You're all just haters, non-fungible token does exactly what it promises.
Have you ever seen fungi growing on an NFT? Mold? Mushrooms? No? Then it's working.
I've always held that Non-fungible is a typo. It's meant to say non-functional token.
The token itself is non-fungible. But most NFTs have no business being NFTs.
Waiting on a non-fungible big data AI bag to revolutionise the camping industry, food will never go bad again š¤¤
That is why like my cutlery to be NRS (Non-Rusting Steel)
NFT is not ART. It is digital ledger that says that the art belongs to someone (you, for example). The art itself can be freely copied. NFTs are not copyright enforcement.
There is no art involved. A file is way too big to be stored in the ledger. They just point to a url which is very much mutable, can go down, or change to whatever the fuck at any given time.
If I was a cyberghost, I'd use my cyberpowers to make all NFT's point to dickbutt.
Like pure poetry
This comment is so obviously troll
No, it's absolutely correct, as explained by ethereum's tutorial on how to mint an NFT.
All you have is a line in the ledger stating that you own it (and who sold it to you). Whether you can enforce copyright through the courts, is very separate issue, and not NFT function.
I would pay to sit in on a court hearing where a lawyer is trying to explain blockchains, NFTs, and "smart contracts" to a 70 year old judge.
It's as valid as me saying because I am linking the url below, I must own it: https://google.comNFT has no implication that the url being linked is owned in any way.
It's just a url just like I posted in this comment. If I own it or not is irrelevant. There's no proof of actual copyright ownership anywhere involved with NFTs and requires a legal document for copyright, which they don't have.
NFT is a record of agreement, that one side acquired something from another. It is as powerful as agreement wrote on paper. So, it might be enforced by court, depending on situation.
most of it is AI generated so no one can copyright enforce it, lol.
Legal Eagle has a good video on it, copyright only applies to humans. There was a case where a monkey took a photo with a photographers camera and he lost the copyright case because a monkey holds no copyright.
Some NFT contracts do include image rights. You can write your own contract into the token, so an NFT can be whatever you want it to be.
I'm not defending them, it's just wrong to say you can't get image rights with an NFT when people are writing their own contracts into NFTs all the time.
Not the art. The token. The ledger only says that the token belongs to someone.
You sound knowledgeable. Can you describe a scenario where NFTs are useful? I have heard about tokens for work over a decentralized network but I don't fully understand what that means.
Hrm... not really, no.
That is, there can be scenarios where they are useful as "You cannot trivially recreate this hash code" systems, but... we can already do that without the massive overhead of a blockchain and the PITA of keeping a ledger in check.
Or, as always: There is no application for NFTs which cannot be done faster, easier and better by just using a completely normal database.
and if you want the immutability of the blockchain (which is not a good design btw, what if fraud or mistake happens that needs correcting?), you can literally just use a insert-only database, meaning no updates.
I guess it could enable markets for used non-physical copies of videogames, reselling of tickets, stuff like that.
I don't understand. How it different from reselling a physical copy of ticket?
Depending on the object, the ticket and the jurisdiction, the ticket has some actual legal meaning. An NFT does not. If you bought ape #165345234 as an NFT and someone copies it, they're free to do that and there's fuck all you can do about it. In fact they could even change the owner of the NFT by forking the blockchain, and there's fuck all you can do about that though luckily in that scenario it's quite unlikely they they'll end up being the fork that is adopted by the majority.
But say if the biggest players in a specific blockchain, especially a proof of stake one (and proof of work is shit anyways so let's say "all usable blockchains"), do not like you owning NFT #XYZ, they can undo that. And again, you got no recourse.
What you'd need is a central authority that mediates conflicts and enforces a set of rules. Specifically thing most people do not want in the DeFi universe, but the absence of which is also why a physical - or even digital - normal ticket or receipt is so much more useful, and why DeFi is just grifter's heaven and very little else. It lacks the very abhorred but utterly required central authority.
Well, I was talking of digital stuff. Of course for physical things it doesn't apply.
It's not. Think of them as receipts, transferable proof of purchase, on a globally accessible digital ledger. Their use and value is only in the systems that are built up around them, not the NFT itself.
But real systems are unlikely to be built up without government support and backing or significant corporate investment, and those take money and time.
Such markets already exists. Blockchain does something other tech already does, blockchain just does it much more inefficient and unreliable. This is why you only see pyramid schemes as real life applications of blockchain. Noone has been able to come up with other usages than those.
Such markets already exists.
Do they?
Noone has been able to come up with other usages than those.
Who's Noone? Never heard of him, but he sounds like a smart guy. (couldn't resist, sorry)
Nft has nothing to do with art.. It just how it was perceived and abused by communities, companies, etc. The importance of nft is that it is proof of ownership to a particular thing whether it's real or digital. Don't hate it cause of the stupidity of pixelated pictures which took over this erc token variant.
NFT is stupid no matter how you put it, it has no use case.
Have you studied what is it, how it works, why it was introduced, what problems does it solve? I doubt.. But you are entitled to think what you want.
pray do tell what problems it solves, you must have studied so much, you must have examples ready to go.
They sound like the same people who have been telling us crypto is going to become the currency of the future and solve all the problems we have with banks, Wall Street and the government. Yet here we are and the biggest real world use for crypto is criminal activity.
That's simpy not true. Blockchain eats up electricity so it has negative value.
Bringing scarcity into an inherently post-scarcity environment (digital) is always going to be a stupid and evil idea.
Bitcoin enters the room.
That's actually the point. You want scarcity with a currency, when the supply is arbitrary you get a conflict of interest with the parties who control issuance, and all kinds of problems with economic planning. Currency denotes real life value, not unlimited virtual value. That's why most NFT applications are stupid.
Except it's inherently heavily deflationary.
It's a currency that no one wants to use as a currency because the price is too volatile.
What is deflationary? Basically every crypto has a different issuance algorithm. None of them are "inherently" deflationary or inflationary, assuming you mean "deflation" in terms of price vs. other goods, and not supply terms.
Everyone else leaves the room.
Yep.
People underestimate this effect in Bitcoin communities.
There aren't more people discussing the drawbacks because those of us who know better already gave a warning, and we no longer care if it's heeded.
Like most tech, there's a use. And like a lot of tech, there's a lot of scammers out there over promising things it will never do.
Yes and No. Think of Art NFTs like artist signatures. in the real world, the scarcity and authenticity of artists signatures the books etc. make these valuable. have the same book with a different persons signature or no signature and the book is just as good as any other book with the same content.
With the Nyan Cat NFT, the original creator once approved it and said something like "This is signed by me and should represent the Nyan cat nft." However owns that NFT now this unique NFT on the ledger. The community aggrees, that the artists statement netters, so that decides which Nyan cat NFT is the correct one. If now I announce on twitter, that anither Nyan nft that I created is the "true nft", people wouldn't (or rather shouldn't) trust me, because the social consensus and history shows, that they've agreed upon a different Nyan NFT.
if I want that nft, I have to buy it from the current owner. If I buy it, I can tout about it on social media and prove my ownership on the block explorer.
Such things were only possible with non-digital artworks before. The problem is, that if you have any company, who manages this ledger, people would have to trust them - and there is also no company who has emerged in the part who would represent such a "social concensus on digital art signatures" - and with Blockchains it's too late to found this now.
