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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Exactly. People are the ducking worst
are they though?