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 🤤
XD
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.
Yes. But you don’t own the art or the right to it, just the token leading to it. You literally don’t have the rights to the image so you cant copyright enforce it.
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.
It’s as valid as me saying because I am linking the url below, I must own it: https://google.com NFT 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.
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.
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.
That and a NFT is not the copyright. Remember the Dune thing?
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?
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.
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.
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.
If it can be “freely copied” with a literally identical one, it has literally zero value.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 😜)
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”.
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 asshole— 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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
But you’re just rattling off things that are already done quite well without any blockchain nonsense.
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.
are they though?
Exactly. People are the ducking worst
I hate the monetization that people want to force on everything. Especiallt when done through NFTs.
NFT as in the code system is actually a good idea, useful for stuff like tickets and such as the code you get is actually unique.
How it was used so far is absolutely fucking disgusting and a declaration of bankruptcy for humanity.
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 literally NFT. They just tell you it isn’t…
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?
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.
Yeah when you get your ticket as NFT it can’t be stolen airline tickets might not be that prone to this (cause booking needs your ID and stuff) but concert tickets and such.
So, just treat concert tickets with more security like plane tickets? Why use much slower and expensive method like blockchain?
Its actually not that much slower and also not expensive. Depends how its implemented of course.
Can also be used for other things, the tickets are just one thing that came to mind instantly.
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.
They weren’t stolen on the side of the buyer but on the server side.
If your companys Server gets hacked you’d have bigger problems than the ticket NFTs of your customers being stolen (and you would know that meaning you can send them a new one)
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.
Most misused and therefore most misunderstood technology ever lmao
Maybe not ever but yes
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.
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).
Ok. So what happens instead is that the wallet that holds the ticket is sold at marked up prices rather than the ticket itself.
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
If you have to show an ID to use the ticket, what problem is being solved by using the block chain?
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…
Huh, that sounds an awful lot like the current process except now you’ve got to add The Blockchain™ 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 you’re 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.
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
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?
Yes.
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.
deleted by creator
The NFT and bitcoin space is so riddled with scams that it made the centralists point for them.
Every time I post art to my art instagram account I immediately get offers to buy my art by NFT collectors. It’s all a big scam. They are so lazy at this point that they just all copy and paste the same message and as soon as a post is tagged with #art they throw it in. As a result they prey on new artists.
The thing is that blockchain technology is actually pretty impressive and has potential to change society. Prove-able digital ownership is massive, but what it is currently used for is literally just a scam. Crypto is too volitile to use as a currency, NFTs are AI generated slop (even though the term NFT should be used in a wider context) and blockchain apps and the general environment are in its infancy, being generous. Until more developments it is either a scam, or a lottery.
Agreed on all points. Thanks for speaking reasonably. I too think the technology is INCREDIBLY promising but also acknowledge that it is in its infancy…and will continue to be because of the hivemind.
I think crypto technologies could work toward making a better democracy and other applications of a public ledger. I think it is currently the best solution to a decentralized, open source way to add incentive to the act of running public infrastucture. It’s actually my hope that perhaps it can be used to incentivize the act of running a lemmy/kbin instance (for instance).
I absolutely despise the moonboi bullshit and am honestly only in it for the technology and its relevance to the realization of a truly borderless, open source, anarcho-syndicalist, cypherpunk way of life. I want to own my property and I want to help use technology to make corruption impossible…and NFT’s, as a technology, are currently a key part to one of the best solutions to many of these issues. They, like crypto, are misunderstood.
To analogize my sentiment: it feels like the hivemind is espousing the benefits of for-profit healthcare that kills 70k people/year in the US while Single Payer stares them straight in the face around the world.
it can be used to incentivize the act of running a lemmy/kbin instance (for instance).
Good comment and I’d just like to say, I see what you did there.
deleted by creator
I want to own my property and I want to help use technology to make corruption impossible…and NFT’s, as a technology, are currently a key part to one of the best solutions to many of these issues.
are they, though?
They, like crypto, are misunderstood.
are they, though? one would imagine that if that was true, they would have demonstrated some capacity for something other than speculating and scamming in the 15-odd years crypto has existed. single payer is a bad analogy because there’s actual hard evidence for it being a better system than what we’re currently doing.
deleted by creator
blockchain apps and the general environment are in its infancy, being generous. Until more developments it is either a scam, or a lottery.
Hasn’t this space been going in some capacity for almost a decade, if not a little more, now?
Yup. This point was also articulated really well by Dan Olson in I think it was the one about “the Metaverse.”
The “legal ownership, contracts, and money” space has been going on for a few thousand years.
deleted by creator
On every single thread about crypto on the Internet, someone has to make this claim. At some point, someone somewhere has to actually have a real world example of this technology being used in a useful and novel way that isn’t easier and cheaper with other technology. It isn’t happening, it’s been over 10 years, when can we stop using the “in its infancy” argument?