Why would you want this though?
must monetize everything.
This is just one of many use cases of NFTs.
In the real world, we have artists signatures and people buy them for high prices because they value that and are willing to pay for it. (Whether you like it or not.) The same holds for NFTs as artists signatures. However, with NFTs everyone can still "experience" the original because the data is still copyable as much as possible.
There are many other use cases for nfts. One is digital subscriptions which ought to be neutral and not owned by a single company. As an example, theoretically you could buy the licence to watch Inception (movie) as an NFT. Then you can go to Amazon prime / Netflix etc. and after checking that you own one such NFT, they'll let you watch it for a small streaming fee instead of requiring a hefty subscription fee per months after which you still don't own the rights to watch it forever. Requiring that such platforms support this could be enforced legally. Yes, piracy is an alternative today where you can still watch it forever - but it's strictly speaking not financially sustainable. However, I'm aware that the financial distributions when buying DVDs or cinema isn't exactly fairly distributed - but that's another bigger story.
NFTs are an abstract concept of rather neutral non-counterparty-risk of non-exchangeable limited ownership. In the non-blockchain world, it's the social consensus which says "Hey, the ownership ledger is managed by the government and we decide to trust that." - which makes the rest work. When people agree, that the non-government owned ownership on the Blockchain ledger "is the social consensus that matters", then people decide for it and the rest also works out.
NFTs as certificates of authenticity are excellent. NFTs as most people know them are schadenfreude.
NFTs aren't used as certificates of authenticity. TF does that even mean when talking about digital assets.
Unless you actually get the rights for the art legally recognized (basically no NFTs are) then you are trading pointers, easily minted with absolutely no actual legal power.
The owner of the asset can kill the destination of the nft pointer with a well aimed lawsuit.
It's a digital receipt that can be used for registering ownership of goods.
Imagine if you will a car, you buy it and it gets registered to an NFT as proof of ownership, and because we have a technologically competent government on the forefront of digital ownership (facetious hyperbole), they have the DMV linked to the block chain, so now when you trade and sell your car ownership gets logged to the block chain so you know exactly how many previous owners it has, it's also now linked to your registration information, insurance status, and warranty.
Now when the motor vehicle is involved in an infraction or accident that information is also logged to the block chain and because this is linked to our tech savvy police they now have accurate to the second data on vehicle ownership, registration status, and traffic infraction data, etc.
And because your car's NFT is linked through the block chain to your car's GPS and other services the police can, with your digital permission revoke able at will, gain immediate live location data should your car be stolen.
But that might be hard because your car now uses a digitally encrypted key card that uses your NFT to track registered users and won't start for anyone you haven't pre-authorised, and because it's linked to your insurance anyone you authorise automatically gets registered to your vehicles insurance and your rates adjust automatically as you make changes.
But, that's just part of one man's idealism of a NFT functional world.
But as it stands, NFT's are just fancy receipts sold by art grifters, you wouldn't buy a receipt from Costco without any goods or associated ownership and expect it to be worth anything.
but the transport authority in my country does not use blockchain. And yet I still know I'm the 13th owner of a classic car I own. It's almost as if the type of database used to store the information doesn't matter.
You are trusting the transport authority in this instance to always report the truth.
My understanding with NFTs is that the previous owner only needs to say it once as part of the sale. Now only you can transfer ownership. No central body needs to be trusted.
Maybe... pretty sure I've seen some articles of NFT chain creators having the ability to revert transactions (e.g., owner was phished). In that case yeah... just use a database.
yes, I am. how is that different than trusting some random dude minting nfts?
The issue is not what happens after they have been minted (what blockchains claim to solve), but if the data came from a trustworthy source in the first place (which blockchain doesn't, and fundamentally cannot, tackle either)
Because the original signer is the car manufacturer. Study existing pki systems a bit.
That doesn't change anything. How do I trust that the car company has entered valid data? How do I know they won't pull a VW and fudge with data? (they can fudge the data before putting in on the blockchain, so immutability not only doesn't help, but is actually detrimental, in this case) And that is just with one car company. So I have to build trust with each individual car company myself.
How about I outsource the job of verifying the trustworthiness to one single entity dedicated solely to this, whom I trust. That way, I have less work to do, while not changing the fact that I still had to put my trust somewhere in the first place.
And therefore, the transport authority.
pki verifies the originator of the data. It says absolutely nothing about the data itself.
pki does not solve the problem of establishing a solid root of trust. And neither do blockchain technologies
The data can't be fudged after the fact. If you say you sold a Nissan Nassina to Bob Jones on Aug 10 2023, that's there forever.
I don't care about what happens after the data is written in the blockchain. I care that accurate data goes in in the first place. that part blockchain cannot solve. And if inaccurate data does make it in, I want it corrected. So I'd have to trust someone to make those changes.
besides, what do I do if it gets stolen? prove I own it? I can already do that.
and if you do want that immutability, that's what digital signatures are for. We both sign the same copy of a document with our private keys. Then we both keep a copy of the signed document. There is no need for anyone to have a copy of it, nor do we need anyone else's computing power for us to be able to show it has not been tampered with, since we don't have each other's private key. The blockchain is not needed.
I donāt care about what happens after the data is written in the blockchain. I care that accurate data goes in in the first place. that part blockchain cannot solve. And if inaccurate data does make it in, I want it corrected. So Iād have to trust someone to make those changes.
That's unsolvable in general besides through consensus algorithms (which blockchain can facilitate). I'm not really sure what the example here is in the analogy we've been using - an auto manufacturer sells a car to someone that's a different model than they wanted? They could refuse purchase.
Blockchain adds authenticity through proof of when it occurred, which is not available through signature chains.
are you really suggesting that blockchain invented timestamping????
No. Blockchain provides timestamps via the block height,, which means the signer(s) can't forge them.
There could be a "validator" you choose that has to sign off on the blockchain the seller's claims are true as a condition to finalize the sale. Similar to buyers (in the US at least) selecting and paying for a home inspector when buying a property.
The point is, nobody can change their answer later with lots of independently operated data redundancy. The data is meant to be tamper proof. Its up to you to authenticate identities, delegate authentication, or blind trust the seller before trusting that data.
It's not a one size fits all solution. A better example is if all the transport authorities in the world wanted to share one database. Who would all those transport authorities trust to operate it globally? Probably no organization would have the trust of all of them. With a blockchain, transferring that ownership from being managed by one authority to another would then go through that validation flow where the seller and receiver transport authorities sign off that they authenticated the other out-of-band and that they authorize this transaction as a matter of public record.
The NFT use case is dumb for digital art with the intent they hold value as if the resource is scarce.
The Matter DCL on the other hand I think is a great use case. Apple, Amazon, Google, and many more companies want to share a common database for certified IoT devices. They don't trust each other enough to agree to one company operating this database. They can agree to a certifier, but its not the certifier's role to certify devices and host the infrastructure to automate a device is certified during adoption by a customer. So the big companies built that infrastructure using a blockchain and made it easy for the certifier (account authenticated out-of-band when created) to post certification results. 67% of the companies verify the certifier's identity on the chain matches who they previously authenticated every time a result is posted (automated using public key cryptography). Only then are the results authorized to be published. Since the data is tamper proof, everyone trust those published results.
