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.
This strikes me as (a sort of) goalpost moving. First the criticism is given that there’s not enough room given for state intervention. I point out that you can trivially add that. I get a reply that there’s too much room for state intervention. What I said (assuming which comment you replied to, sorry lemmy is bugging) is you can have arbitrary ways to modify the state, involving as many arbitrary parties as you want and any mechanism that you want. If you actually wanted to incorporate a state into the decision around title, you certainly could, you’d have to encode whatever regulatory agencies, chain of courts going up through appeals and supreme, etc. Though the whole idea is that you can encode better mechanisms than that.
Goalpost is the same. What happens when the crypto assets/contracts doesn’t match reality?
You are saying “we can make the contact modifiable!”. But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
Reality is that judges not even born today can interpret, modify, or revoke contracts written today. You that all smart contracts will take that fact into consideration?
It’s also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
And what if existing contracts/assets that didn’t or don’t want to take those issues into account.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. “What happens when crypto doesn’t match reality?” “We can make crypto modifiable!” “And what are the realities of making it modifiable” “that’s shifting goalposts!”.
I do believe you’re debating in good faith. If you feel like my questions are bad faith, that’s fine, I don’t believe they are. I simply remain unconvinced that the solutions proposed are practical, safe, or better than the current system.
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.
Lol, I dropped out the moment I realised I was talking to a disingenuous shit bag who can’t see beyond their own hate for a technology because you probably got grifted like every other idiot.
Every point I made regarding NFT’s is both hypothetical and and idealisation, but you’re too stupid to see past your ego because it’s hanging in front of your eyes, dickhead.
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.
Thus proving my point that only people who haven’t thought about NFTs critically are fans of them.
The reason you can’t defend this is cognitive dissonance is settling in. You can’t admit that there could be problems so you take lazy mental shortcuts “it’s not my responsibility to consider problems of something I support”.
If you are promoting them as a viable solution to problems, it IS your responsibility to think about the downsides. Otherwise STFU and stop promoting them.
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
Nice comeback. “I can’t debate this topic, therefore you are an idiot”.
Jesus Christ. Okay, I hate NFTs and they are abysmal. But fucking listen. The person has done nothing but put their best, rational arguments forward. It is not their job to put forth the mental energy to answer every single question you ask, and I am sick to death of the “if you can’t answer me on everything right now, that means you can’t debate me, I win, fuck you”. Seriously, fuck off with that shit. You have to see how absurd and gross that response is, right?
I never demanded they answer all my questions. But a single answer to the question of “what do you do when life doesn’t match the ledger” IS the key problem with using the block chain as a source of truth for ownership.
I simply gave real examples of how that can happen.
The original nft defender didn’t even TRY to address this issue and it’s the crux of the problem with NFTs.
So fuck off with your tone policing. It’s not gross to raise a question an advocate can’t answer.
It’s not a key problem at all. NFTs are a trivial implementation of transferable discrete content hash ownership. You literally just add additional methods for state modification to the contract if you want them.
Giving more keys out in the process and removing a prime benefit of the NFT, that they are “secure”. If a party in the nth party contract is untrustworthy or maybe they just use a bad password now your property can be stolen with little recourse. As has already happened with many smart contract implementations.
Best case scenario, you end up before a judge who ends up voiding the NFT all together.
You have to consider how access would flow. Every time a new county clerk is elected or judge is appointed you have an event where access to modify the contracts needs to be updated.
Oh and this doesn’t solve the problem of repossession. If you write the contract but explicitly excluded government entities because “ain’t no government taken my truck!”. Now you have a conflict where if the government wants your truck, they are taking it and no digital contract will stop that. And not for malicious reasons, but instead “you stopped paying child support”.
At which point, you should be asking “what problem did this solve over a standard title?”. To approach usability you’d need a standard contract that had provisions in it to allow the local government to rewrite the details. But good luck with that because I’m sure the Canadian government won’t be too thrilled with the access requirements of the Greek government. Or even Texas’s access requirements vs the federal government.
Of course you can ignore all this, but then you have a contract with no enforcement. That is, you have no contract.
The reason every nation has such complex legal systems is life is complex. And with that complexity comes dispute over ownership. Things are never as clear or simple as you’d like to bake into a smart contact.
This strikes me as (a sort of) goalpost moving. First the criticism is given that there’s not enough room given for state intervention. I point out that you can trivially add that. I get a reply that there’s too much room for state intervention. What I said (assuming which comment you replied to, sorry lemmy is bugging) is you can have arbitrary ways to modify the state, involving as many arbitrary parties as you want and any mechanism that you want. If you actually wanted to incorporate a state into the decision around title, you certainly could, you’d have to encode whatever regulatory agencies, chain of courts going up through appeals and supreme, etc. Though the whole idea is that you can encode better mechanisms than that.
Goalpost is the same. What happens when the crypto assets/contracts doesn’t match reality?
You are saying “we can make the contact modifiable!”. But, as I pointed out capturing who can modify is near impossible. Doing so without creating a giant security hole is impossible. (Perhaps we disagree here)
Reality is that judges not even born today can interpret, modify, or revoke contracts written today. You that all smart contracts will take that fact into consideration?
It’s also a reality that who can modify your contacts depends on where you live. A US judge has no power over UK assets. People move and transfer assets into/out of judicial bounds. You want me to believe smart contracts can be flexible enough to recognize such changes? To be able to completely rewrite the contract for such new realities? Securely?
And what if existing contracts/assets that didn’t or don’t want to take those issues into account.
The reason this feels like goalpost moving to you taken a mental shortcut. “What happens when crypto doesn’t match reality?” “We can make crypto modifiable!” “And what are the realities of making it modifiable” “that’s shifting goalposts!”.
I do believe you’re debating in good faith. If you feel like my questions are bad faith, that’s fine, I don’t believe they are. I simply remain unconvinced that the solutions proposed are practical, safe, or better than the current system.
but who do you trust to validate those additional methods? That’s just kicking the can down the road
They’re open source and not that complicated. Speaking as someone with training in this.
such as?
Then they 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.
Lol, I dropped out the moment I realised I was talking to a disingenuous shit bag who can’t see beyond their own hate for a technology because you probably got grifted like every other idiot.
Every point I made regarding NFT’s is both hypothetical and and idealisation, but you’re too stupid to see past your ego because it’s hanging in front of your eyes, dickhead.
Nah, I just have the ability to think critically. You should try it sometime.
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.