Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#301

Post by lottin »

j4yav wrote: post #145
anonporridge wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...no? These can trivially be copied (double spent), which means they're just as scarce as any digital data. Valueless without some significant proof of violence and hyper censorship ability enforcing copyright protection. The primary revolution of bitcoin was the invention of self enforcing digital scarcity.

Can’t the subject of NFTs also be trivially copied? All you really have is a token that refers to a particular file and proves that you own a token that refers to that file. Everyone else is free to ignore the token and copy the original file at any time. Is there something that you can only do via the token? Are there special events or access for token holders? I could see something like that being independently val…

It's an "emperor has no clothes" kind of thing. A big farce, that's all it is.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#303

Post by calciphus »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #180
arcticbull wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that’s what you want throw a “transfer” button on your site. There’s already a button to do this on the Ticketmaster app.

> If that’s what you want throw a “transfer” button on your site. Well when you buy a ticket from ticketmaster you can’t exactly dictate what features they offer through their platform...not to mention ticket master is a 3rd party service that they take a massive cut. blockchain is cutting these 3rd parties out in these use cases, allowing the event holders to easily mint the admission tickets and users take advantag…

The thing that makes ticketing difficult is not minting and selling unique items of inventory - that's a well understood problem with many viable solutions. Nor is verifying at any given moment if a single piece of inventory is valid and who owns it - again, that's a solved problem.

The secondary markets in ticketing exist because there's an excess of demand and entities who can exploit access, speed, or technical know-how for arbitrage. Blockchain ticketing companies don't fundamentally change that statement - they enable it.

No one likes Ticketmaster - but to call them a 3rd party service that takes a massive cut is inaccurate. Ticketmaster is owned by Live Nation, which usually owns both the venue and the artist's tour schedule. And owns the primary and secondary ticketing sales. So Ticketmaster is usually the first, second, and third-party in ticketing.

Blockchain doesn't magically fix this. It doesn't change the deep relationship Live Nation has with labels and artists, their fodness for excluding artists who play at rival and independent venues, their habit of defining contract requirements that can only be fulfilled by Ticketmaster software...

Blockchain is solving all of the wrong problems in ticketing. I don't need a distributed, trustless ledger of who owns a ticket when all of them are issued by and redeemed at the same location. The only real reason to push for blockchain in ticketing is to help scalpers hide what they're doing.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#304

Post by lwhi »

I've seen articles in the news try to compare an NFT with signature of an artist. This feels like a romantic concept, which supports the idea of unique value.

If I start to think about NFTs as a receipt, some of the latest bit stories start to gain a new perspective.

Someone has a receipt for buying the first Twitter message for $2.5m dollars.

It feels like stupidity, because it's a clear case of the tail wagging the dog.

--

On the other hand, there's a hug amount of utility in the idea of a transactions (receipts) being stored on a blockchain.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#305

Post by lottin »

anonporridge wrote: post #282
quickthrower2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some company can run a DB to record spends. Why trust a third party? Well with any crypto linked to real world outcomes you need it trust a third party. Be that tether or some NFT hustler.

Because if I'm a rich person wanting to spend stupid amounts of money on some 'original' work of digital art, I don't want to trust a third party store the ownership records that could easily be corrupted. The ownership record in a public blockchain can't be corrupted.

Rich people entrust their entire wealth to third parties to manage it for them. Why wouldn't they trust a third party to keep some ridiculous record of ownership?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#307

Post by [deleted] »

cwkoss wrote: post #300

Has anyone done an analysis of NFTs being used for money laundering? Seem like they'd have most of the benefits of art plus most of the benefits of crypto. I suspect NFTs will continue gaining in popularity, if only for this alone.

[deleted]

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#309

Post by numpad0 »

NiceWayToDoIT wrote: post #285

So, lets think, we have following issues: - Climate change - Artificial general intelligence - Biotechnology risk - Ecological collapse - Molecular nanotechnology - Nuclear holocaust - Overpopulation - Global pandemic - ... Most of them caused by way we use our energy and time. Oh, yes we also have excess of computing power ... hm what shell we do? Solution: Let spend even more energy on large calculations in order t…

Obvious solution to everything(to me) is to establish on-orbit 3D print space colony manufacturing by the end of this century to boldly go with.

Wanna spend silly amount of energy on fake Internet points? Totally fine! Just buy a bunch of cylinders and do it there. Makes more sense anyway because they come with batteries too.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#310

Post by RobertKerans »

gbear605 wrote: post #179
tasogare wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> low effort art will trend back to $0 This is being continuously disproved since decades by contemporary art.

Most contemporary art has a lot more effort put into it than you think. It’s perfectly okay to not value that effort, but things like those “black squares” or whatever actually aren’t just that. If you see them in person, you can see how the different brush strokes overlap and theoretically signify different things.

The example you're using isn't contemporary, it's over a century old, and it's a design for a stage curtain. It's not valuable for the effort put in * (it's literally just a solid black painted square), it's valuable because of the point in time it represents w/r/t art history

* edit for clarity: what would be commonly considered technical artistic effort, although a large % of graphic designers would disagree with that as composition is a skill, and conceptual artists would disagree due to the thought put in (which imo feels post-hoc but hey ho)

Post reply on HN