You already can't modify my copy of a document digitally signed by you, which I can use to detect/prove that you have attempted to change your copy (because only you can use your private key)
And we already know that blockchains do not solve the root iof trust issue. Why would I suspect data if you tell me said data, but trust that exact same data if you put it in a blockchain and i read it from there? I'm not worried about you changing the words. I'm worried about your words being bullshit in the first place and not being able to have that rectified. Any solution to that involves me trusting some central authority to be able to make those changes, which defeats the purpose completely.
so what's the value add here?
Tamper proof federated distribution. That's it now that I've had a couple days to think on it. Why use Lemmy when Reddit or even old school forums exist? We (as a generalization) are here because we see value in accessing many forums under one UX and we do not trust Reddiit as a centralized distributer.
If some user here started posting they were a famous person, we wouldn't trust that without some additional verification. Same with blockchain accounts/wallets.
Blockchains provide one possible mechanism that prevents any Lemmy instance from falsely distributing ActivityPub messages from a user that did not author them. False messages can be checked they didn't come from that user since they were not signed with their private key. The rest of the federated distributors would detect the forgery and drop the message.
Sure we could all sign our messages with a PGP key. Blockchains just bake this feature into the distribution.
The last feature, which may or may not be desirable, is that these tamper proof federated distribution channels have a full audit log.
you don't need blockchain for it to be baked into the distribution. you just need to implement it. You even said how yourself.
The only thing a distributed blockchain would achieve would be that now, every instance needs a full copy of everything on every instance, instead of only the stuff its users are subscribed to.
your proposal also assumes that instances post untanted data in the first place. You seem so focused on verifying who said what. What we need to verify is that what is said reflects reality.
this is not possible. it works with crgptocurrincies because there you're just moving coins that already exist in the system. That way nobody can create coins out of thin air because you can always see where the coin was taken from. This is obviosly impossible with comments. You can't just pre-create all comments and have users distributing those among themselves.
Totally agree you do not need a blockchain. Its just one class of implementations. There are others like Apache Zookeeper, or even just roll your own.
Also really appreciate you engaging with me on the topic. I'm currently working on a federated product (business to business). Blockchains have come up (private chain), so I'm trying to convince myself it brings something to the table as a framework by arguing from the other side.
Verifying who said what is the major concern we are trying to solve. Everyone having a copy of the data is also preferred so each business pays for their own read usage.
Verifying who is who is pretty much solved using traditional PKI with certificates. The what is said is less of a concern so long as we know who said it. The whats in our use case are not digital assets.
We are looking at it like pub/sub kafka-like framework with complete history intact that is immutable without needing to dedicate resources to rolling our own. Co-operators have something to gain by working together (long term) but can also gain by screwing each other over (short term).
Tendermint/Cosmos has been looking pretty attractive as a private chain with ~1s commits (no mining). 67% of the nodes must agree on who signed a message and the order the messages were seen to commit it to the next block. So far its seeming pretty convenient for what we are looking for.
This is a hammer in search of a nail.
The way this currently works is certifiers publish lists of what they certify. No block chain needed and if a certifier becomes untrustworthy, you can start ignoring what they say.
Rather than making a pachinko machine of keys, trust, and computational waste, you can simply ask certifiers you care about "is XYZ certified".
There's little value in making certifications immutable.
See UL certification.
Lemmy analogy might be a better example if it was on a blockchain. Its like if we all started putting PGP signatures at the end of our posts, only its baked into the protocol. That way, as messages traverse the fediverse, they cannot be altered without detection.
Certificate publishers can post on ANY instance and consumers can read those result also on ANY instance, similar to Lemmy. If we didn't see value in a common UX we would all go back to old school forums. Likewise, if we didn't see value in federating, we would be on some centralized platform.
If an account claiming to be Elon Musk said they were going to do an AMA, we won't believe it without additional proof he is controlling the private key of the account that made the claim.
The open ledger (immutable messages) is the big distinguisher. Its like having archive.org or users taking screenshots of a public figure's message before they delete it, but baked into the protocol for every message. Probably not a great social media feature, but for business transactions over a federated distribution channel, its nice to have.
Not all blockchains require mining and create computational waste. See tendermint/cosmos, the one the Matter DCL uses.
These are a lot of steps for what we already have that already does this, the internet. In a decentralized fashion no less.
TLS certificates are in fact proof that "this data came from a trusted webmaster." Every communication is secured such that you can't have a third party tamper with legitimate messages.
Certainly this doesn't prevent a website from changing messages (as you point out, archive.org solves that problem). For the most part, that's not really a negative. Things change and sometimes the old information needs to be corrected.
The internet goes a step further, though, because we have a set of trusted certificate managers we can know for sure that the signed cert we get from "google.com" is actually from the owners of google.com. An issue with the block chain is there are no trusted 3rd parties saying for sure "this signature came from X". So how can you tell that the public key you are looking at is actually musk's and not someone else's? What about the case of musk losing his key (which, hilariously, happened with the Q poster on 4chan). You end up needing to rely on some out of chain communication to re-establish the new set of facts and to (importantly) invalidate future communications in the case that the old key is actually compromised.
All these problems are solved with TLS.
Certificate publishers aren't having problems getting their certificates out there or letting the general public know about them. Go to ul.com and you to can see what UL has certified.
The only benefit I'm seeing is you can see that UL revokes a cert for some reason. But that's generally not something you care about. When looking for certification you want to know "what is the current certification status of this". Nothing more.
Blockchains I fully agree don't deal with trusting a public key. Something out-of-band is needed if you need to trust the author of a claim and not just the claim is consistent. Concsistancy is where I see a block chain adds value.
Lets look at Matter which is operated by a coalition of companies (connectivity Standards Alliance or CSA).
What if the CSA wants many certifiers and not just ul.com?
What if the CSA wants a single datastore of those results? Maybe ul.com stops certification for Matter devices and no longer wants to maintain infrastructure for the CSA. The CSA then needs a cache of past certifications some place then.
What if CSA members don't trust any one company in the coalition to host that federated datastore? For example, Apple fears if Google hosted they will introduce random faults when queried to cause a poor user experience when checking an Apple product. Nobody is neutral enough that everyone can agree on one company to host. Since this is an international standard, it could be the US and China won't agree on a host. Point is, nobody trusts anyone to consistently report the same thing.
They don't even trust an outside entity like ul.com to provide consistent reports.
Once its been said on a blockchain, it cannot be unsaid. It would take 2/3 of the coalition to agree to a false result to screw over the other 1/3.
Important decisions like votes on what accounts/wallets on the chain can post certification results also requires a 2/3 majority that can be audited on the ledger. Trust of those accounts is established off the blockchain.
If a certifier doesn't want to certify a device, a blockchain won't solve that. Its solves the trust problem that results will be consistent during the millions of requests for a certification result. My bank has a trusted certificate as a trusted web master. Doesn't mean they won't give me different loan options based on location/browser/any other meta data they can get. That is their right to not give consistent results. That doesn't mean there are not any use cases for it.
