a particular instance of an item. I am not quite sure what LL's action would be to send a DMCA letter stating that your AV is breaching upon your license, however these other 10 AV's have a valid license... Perhaps if you assigned the rights to another party and then in turn they DMCA?

Bribe your local Linden to remove an item?

Interesting question, to which I have some suggestions and a question.

First of all, if the permission system were working as it is supposed to, you could create a limited edition seriograph and not produce any more copies. You wouldn't need to force "banning" to prevent Me Avatar from being able to create anymore, just ensure that Me is on a premium account, and cancel the account; three months later, Me Avatar will gracefully cease to exist and not be able to create any more instances of the objects although those who hold copies would still retain them. Unfortunately, there have been many instances of asset server faults replacing the object tied to one UUID with another or no-copy objects becomming copyable, so practically speaking, terminating Me Avatar is no guarantee that copies will not ever be made.

If you were desparately keen on making a "certificate of authenticy", someone (I forget who, sorry) has established an SL "notary" service called "Nota Bene" which could concievably generate immutable, irreproducible, registered certificates. You may want to look up the proprietor.

On a more practical level, in RL, I have purchased limited edition seriographs from artists that have the familiar "4/20" marking on them (meaning this was the 4th printing of a total series of 20). In real terms, I have nothing but the artist's word that there really only 20 works created, but I've never had any reason to doubt that. Could they have made 200 or 2000? Sure. Do I care? Not really. Do I believe them? Yep, but only because I choose to.

My question to you is: where rarity may have some value in RL, there ain't no such thing as an "investment" piece in SL, especially as it could potentially vanish through an asset server loss or if it were anything but a texture, it may not work in the next revision, or some future revision. My point is that I think you would have a really hard time causing something to increase in value simply because there are only ten in existence.

There are some merchants (very accomplished clothiers are a good example) who have good reason to want something to be a rarity. They accomplish this by pricing these items very highly so that the free market will tend to make these a rarity. The customers they are targeting with these sales find the relative rarity to be a thing worth paying highly for; however, this would not work but for these items being extremely well crafted and novel.

I hope that helps some.

Zarf Vantongerloo

Off topic I guess but this bit is the only bit I know about.

The facts as described in the article are all true, with the exception of how they blame Dali for "the fraud".

He was the victim. He never faked anything or defrauded anyone, but was coerced by his handlers, (in his "altered" mental state) to sign hundreds of thousands of blank sheets of paper.

Why this article lays the blame at Dali's feet is a mystery to me. He was practically a vegetable for most of the period in question.

Mmm... much food for thought here.

1. I was unaware that the key changed upon rez; I had not experimented with this completely yet. Thank you for letting me know before I expended a lot of work (and found my certification method baseless).

2. Script-kills: I'd had a partially formed thought on this myself. Presumably a savvy buyer would demand that the item be authenticated in a script zone by saying 'authenticate' in an off channel, and see if it dies. But the key will change (see talking point 1) so it sounds like this won't work.

3. Trusting the creator - This concept of 'trust'... hmm. Even if a creator were to uphold it fully a few false accusations in say, a forum, might poison years of honest effort. Not that I would think such could happen here, but still think it's wise to seek verification methods.

4. Rights aggressively pursued by outside party - I could see this working on open market sales of items, but not on the black market - which exists wherever there are items with enough value. Unless there were a SL version of Interpol perhaps? I suspect few would accept this as a convincing assurance of authenticity, unless buyers saw a few 'busts' take place first.

5. Notary. Interesting, but... what would be notarised? An affadavit stating that I would not produce any more items perhaps? Boosting face-value trust but still lacking verification I think. I invite input on this.

6. >>"My question to you is: where rarity may have some value in RL, there ain't no such thing as an "investment" piece in SL {reasons given}". Is there a way to restate this as a tight proof - proof that such investment pieces *cannot* exist? Sad but useful information.

7. High prices. Speaking for myself only, I do charge sufficiently knowing that there is a market for uniqueness and rarity. Not everyone wants the items that all the new folk can get for 1 $L. I am still hoping for a verifiable proof of uniqueness though.

8. Bribing a Linden to enforce it. Well, as of yester***edited by Jeska***expensive as I thought it***edited by Robin***some helpful members of the FIC***then Prokofy suggested that***edited by Philip*** So you see, crime pays, but it doesn't pay quite well enough.

9. Dali - yes, I am slow to convict anyone on the basis of a story I read on the Internet. It sounded clever though, so here I languish in my wrist-brace with 350,000 blank canvases signed "Desmond Shang"... ah well.


Thank you everyone, I have learned a great deal.

The question is still open, I think, and I imagine a solution would benefit buyers, sellers, and investors all throughout the Metaverse.

It is possible to track an individual object throughout rez's via authenticating with an external server. This would allow tracking of a single instance of an object, even through re-rezing. This, however, won't necessarily prevent the creator from mucking with the script.

First, yes, I'm the creator and operator of Nota Bene, SL's notary.

I think the problem you are seeking is essentially the same as digital currency. You need away for an item to be guaranteed unique, and exchangeable for another identical one in a way that voids the first (the take it into inventory and rez it issue).

I'll post some more thoughts on this later, when my mind isn't so foggy - or IM me in world if you'd like to talk.

Hmmm.

An external server... I'm hoping that things might far outlast the original creator's interest in the Metaverse. As for similarities to currency... how would this work? Interesting.



Is there irony in the fact that so many people make items that *would* be 'rare' or 'valuable', having surfaces with a timeworn appearance?

Taking great pains to make things *look* as if they had the very properties that the Metaverse has left behind?

"Ooohh... look at this build... it so carefully represents every principle we have rejected!"



...and in the very act of ubiquitous preservation - something precious is lost.

A famous griefer's weapon of choice, the founding documents of a separatist state, a famous dissident's quill pen - yours for 10 $L!

But wait, there's more! A set of blue butterfly wings if you act *now*...