Digital proof of ownership. I dont think you realise how important that could be. Right now NFTs are AI generated PNGs, but if it has its chance it could be fully functional digital paperwork. It doesnt matter if someone can right click save the deed to a house if we know which ones the “real” one. Only one example. And sure the tech has been around for ~10 years but we both know its REALLY been around for ~4. Maybe its going to stay as one big ball of “potential” forever, which seems more and more likely by the day. In a few years time if nothing comes of blockchain tech except more headlines of idiots losing money ill be ready to sign the whole thing off.
Imagine people having the deed to their house on the blockchain and then a scammer transferring ownership through a scam. Imagine a real estate agent writing into the smart contract of your house purchase that they get to also take a percentage of when you sell the house later even if they’re not otherwise involved in that sale. The possibilities are endless! Of course you can avoid these things if you’re technically-knowledgeable and can understand the underlying code, but most people aren’t. Heck, even technically-inclined people have some degree of blind trust. Do you read the source code of all the open source software you run?
Thinking these would only be blockchain issues is naive or dishonest. People sign weird contracts all the time (have you ever read a EULA that you’ve agreed to? Those things are wild), people are falling for nigerian prince schemes RIGHT NOW in the year of our lord 2023, and modern day identity theft is stealing homes without the blockchain. Having an immutable ledger would help rewind things when they go wrong if anything.
People sign weird contracts but those contracts are written in a human language. What do you think is more likely? The average person being able to read a contract in their native language or the average person being able to read a contract written in whatever the scripting language is provided by some random smart contracts system?
Yes, people do fall for scams all the time, which was my point. With our existing systems, there are at least ways to undo those transactions. With blockchain you’re out of luck, unless they build in mechanisms to reverse transactions, but then you have the problem of figuring out what transactions are allowed to be reversed and who can reverse them and eventually you end up with a trust-based system.
It’s very depressing. Cryptocurrencies especially, the idea is very interesting and it raises multiple points concerning anonimity, circumventing banks, money ownership etc, but for pretty much everyone around me thinks about it simply as: “I buy bitcoin, I wait, I sell bitcoin, I get money haha hehe xd bitcoin!!”. Congratulations, you made absolutely no effect on society, and you received money for it, very commendable.
I’d like to know some situations where a decentralized proof of ownership is desired for digital stuff. While game items are often touted, not a single company actually wants that to be decentralized, they want to control their games’ economies.
Every re-sale of an NFT can have (usually has) a percentage go back to the creator. Companies can still control which items they accept or not, while letting people trade items and make the company money with every transaction… without having to lift a finger, without even having to maintain a trading platform.
And why is that a case for decentralized proof of ownership of a digital good? As long as it is decentralized, it’s trivial to bypass the residual pay
As long as it is decentralized, it’s trivial to bypass the residual pay
Yeah… nope.
The whole reason of why Ethereum has any value at all, is that it can be decentralized and still force you to follow the rules of the contract.
Friendly reminder that the contract might have badly written code and/or be written in a way to act as malware. Being forced to follow a contract like that makes no sense. See the numerous exploits possible thanks to that kind of feature
Thanks for the reminder. Now go use that to “trivially bypass the residual pay” like you said.
Can’t charge residuals if i’m just moving nfts across wallets instead of selling.
deleted by creator
Can you give an example of a company that doesn’t want to control that kind of data? The data of what their players can and can’t do in their game?
are you sure it’s in your best interest as a consumer to be against decentralization and FOR corporatism?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. At no point in my previous comments I argued for centralized corporatism. I merely stated the obvious: game companies, even smaller ones, want to control their data in a centralized manner, because they have literally nothing to gain from decentralizing it. You trying to frame it as me defending corporate centralization makes no sense.
deleted by creator
Please, do quote the part where -I- defended corporate centralization, where I said anything that could be interpreted as “corporate centralization of data is good and I like it”. Stating a fact (companies don’t want to decentralize their data) is not the same as defending it.
Also waiting on this
Can you give an example of a company that doesn’t want to control that kind of data?
What’s ITT stand for?
I’m a total Bob here
In this thread
Most cryptobros are just in it for get rich quick schemes. Decentralization has its place, but virtually every crypto project I’ve seen has been a solution looking for a problem or an outright scam.
deleted by creator
Do you have any examples?
deleted by creator
Ah, the classic “do your own research” response that I’ve heard countless times from cryptobros. If you can’t even provide an example then you should realize how that speaks volumes. As a matter of fact, I did do my own research and that is how I came to the conclusion that I did. After your lack of any examples, you then went on to list how to spot a scam because like others involved in crypto you’re speaking to the only use that blockchain has found: speculation.
deleted by creator
NFT bros when I hit PrtSc (their so-called “unique art” is now completely fucking worthless)
Them when their bored ape Yacht club was a gigantic prank from 4chan trolls and bored apes had nazi symbols everywhere… 🤡
And Cryptoland being called because the age of consent cant be “Mentally grown up”
Nothing too surprising, 4chan doesn’t skip a lot of hypes and crypto bros are fucking sus!
I mean they basically invented it with the rare Pepes… 4chan isn’t a Flag in the wind, 4chan is the wind more often than not.
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.
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.
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.