There could be a āvalidatorā you choose that has to sign off on the blockchain the sellerās claims are true as a condition to finalize the sale. Similar to buyers (in the US at least) selecting and paying for a home inspector when buying a property.
In other words, for blockchain technology to be applied to sales validation, there needs to be a central authority who everybody trusts, that can validate transactions.
Cryptobros are the last persons I would trust with anything much less actual currency.
You are trusting the transport authority in this instance to always report the truth.
If my car gets stolen, the police is going to be the one that needs the location data to track it. If I get stopped by cops, they will be the ones to look at the data to verify that it's legally registered and that I legally own it. If I buy a stolen car, the police and the DMV are the organizations I'm going to get in trouble with.
Even if the registration itself is decentralized, it's usage is centralized - it's always the state that checks it. Even when I check the registration with the seller to make sure it's legit, I do it because I know the police or the DMV is going to check the very same registration. I mean, there are some used TVs that cost more than some used cars, but I wouldn't check their registration (which does not exist) because the police is not going to check my TV's registration (I'm not from the UK š)
With that in mind - we don't lost much when we trust the state to operate the centralized database. If they wanted to scam us they could do it just as easily when checking the blockchain. Sure, maybe having it decentralized will make it easier to prove in court (which - let me remind you - is also state operated) if they do decide to fake their own blockchain queries, but at this point it's nowhere near worth the extra operation cost of the blockchain.
Same with things like tickets - the organizer is going to check your ticket anyway, and if they decide to scam you they can just not let you enter even if the blockchain says you really do own the ticket. Or even better - just mint NFTs for tickets for a fake event that is never going to actually happen. So why not just let the organizer run the centralized database?
Software activation too - let the developers run the keys database. If they wanted to scam you they could just block your login even if the blockchain says you own the NFT.
And note that in all these examples, the organization that could run the centralized database has much less incentive to scam you than some random seller (or scalper). Yes, an incentive to scam always exists, but its strength should be taken into account and compared to the cost of the scam-prevention mechanism suggested.
Decentralization works for JPEG NFTs because they are worthless. You don't verify them to get anything useful - the closest thing to it is Twitter showing an octagon around verified NFT profile pictures - which is easy to bypass.
And with NFTs, you're still trusting the regulators because they have to enter the information to begin with.
There's always going to be some external trust at some level. NFTs just add an unnecessary layer to it all.
What you describe as idealism is a dystopian world for most people. Holy hell. Apart from it leaving out all the nitty gritty details of reality. Also apart from this being entirely possible without blockchain.
not just possible, but also much easier and more efficient
And what if someone forgets to transfer the receipt? What if they accidentally transfer it? What if the receipt goes to the wrong address? What if the government decides to take possession of the vehicle without the owners consent? What if the owner of the NFT dies; how would their spouse or children take possession?
NFTs will never be used like you imagine. They are too ridged. And what benefit do they offer over the current VIN and titling system? Everything you mentioned for tracking is already done. Any mechanism to thwart that would work equally to thwart the NFT.
I must have missed the part where I single handedly need to provide all the workable solutions for every problem.
Thus proving my point that only people who haven't thought about NFTs critically are fans of them.
The reason you can't defend this is cognitive dissonance is settling in. You can't admit that there could be problems so you take lazy mental shortcuts "it's not my responsibility to consider problems of something I support".
If you are promoting them as a viable solution to problems, it IS your responsibility to think about the downsides. Otherwise STFU and stop promoting them.
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
Nice comeback. "I can't debate this topic, therefore you are an idiot".
Jesus Christ. Okay, I hate NFTs and they are abysmal. But fucking listen. The person has done nothing but put their best, rational arguments forward. It is not their job to put forth the mental energy to answer every single question you ask, and I am sick to death of the "if you can't answer me on everything right now, that means you can't debate me, I win, fuck you". Seriously, fuck off with that shit. You have to see how absurd and gross that response is, right?
I never demanded they answer all my questions. But a single answer to the question of "what do you do when life doesn't match the ledger" IS the key problem with using the block chain as a source of truth for ownership.
I simply gave real examples of how that can happen.
The original nft defender didn't even TRY to address this issue and it's the crux of the problem with NFTs.
So fuck off with your tone policing. It's not gross to raise a question an advocate can't answer.
It's not a key problem at all. NFTs are a trivial implementation of transferable discrete content hash ownership. You literally just add additional methods for state modification to the contract if you want them.
Giving more keys out in the process and removing a prime benefit of the NFT, that they are "secure". If a party in the nth party contract is untrustworthy or maybe they just use a bad password now your property can be stolen with little recourse. As has already happened with many smart contract implementations.
Best case scenario, you end up before a judge who ends up voiding the NFT all together.
You have to consider how access would flow. Every time a new county clerk is elected or judge is appointed you have an event where access to modify the contracts needs to be updated.
Oh and this doesn't solve the problem of repossession. If you write the contract but explicitly excluded government entities because "ain't no government taken my truck!". Now you have a conflict where if the government wants your truck, they are taking it and no digital contract will stop that. And not for malicious reasons, but instead "you stopped paying child support".
At which point, you should be asking "what problem did this solve over a standard title?". To approach usability you'd need a standard contract that had provisions in it to allow the local government to rewrite the details. But good luck with that because I'm sure the Canadian government won't be too thrilled with the access requirements of the Greek government. Or even Texas's access requirements vs the federal government.
Of course you can ignore all this, but then you have a contract with no enforcement. That is, you have no contract.
The reason every nation has such complex legal systems is life is complex. And with that complexity comes dispute over ownership. Things are never as clear or simple as you'd like to bake into a smart contact.
This strikes me as (a sort of) goalpost moving. First the criticism is given that there's not enough room given for state intervention. I point out that you can trivially add that. I get a reply that there's too much room for state intervention. What I said (assuming which comment you replied to, sorry lemmy is bugging) is you can have arbitrary ways to modify the state, involving as many arbitrary parties as you want and any mechanism that you want. If you actually wanted to incorporate a state into the decision around title, you certainly could, you'd have to encode whatever regulatory agencies, chain of courts going up through appeals and supreme, etc. Though the whole idea is that you can encode better mechanisms than that.
Goalpost is the same. What happens when the crypto assets/contracts doesn't match reality?
You are saying "we can make the contact modifiable!". But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
Reality is that judges not even born today can interpret, modify, or revoke contracts written today. You that all smart contracts will take that fact into consideration?
It's also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
And what if existing contracts/assets that didn't or don't want to take those issues into account.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. "What happens when crypto doesn't match reality?" "We can make crypto modifiable!" "And what are the realities of making it modifiable" "that's shifting goalposts!".
I do believe you're debating in good faith. If you feel like my questions are bad faith, that's fine, I don't believe they are. I simply remain unconvinced that the solutions proposed are practical, safe, or better than the current system.
Do me a favor and please don't add "!"s to my messages. Also I didn't say "we can make [contracts] modifiable", I said we can modify them, those are two different things (pre-deployment and post-deployment).
You are saying āwe can make the contact modifiable!ā. But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
The extent of that "security hole" basically ties to the level of centralization. If you want a single signature with the ability to override anything in the contract, yes, that's a big security hole, about on par with the one a state possesses over the situation in non-smart-contract world. If you want to require thirty "signatures of peers", it starts to act more like a jury. Not gonna go through every (infinite) possible mechanism but suffices to say you can put whatever you want, and people are free to use or not use it accordingly, versus a state which enforces its own legal mechanism universally.
