NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap • Hacker News Board

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#431

Post by NoOneNew » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #119

jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

> NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. There’s absolutely no reason for that to be decentralized, only one party can honor the tokens anyways. Like most things crypto they don’t actually make sense for anything.

When it comes to in game items... why should one game honor another game's items? EVE Online and World of Warcraft dont exist in the same context. Even if you did it between Guild Wars, Elder Scrolls online and WoW, you still cant interchange the items due to stats, style and general game mechanics let alone the coding rework to have these items function the same way between games.

If there was an mmo framework that is shared between different games, I guess. But even then, why have a universal currency instead of just making it framework/platform specific? It's less work and is all handled in a fast centralized DB. At that why create the extra work of PoW or PoS or whatever algorithm solving process it'll use. currencyAmount += tradedAmount is way easier and makes more sense on the game dev side.

All these anti NFT arguments amount to is, "This is solutionism at its finest, but people already bought koolaid in bulk...so enjoy the show."

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#432

Post by kgwgk » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

qqii wrote: post #397

lloeki wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the tokens even mean anyway? It doesn't mean "I'm the owner of this one in five paper canvas art", it just means "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are perfectly identical". What does it even mean? Let's say I buy a NTF $1000 and get a digital copy, what prevents me (barring legalities) to per…

> "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are perfectly identical". Which the ARTIST has decided is a digital certificate for the price of art. Just I could make a duplicate of the supreme brick, my duplicate wouldn't have as nearly much value if I tell people it is a duplicate. Supreme could sell bricks aga…

The all-caps "artist" brought this to my mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#433

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

[deleted]

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#434

Post by qqii » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #203

TheColorYellow wrote: post #94

Pretty bad take on NFTs. There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP and accommodate for different tradeoffs. A simple retort would point to the many alternative NFT networks that don't use POW-based consensus algorithms or the NFT offerings that enable value add offerings very differently than purchasing…

> There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP and accommodate for different tradeoffs. Ah, yes. The goid old "might", the adage as old as the whole blockchain itself. Translation: "will painstakingly re-invent all the attributes of what real world needs, and already has, and doesn't need blockchain in the…

A new medium requires reinventing and making explicit "real world" constructs. The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems without making clear the explicit tradeoffs. I could retort and point to companies actually using blockchain but you can easily argue flaws in their implementation. A "real world use case" is not well defined.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#435

Post by krsdcbl » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

I don't quite get this post, it somehow seems to make a case FOR nfts and then try to make the point that these are not look likr stocks (which is rather obvious).

The whole point of nfts is to create uniqueness among endlessly duplicatable media, and provide the possibility for digital art to be handled like physical art.

Just like the Mona Lisa, you can look at endless photos of it without restriction, but only one person can actually own it - the article correctly points out that nfts enable the same principle to hold true for digital goods, and then goes on to argue that this is bad because doesn't provide any passive return to the collector, which holds true for physical collectibles all the same ...

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#436

Post by NoOneNew » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

kgwgk wrote: post #432

qqii wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are perfectly identical". Which the ARTIST has decided is a digital certificate for the price of art. Just I could make a duplicate of the supreme brick, my duplicate wouldn't have as nearly much value if I tell people it is a duplicate. Supreme could sell bricks aga…

The all-caps "artist" brought this to my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

A can of old shit sold for €275,000???

Jesus Christ Mary and Joesph, what is the name of all things pure and holy...

Look, I get it outside of the money laundering scheme to modern art, throwing around how rich you are by buying "stuff". I get it. Tiny pecker syndrome. But let's stop and remember that Rockefeller and Carnegie, the OG capitalist titans, were dick measuring by donating their money. Sure "to the arts"... at least they were building halls and museums. They participated in some solid currency velocity that helped pay the wages to construction contractors. Still, they were assholes, but a lot better than just shoveling money between other rich cunts as a form of showing off.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#437

Post by frobisher » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

krsdcbl wrote: post #435

I don't quite get this post, it somehow seems to make a case FOR nfts and then try to make the point that these are not look likr stocks (which is rather obvious). The whole point of nfts is to create uniqueness among endlessly duplicatable media, and provide the possibility for digital art to be handled like physical art. Just like the Mona Lisa, you can look at endless photos of it without restriction, but only one…

The Mona Lisa is a physical "rivalrous" good, meaning if I own it, you cannot.

Digital goods are "non-rivalrous", so although NFTs can give a psychological feeling of ownership, I wouldn't say they make digital goods rivalrous.

I think digital NFTs only make sense in two ways: (1) psychological feelings of ownership, (2) perhaps a claim on something digital that _can_ be made rivalrous, for instance royalty streams. If these are subject to a smart contract that ensures one entity gets them, for example.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#438

Post by bhay » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #390

sygma wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, for block chains, mining only occurs when the thing being mined has value. NFTs would not be mined if people weren't using them. Therefore I would absolutely call them an ecological disaster. The point is that energy consumption due to mining on the Ethereum network does not scale with transaction count. So it does not matter if NFTs are issued ("minted") or not. They add no marginal energy cost in the m…

I’m less familiar with ETH than BTC but my understanding is that this is true: 1. Minting an NFT costs ETH in the form of “gas” 2. The miner who mines a block gets that ETH Assuming both of these are true, each NFT minted on the ETH blockchain increases the amount they can profitability spend on energy in economic equilibrium.

Your understanding is correct, however ETH is moving sharply away from PoW to PoS systems which are significantly less demanding systems in terms of energy requirements. I believe the roadmap expects the full PoS transition to happen this year (a multistage launch that we are partway through).

On top of that, there's other more specialised NFT blockchains like flow which are becoming very popular.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#439

Post by TimJRobinson » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

This is on the assumption that the original buyers are only buying to make a profit.

What if NFTs are simply patreon for whales? In that context I think they're a great idea, allowing people with plenty of spare money to support creators they love while having a token they can use to show how big of a fan they are.

In response to energy use: what powered these networks before decentralization? Many humans all over the world, expending energy to distribute these goods and ensure they are legitimate. This wasn't free energy, these people could have spent their time on other things. It's simply more visible and calculatable now that computers are doing that work.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#440

Post by TeMPOraL » Sun, Mar 07, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

wokwokwok wrote: post #429

TheColorYellow wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rephrasing your questions and critiques more broadly: What is the point of all this digital infrastructure if no one uses it? Why would anyone use it? This is a more difficult question for NFTs as the market is even smaller than the financial use cases which has been driving blockchain applications. It'll take some time for seemingly legitimate and long-lasting value in areas for NFT to emerge as they are still being…

> the NFT will be taken as the source of truth for representing the ownership of the claimed asset... I simply can’t see how that is possible for digital assets you can copy and paste and have two copies of the original asset; it only works for physical assets where there can only be one copy of the asset, ever. You’ve hit it on the head: what does it mean to own an image when ten other people also “own” a copy of it…

> You’ve hit it on the head: what does it mean to own an image when ten other people also “own” a copy of it, and any of them can create more copies other people can “own”.

Also worth remembering: doing anything with a digital asset involves automatic creation of countless of copies. When you're viewing an image from your computer's storage, you already have at least three copies at that moment - one in storage, one in RAM, and one in video memory. There may be another one in your screen's buffer too. If you try to send it through the network, every switch and router along the way effectively creates its own temporary copy.

This is to emphasize: ownership as a concept makes no sense in the world of bits. It doesn't exist. Ownership is defined by agreement between people; these days, usually through the legal framework.