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?
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.
Then they shouldn’t 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 „but what if it rains?“.
Now you might be thinking „this is a stupid idea in the first place“ or at the very least „well that’s a good question“. But not „wow that’s a really cool idea and op put in their best, rational arguments. People shouldn’t be poking holes in it“.
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 that’s another topic then.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
but who do you trust to validate those additional methods? That’s just kicking the can down the road
Then they shouldn’t 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 „but what if it rains?“.
Now you might be thinking „this is a stupid idea in the first place“ or at the very least „well that’s a good question“. But not „wow that’s a really cool idea and op put in their best, rational arguments. People shouldn’t be poking holes in it“.
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 that’s 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.
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.
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.