Itās also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
Smart contract is just a record of state. How people are bound by that in the real world is a second question. An important one, but still a second one. If the contract has a mechanism determining ownership, you can kind of treat it like the rules of governance for an organization, that interacting with the contract acts an agreement towards. Like, by entering your assets into this system, you agree to the outcome. In terms of a way to treat that that's more or less compatible with Western law.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. āWhat happens when crypto doesnāt match reality?ā āWe can make crypto modifiable!ā āAnd what are the realities of making it modifiableā āthatās shifting goalposts!ā.
Re: goalposts - I was referring specifically to the complaint being first that it was not overridable enough by a state, to which I replied you can put in any mechanism for controlling the contract state, and then I got a response it's too overridable. Smart contracts can be written to have essentially any mechanism for controlling state (with some constraints like functional purity), so the objections coming from every side of "too much centralization" or "not enough centralization" are a bit nonsensical.
In terms of a way to treat that that's more or less compatible with Western law.
Western law recognizes the existence of illegal contacts and regularly voids them. In an extreme example, you can't write a contract to sell your kids into slavery.
This is the problem I have with smart contracts, you may have willingly entered the contact, yet the contact could be illegal. When that happens, even though the contact may automatically transfer the digital ownership, the real world ownership could never follow.
the objections coming from every side of "too much centralization" or "not enough centralization" are a bit nonsensical
Just a reality. To make these contacts work and be enforced by a government, you'd need too many backdoors. If you don't have those backdoors, no government will support the contact. It's a catch 22.
The benefit of the digital ledger comes when it represents reality. When reality diverges then the smart contracts become worthless. Nobody will want to live by a hacked contract and no government will respect a contract that didn't consider emmenant domain.
That is why I wrote "more or less", at the moment, yes, you would need an explicit & binding agreement to that effect.
Just a reality. To make these contacts work and be enforced by a government, youād need too many backdoors. If you donāt have those backdoors, no government will support the contact. Itās a catch 22.
See above, I don't think it's that simple at all.
but who do you trust to validate those additional methods? That's just kicking the can down the road
They're open source and not that complicated. Speaking as someone with training in this.
such as?
Then they shouldnāt be advocating for it. Their post might sound nice, but in reality the situation is like me proposing that we should build cars out of sugar. Then someone comes along and asks ābut what if it rains?ā.
Now you might be thinking āthis is a stupid idea in the first placeā or at the very least āwell thatās a good questionā. But not āwow thatās a really cool idea and op put in their best, rational arguments. People shouldnāt be poking holes in itā.
Now depending on how familiar your are with the entire technology you might not be realizing that op has been asking to build cars out of sugar in the first place. But thatās another topic then.
-
It is nothing like the absurdity of building cars out of sugar.
-
The responder was still being an absolute idiot.
No, you decided to make disingenuous, bad faith arguments. So you're either doing it on purpose (practiced stupidity) or you're doing it because you don't know any better (natural stupidity). I'm just curious which.
Of course, any pushback is automatically bad faith, because you can't consider the fact that you may have been duped. No, it must be that the person telling me I'm wrong is dumb.
Do you enjoy MLMs as well?
So it's both. And you're illiterate. Couldn't even read the last paragraph.
Lol, nah, you're just a delusional acolyte that can't recognize good points. You dropped out of the debate the moment you couldn't answer a single reasonable question.
Lol, I dropped out the moment I realised I was talking to a disingenuous shit bag who can't see beyond their own hate for a technology because you probably got grifted like every other idiot.
Every point I made regarding NFT's is both hypothetical and and idealisation, but you're too stupid to see past your ego because it's hanging in front of your eyes, dickhead.
Nah, I just have the ability to think critically. You should try it sometime.
If self awareness was a disease you'd be the healthiest person alive.
I'm rubber and you're glue
Oh my god your responses just keep getting stupider and lamer.
And I say that as a person who also hates NFTs. Shitheadedness is worse than NFTs.
Words don't hurt you because you're not smart enough to comprehend them.
Ohh, I'm so burned by the guy incapable of second order thinking.
I thought you were rubber, oh wait, you meant soft, like in the head.
Nice one. Keep em coming
You should slap your father for not having the common decency to wipe you on the curtains.
You're right, what else?
You're right
Always have been.
I hate NFTs, but I hate bad-faith garbage responses more. You put your best, most-rational arguments forward and all they've been doing is attacking your character. They are being a stupid assholeā it doesn't matter if people disagree with you or not, or even if you were wrong in the grand scheme of things. I'm sorry for their bullshit and their upvoters. Repliers, be goddamned adults, please.
I could put my absolute best reasonable argument that bananas are blue. Doesn't change the fact that, no matter how polite and reasonable my argument was, bananas aren't blue, and everyone knows it. From then on the argument stops being reasonable if I keep refusing to look at an actual banana and somehow reconcile the ideal scenario I've cooked up in my head with reality. In this case there are many small advantages, and one huge dealbreaker. One can't just decide to ignore the dealbreaker just to achieve this reconciliation
Thanks for saying this. I think NFTs are interesting, not really good or bad - but all the shit media, greed and barriers to real, balanced information about anything blockchain have made it hard to have any not-negative opinion of NFTs openly. I applaud the bravery of the people who try.
well, someone has to think of these problems, if they are going to keep recommending these anti-solutions
We know the problems, stop wasting your time rehashing old work and start working on the solutions instead of pointing to the list and saying 'but', and 'no'.
Also, I never provided a solution, I provided an imaginary ideation but that seems to be lost on a lot of people who's reading comprehension is probably easily insulted.
Just because a problem is old, doesn't mean it's invalid.
For NFTs to be useful as a receipt, for them to have the benefits you list, there needs to be an answer to the problem "what happens when reality doesn't match the block chain".
You don't have to have a solution to this problem but maybe consider how much the value of NFTs are diminished without it. A government can't rely on these things if they can't regulate them. People won't rely on them if mistakes can't be corrected. They are just toys without these issues addressed.
An ideal vision doesn't matter. Ideally we could burn fossil fuels forever and not worry about CO2 emissions.
Smart contracts can have arbitrary mechanisms to modify state involving any number of parties.
You're all over my comments like they're a cock and your job is to suck it.
You're the asshole that started with insults. I responded in kind.
I see your reading comprehension hasn't improved, I'd spell it out for you in language you'd understand but I have neither the patience nor the crayons.
I feel like two or three weeks ago you would never see a convo like this on Lemmy. Can we all do better here.
we know that the problem with the hindenburg was that hydrogen is too easily flammable and explosive, but ignoring that, it was a pretty neat, and safe mode of transport, don't you think?
yeah, that does not use hydrogen. because they took the tech that didn't work for that purpose, and replaced it with something that did.
In this analogy, you're not defending blimps, but hydrogen use in blimps.
This example was solved by removing the problematic element, hydrogen, not by burying our heads in the sand and reiterating that "hydrogen in blimps is safe! we just need someone else to fix its very obvious issues with it."
Well, every "someone else" came to the conclusion that the best way to use hydrogen in blimps is to just... not.
