>ERC-721 is the standard that dictates how one should create an NFT. Each ERC721 NFT must have a tokenURI field, that is an external link to a JSON file stored on an external server ... You can notice the image field, which is a link to an image.
Not just a link, a link to a link! And when that server goes down next year, all those JSON files will vanish.
> But it would cost too much of added gas fees and the average user wouldn't understand the difference.
Reminder that this a poor line of thinking.
The average user of a smartphone has no idea how it works. The average user of software has no idea how their apps work. The average user of a blockchain doesn't know how it works, and they won't need to. This stuff gets abstracted out and developed enough to hide these details over time.
I might have worded it poorly, but I completely agree with you. I was just trying to offer an explanation on why this isn't implemented more widely although the technical solution exists.
Some time ago I worked on a proof-of-concept service to enable users to mint their NFTs while abstracting away all the complexities. I decided to go the same route (link only, no hash, no nothing), as the cost for NFT minting are already very high as it is (see https://nuftu.com/pricing for current costs on the Ethereum blockchain).
> But it would cost too much of added gas fees(...)
If your goal was honestly to just buy art, why would "gas fees" matter? They only matter in a scenario involving wash trades and high rates of transactions involving small deltas in price.
Look, I'm not trying to defend NFTs here, but let's view this from an artist's perspective that wants to hop on the bandwagon:
you either pay around $70 to mint your NFT without caring about how and where your image is actually stored, or you pay $20,000 to upload your 500kb onto the blockchain (as the article mentions).
Not just a link, a link to a link! And when that server goes down next year, all those JSON files will vanish.