No amount of claiming that we just need an Nth opinion will change the fact that whoever actually did look at the problem (not yourself, by your own admission) deemed it intractable
Yes, they didn't ignore the tech, they made changes and upgrades to make it viable.
we're talking about hydrogen use in blimps. Not about blimps.
hydrogen as a lighter-than-air technology for civilian transport is a dead end. It's not safe in a blimp, it's not safe in a hot air balloon. It's not safe for any application involving lighter than air human transport.
We improved the lighter-than-air technology by realizing that there was more than one way to achieve it, identifying one of those ways as hopelessly wrong for the job, and switched to something else that does solve the safety problems with hydrogen, i.e. helium
There's more than one way to do X. Blockchain is one of those ways, but as it turns out, it does not solve the problems that need solving (the root of trust issue). Not big news, given that it is impossible to solve in general. You always have to put your trust somewhere. No amount of hoping and listing other supposed advantages will change this.
You're talking about hydrogen, I'm talking about blimps. There's a reason you still miss the point.
Since I made the analogy, and I told you which part of my analogy corresponds to the argument you're making, it means that makes you the one who's missing the point.
I told you what the analogy I made means, and you said, 'but I wanna talk about something else, unrelated"
you don't get to pick what I say
Since you made the analogy in an attempt to explain how my position was wrong while being completely ignorant of my position it makes no difference what the analogy is.
You're wrong because you intentionally and disingenuously attempt to put words into my mouth over and over, because you're a moron who can't see the forest for the trees.
You don't get to pick what I say
If self awareness was a disease you'd be the healthiest person alive.
your position is very clear. You think blockchains are a solution to something, but with some "teething issues" that will be solved by someone else because it's not your job to even think about them.
While ignoring the fact that those teething problems have been there from the start, are still there even though tons of people have actually looked at them and made attempts to solve it, and figured out that it is an unfixable issue fundamental to this technology (or any other, really).
If what we need is a white cube, you're presenting a white sphere and focusing on how white it is, instead of the fact that no matter how white you make it, it will still never be a cube. because it's a sphere.
None of the blockchain technologies solve the root of trust problem. None of them does because that step has to be solved before the blockchain can be trusted in the first place.
The problem we have in real life is not mutability of data. That's been a solved problem for ages. Give me a file digitally signed by you, and I can forever use it to verify that you haven't modified your copy (assuming your private key was not compromised.l, which is an issue shared by any blockchain too) and also that I haven't modified mine..
The problem we have in real life is establishing a root of trust before we start exchanging data. Blockchains don't and can't tackle this. So they are not a solution to the problem that we do have.
Heās gone. The blockchain has him.
I've read half a sentence and you've already got my position wrong, for something that is so clear how do you not get it?
Keep trying to force your ignorance through my lips, I'll keep telling you you're the moron you are.
so correct me. What is your position?
Wow, asking the correct question, the first intelligent thing you've said this whole time.
Unfortunately for you, I don't reward belligerence, should have asked sooner.
I didn't ask sooner because through the magic of scrolling, I read your replies to the other comments.
Seriously, try it! You will be amazed!
And yet you didn't learn anything.
There have been a few notable cases where this did happen. In one case in central america a father of a murdered child got the graphic images of her death NFT'd and had his ownership recognized by a court so the local media would stop airing the images.
Some countries treat digital currencies much differently than the northwestern world. Some have integrated and regulated blockchain with their financial systems.
But hey, at least we burned a bunch of GPU cycles so a judge can say "this is valid/invalid".
Imagine
Also every time you start your car it burns half a litre of fuel to run a GPU that verifies your NFT before you can actually drive.
once someone says something it can't be changed or unsaid.
My problem isn't that someone might have tampered with what was said. A paper certificate does that just fine, if i keep it in a safe place. My problem is that anone can say anything on the blockchain and most of what is said is bullshit.
The mona lisa is not owned by some random dude, but there exists a "very reliable, immutable, trustworthy" certificate that says it does.
Tldr: the problem with nfts are that they are bullshit before they become immutable, and will remain bullshit forever once minted, because they become immutable.
Exactly. People are the ducking worst
are they though?
I hate the monetization that people want to force on everything. Especiallt when done through NFTs.
There's already a way to generate unique codes and tickets and literally anything an NFT could be used for without needing to use an NFT. It was and always will be a solution looking for a problem.
NFTs: What if we stored backup copies on everyone else's computers?
And the reason we keep throwing it at problems that are already solved in a much simpler way is because it's actually just a really cool technology with no practical purpose!
That is not true at all though. Why is it that cryptobros always seems to be the ones with the least understanding on the subject?
Maybe a dumb question, but is there any advantage in NFT-based tickets? Is there any problem if the ticket is stored in the airline database and not distributed in a ledger?
So, just treat concert tickets with more security like plane tickets? Why use much slower and expensive method like blockchain?
It's more expensive because all the engineers building those ticket systems are used to doing it the existing way. Training them all to use this new technology costs money. Then figuring out how to monitor it and all that jazz is more work then would need to do. So maybe it would be good but most companies probably won't switch over to a new system unless there is a good reason. Especially if what they already have is working for them.
The large number of stolen NTFs beg to differ.
Nope, it's happening on the buyers side. Phishing, malware, trojan horse tokens (booby-trapped smart contracts) and swap scams are some of the common ways individuals have their tokens stolen.
The big advantage in my opinion, is that you'd be able to buy or trade that ticket, in a digital form, on any third party market (or privately) without the forced involvement of a third party company like Ticketmaster.
I am no l by no means an evangelist, but I personally do think there are some interesting use cases which haven't been fully realized yet.
Most misused and therefore most misunderstood technology ever lmao
I mean it was hyperbole but I honestly couldn't think of another that fulfills both these criteria
Stocks in Tulips
You called me an idiot for calling out that people don't understand what an NFT actually is, then turn around and agree with someone who says NFTs are misunderstood. You learning now?
The tech behind NFTs is still fascinating and should be used in the future.
Blockchain has more uses than just digital currency, too.
Serious question:
What are the advantages over a centralized database?
One example of using NFTs I like is event tickets. Event tickets are already prone to "just copying" because they're already basically a PDF. So the fact that you have to protect subjects attached to NFTs from counterfeiting is not an issue in case of event tickets, because you have to do that anyway.
BUT using NFTs for event tickets can solve the problem of scalpers, because they use "smart contracts". So you can create a smart contract for each ticket that forbids reselling or allows reselling only at original price, or that each resell provides a markup for the original issuer (eg. the artist).
So NFTs don't solve all of the problems, and nothing really solves all problems. But they can solve some problems, and that's what we want. I'm not a fan of Blockchain myself, because it has many problems. But I can see it's potential when the infancy problems are solved.
How is this better than a centralized database? You can just go to the event organizer's website and check the original price for the ticket.
You are right. BUT as long companies are legally liable for their contracts you can have all of this with regular web2 too. And in case something goes wrong (error in the smart contract for example) you can in realife work sth. out.
I don't really get it. I have 10 tickets and I gave an ad that im selling them at 3x price. You can pay me via paypal and get it, or give me money in person in front of a venue. After that I will transfer you tickets. I just fail to see that additional layer of protection. I'm talking about reselling.
If you block reselling again I fail to see how will that be different than using standard database to collect all the data and check the documents at the entrance?
Correct, all of that can be done with a normal database. And with a normal centralized service you can just tie a ticket to someone's ID instead of their wallet address.
And in fact, with the wallet address ownership you could just make a new wallet per ticket purchase and then sell the whole wallet via paypal. Circumventing the whole smart contract thing.
Imo the only advantage to NFTs is that the DB can't ever go down or be altered. But if you trust amazon you could instead just use an append-only hosted database like QLDB.
Unless the ticket is also tied to a name at sale time, and you have to show ID at the door (which is common for regular tickets where I live). Then the only way to change the name associated with the ticket is to sell it through the blockchain rather than selling the wallet
People reselling the tickets for a higher price and/or performers not receiving a royalty for resold tickets, is the only thing that making them NFTs would aim to change.
US I assume? Some countries solve this fairly well by slight government regulations... Inefficient append-only DB like block chain is not a solution for political issues..
Canadian. And I don't think it's actually a good use-case for NFTs, there are much more efficient ways to handle it, it's just a more reasonable idea than the NFT ape drawings crypto bros love
Huh, that sounds an awful lot like the current process except now you've got to add The Blockchainā¢ onto it.
People can still resell tickets for more than retail price, just like I can buy a car from my neighbor for $5,000 but only tell the BMV I paid $1.
The only thing I could come up with would be that every change has to be agreed on by over 50% of all computers in the system. And that everything is tracked, saved and archived. Oh, and everyone can see that you paid $6.90 for something from "mighty midget madman"
Ok and what prohibits a non-profit to do the same? An open readable database, maybe even dezentralized?
Why would you want that?
I mean, transparency about income is excellent, but everyone knowing who youāre giving money to? Heck no.
So a centralized database where you can control what to make public is better then.
And I realize only now that you have been sarcastic.
Oh! Sorry! Didnāt mean to - my fault!
Its the exact same answer as 'what are the advantages of the fediverse over reddit'. Lemmy world is down right now but its not affecting me and no one can effectively DDOS the entire fediverse. Theres no spez to ruin everyones work.
Its about ownership. If banks use centralized databases, they can cheat the data and no one knows.
If you have a decentralized data, no one can cheat. No one can make changes without everyone's permission.
Its got strengths and weaknesses.
Ok so decentralization is an advantage. And the trancparency you say.
Those two do not need a Blockchain.
You need something to create the ledger of transactions. So far in humanity we have used humans with the authority. The problem with authority is that is corruptible, and also self-interested above all else.
A blockchain is neither.
I don't know of other alternatives besides humans or blockchain for maintaining a database of transactions. What are you suggesting instead?
The thing is, that even if the Blockchain in theory is not corruptible there were several occasions where the old Blockchain was abandoned and a new fork was the official one suddenly. Securing the rich's money.
So a Blockchain is less secure in my opinion. If the people with the most money go to another one the old one is suddenly nothing worth anymore.
Notably bitcoin did fend this off already in the case of bitcoin cash
The internet being decentralized is a solved issue though. You're saying: If my money is down somehow (which never happened in 40 years), we can use bitcoins (which are still very unreliable and difficult to use after existing for 15 years).
Naw, you didnt get it, its not about 'money being offline'. It's a hedge against inflation - if you saved a bunch of dollars past few years you are noticing they are worth much less than they used to be because the person in charge of the paper money in the usa decided to print a bunch more.
Can't do that with btc
I think of blockchain lile a write-only database that everyone can view. It has its uses, especially when combined with smart contracts. Has anyone made a PL/SQL interface yet?
Ask any partner at the Big Four accounting firms and they'll jerk themselves off about how they're going to "move to the blockchain"
You are correct, and honestly the idea of an NFT originally pointed to what you described in your comment below this one. It's just that the shills decided to make it a money laundering racket instead to get the soyboy cucks to try and "go to the moon!".
I honestly have less problem with the money laundering aspect than I do the NFT Art aspect, that's how much I hate NFT "Art". Dudes gotta make money somehow, and if the way they have to get their money back is by ripping off rich retards, then by all means have at it!
Damn, there's a lot of obvious bag holders in here.
It's merely an on chain receipt.
Of a piece of text or data normally a simple URL if I understand correctly
Do you think domains as ENS are just chain receipts?
NFTs could be useful if they were standardized, internationally recognized tokens of ownership or temporary ownership that were separate but bound to digital content like books, music etc. via meta data within the media. That would facilitate people buying and selling content they own, or lending it, or giving it away, or just destroying it.
The problem is NFTs are not that at all and never will be in their present form. They're just a springboard to launch a thousand scams to separate idiots from their money. e.g. "Give me $10,000 and I'll give you a token representing your rights to an acre of land on Satoshi island". LOL. Or "give me $$$ and I'll sell you a url to a randomly generated picture which will be immensely valuable". LOL. Or the Logan Paul special "give me $$$ and I'll sell you eggs you can hatch in a game and that will be immensely valuable except I'll shitcan the game and just keep your money" LOL.
NFT bros when I hit PrtSc (their so-called "unique art" is now completely fucking worthless)
Nothing too surprising, 4chan doesn't skip a lot of hypes and crypto bros are fucking sus!
If the viewer of the artwork doesn't give a shit if you have a receipt for the artwork on a mysterious computer network, or if it was just copied and pasted, then there is no intrinsic value to artwork based NFTs.
Browsers and clients also download a weppage and its contents when browsing a website because that's how the internet works so everyone who looks at an nft has a temporary copy of it stored somewhere on their device
And they're trying to dictate what you can do with webpages through that whole Web Integrety thing too.
Someone forgot to tell that to those imbeciles that purchased them.
NFTs are just a number that you purchase, I don't know why anyone thought in the first place that it had anything to do with actually purchasing art itself
Also the sad thing is that the NFT apes aren't actually bad art. They are fun little avatars, but NFT-bros have ruined them.
I mean, I understand the idea perfectly.
Doesn't mean it isn't a completely fucking retarded idea though. Literally unique/limited items in MMOs except you can't actually do anything with them.
There might actually some cool use cases, but it was clear from the get go that this was never gonna be more than overvalued gambling bullshit
I wouldn't even say it's gambling. Gambling has the premise that you actually CAN make some money back.
It was very clear from the get go that there was no way you could make money from this.
you can make "some" money back with NFTs too, since you can trade/sell them. you're very likely to lose money by buying into any random NFT project that sells you JPEGs, but there's always some idiot on opensea willing to pay something for it.
I'd rather take my chances with crashing on an airplane 3 times in a month, the odds of that occuring seem higher and atleast I'd have dignity intact.
But the independent artist that designed them actually gets some reward for their work.
The exact same can be said for the splatter art money laundering garbage that we see in the real world. (Keep in mind I mean the money laundering ones, not the actual splatter art, although I am still not a fan)
So let's pretend they had value.
What's to stop someone from selling their NFT off the block chain and then transferring it for whatever amount the smallest transaction allowed is?
And they still would be worthless. NFTs are a worse form of everything they try to imitate.
Seriously, why did the focus of monkeys and dogs with cigarettes in their mouths become the main images for NFT's?
Because people pushing pump and dumping it were good at PR.
Serious question, could NFTs be used a good laundering scheme?
So, there's two possibilities, really:
- Someone with a lot of money decided that a picture of a monkey was worth a massive amount of money.
- Someone with a lot of money paid for expensive crimes in secret by "buying" a picture of monkey.
I know which theory I subscribe to.
Isnt that the entire reason that basically all crypto exists? Nobody even knows who invented bitcoin, it just appeared and suddenly all of the wealthiest class had a bunch of cryptos that happened to be worth a bunch of money
All art could be used as a laundering scheme. This is partially why AI is scaring certain artists that deal with some shady stuff
Iāve seen people argue yes many times however it is quite possibly the worst way to launder money. Using a system that is designed for tracing every single transaction in a way that is proven and posted publicly is the single worst way to go about obscuring the legitimacy of your money. Pair that with know your customer laws and every single aspect of using artwork wrapped NFTs for laundering becomes idiotic.
The whole crypto space is an unregulated market where criminals and tax evasion is daily business.
No law enforcement. Relatively easy ways to hide transactions (though the Blockchain itself is very trackable)
So of course NFTs are used to launder money.
This is my absolute favorite NFT
The Coolcumber by Kassem G from Attack of The Show
The coolcumber has been a featured guest on my twitch stream ever since.
I just stole your cucumber
You filthy right-clicker
Why don't people talk about IPFS more?
a good reminder that NFT's are simply unique identifiers in blockchain technologies and just like UUID's in most software engineering are not, indeed, shit, NFT's also aren't.
If someone tried to sell me a UUID because it was one of a kind, Iād tell them to piss off. UUIDs are a useful tool for software development. NFTs are a scam to trick people into paying for a unique Chuck E Cheese token
Another shared aspect is that they're infinitely copyable and renewable and have no value whatsoever outside the environment they were created in.
NFTs are not art
Glad this site ain't implementing NFTs anytime soon
Theyre legit pyramid schemes
Based and fuckspezpilled
No, just the N and T parts. It's quite fungible, and has already been funged.
As far as I understand that "token" is a so-called hash so it's essentially a mathematic key generated from that exact file that will always be the same with the same file and algorythm but that doesn't change much, it just confuses people! ;)
Speaking of, what's with the endless whining whenever someone gets their wallets hacked? Cryptobros love to shout how "code is law", but quickly despair once they're targeted by abuses or "unexpected" uses of the law
Anyone wanna buy my 'NFTs are shit' NFTs?
eh, not necessarily. they are just used for absolute horseshit.
I donāt claim to have a tech knowledge.. but buying an NFTs seems like buying a rare pepeā¦ I Google searched that to make sure I spelled Pepe right and looks like someone payed 3.6 million for a rare Pepe?
Wait... people actually bought rare Pepes? Holy shit, I thought that was all just a meme. A joke. A guffaw. A silly little thing. Jesus...
Memes are serious business.
Maybe better if you start giving arguments against NFTs OP, and do not limit only to art NFTs.
Not all NFTs are Art NFTsā¦ Domain NFTs have a lot of great use cases for example
No, not really. At least not in the real world. In their own little crypto fanboy universe: yes of course.
it will be interesting to see if NFTs are "properly" implemented using the web browser DRM that Google is creating
Would changing how the browser works make interacting with them different?
Sync screwed up, sorry not responding to you. Just one of the nft shills in the thread
r/buttcoin has been vandalizing wikipedia again
NFTs are not shit, they're just using it like shit.
Now prove it's yours.
Edit: thanks for proving my point. The fact that NFTs have become synonymous with "I own a jpg" shows how easy the mainstream can be fooled by those making a quick buck.
Tell me you don't know what NFTs are without telling me you don't know what NFTs are
Techbros saw "ctrl-c + ctrl-v" and said "what if we all pretended that it was illegal", and NFT were born.
Well NFTs are non-fungible tokens. Those tokens are indeed not fungible. However it is only a Token. The token usually is a number on the Blockchain. Wow your number doesn't exists a second time on the Blockchain. (Unitl smb. Copies the NFT and give it a slightly different Name, then your number is still unique but smb. Might have sth. Very similar)
Now the number is pretty boring, so usually they add a link to a web2 Website that hosts images. Those images by Design are fungible and their only connection to NFTs is that the NFT link to them.
There are rare occations of tokens that inside the contract have art. But since space is very expensive there it is only a few byte big.
To keep it short: you buy a number that links to a fungible image.
Token: not fungible
Image : fungible
Great!
Good explanation. I hope more people read this because it's an important concept most aren't grasping. But most people just think NFTs=JPGs because that's what they've been used for mainstream.
If you're dumb enough to fall for jpgs as NFTs that's on you.
People that don't understand what NFT's are, don't like NFT's.
Nah, it's the people that don't understand what they are the ones that like them.
NFTs are digital pointers. You are quite literally (often) buying and trading urls. Like, literally imgur links. Imagine paying money for a link to Google.com, that's what you do with NFTs.
People that trade them often THINK they are trading the rights of the works referenced by the nft. But instead, they are trading the sole ownership of a link to the nft on the etherium block chain.
They are so dumb that it's beyond trivial to clone an nft of the same work. They are less valuable than trading cards. Any Joe schmo can mint a new card with all the same legitimacy of "the original". The actual value is completely based on being ignorant of these facts. Once you know them, you know how dumb buying any NFT is.
And, ironically, the people that love this garbage tend to be libertarians that bristle over "fiat currency". Dollar, bad, nft of a dollar's serial number? Oh, better snatch that up!
People who understand what NFTs are dislike them even more.
This is so fucking stupid. NFTs aren't jpegs. NFTs could be movies, games, anything.
NFTs will be huge whether you want them to or not. Welcome to Web3
Omg girl that nft shit is so 2021, A.I. is whats chick now.
Tell me how can a NFT be a game? Do you know how expensive it would be to code a game on the Blockchain? Just for the code to exist in smart contracts you would spend millions. Hence nobody made a "web3 game on NFT" they all host web2 websites.
And don't get me startet on fixing Bugs when you can't change a contract afterwards
When I heard of the idea, I thought it would be a good way to identify ownership of physical assets like homes and vehicles. Hopefully people don't become jaded by the NFT bro hype train.
There's a conflict between who the government says owns the title of your car and who owns the NFT, who will possess the car? Hint, not who the NFT says is the owner.
We already have a perfectly functional system for determining who owns physical goods. NFTs add nothing on top of that.
If the implication here is that VR will somehow intrinsically support NFTs as ownership of stuff in VR games/spaces/whatever, then all it takes is for competing companies to not support each other's content for your NFT stuff to lose its value, does it not? Given the state of gaming, I can't imagine game companies selling you a skin that can be used outside of their ecosystem because the other companies will want you to buy THEIR skins instead and use them only in THEIR game.
I don't believe you're thinking that far ahead into the future. I'm talking about a world where VR is so immersive that you can't tell it apart from reality.
When your virtual goods feel as tangible to you as physical ones, then NFTs will suddenly make sense.
All depends on wether or not we get a standardized environment for VRs, like the metaverse, or hopefully an open environment like the internet pre google's drm bullshit.