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

501–510 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#501

Post by rytill »

jwilber wrote: post #327
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…

AGI in no way, shape, or form belongs on that list.

You’re right - it belongs on a list of universal-scale risks rather than global-scale ones.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#502

Post by ikeboy »

Tldr: proof of stake is a climate disaster because it rewards those who already have money, which means those without money will get hurt more by climate change.

Yes, this is the actual argument made in the underlying post that this is blogspam for.

>I’m sure you’re seeing the problem here- there is not a schema that doesn’t reward those who already are already wealthy, who are already bought in, who already have excess capital or access to outsized computational power. Almost universally they grant power to the already powerful. This is also a climate issue. Climate justice is social justice. This is true in that the worst impacts of climate collapse are felt by those with no means to avoid them, while those with resources easily fuck on off to somewhere where they don’t have to see it.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#503

Post by TigeriusKirk »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #58
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…

> it seems like this is going to be 90% bubble (with plenty of hucksters), and 10% real use cases that stand the test of time All the most interesting developments in computing start like this. This is good. The future is being born now and not without the required creative destruction.

Not sure why you're downvoted. You're exactly right. This is how new frontiers always are.

Lots of hype, most of which never pans out, with a core of projects that change the world.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#504

Post by jerry1979 »

d-sk wrote: post #495
jerry1979 wrote: post #482

If Alice buys art from Bob, and that art goes up in value due to the open-market activity of anonymous [Carol?, ...], then Alice can donate that now expensive art to a digital museum for a tax write off. Where could Alice get the NFTs appraised? Is the open market activity sufficient? It's almost like the NFT system allows proles to do fancy tax write-offs like their bourgeoisie cousins.

NFT appraisal is a grey area if it is anything like the art market, and yes it can be used to defraud. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-irs2mar02-story.html

Thank you for posting this article. I had not come across this one in my limited research.

>It is appraisers, not museums, who determine the value of art for donors. But the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles is investigating whether museum officials furthered the scheme by knowingly accepting donations of overvalued art from suspect dealers and collectors over a decade, according to affidavits filed in January.

Looks like software might eat this too.

Anyway, I think I naturally tend to support the Liberal Project for better or worse, but today's streams of turbulence feel refreshing on tired feet.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#505

Post by jameshart »

lottin wrote: post #456
detaro wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's say I buy a NTF $1000 and get a digital copy, what prevents me (barring legalities) to perfectly duplicate it and massively redistribute it (not the token, the distributed supposedly high quality file) for a fraction of $$$ and turn a profit The file is usually publicly accessible, why would anyone give you money for something they can just download?

Some rich dude has bought the "first tweet" for $2.5 million, despite the fact that it's publicly accessible [0]. I imagine it's about showing off how rich they are. They could achieve the same result by throwing $2.5 million into a furnace. https://twitter.com/jack/status/20

What rights do you get with ‘owning’ the first tweet? Who could you buy those rights from? Do you get any responsibilities along with that? Like if UNESCO declare the first tweet a culturally significant artifact, could you be held liable for allowing it to fall into disrepair?

And what does the existence of an NFT allow you to do with respect to that bundle fo rights you bought that couldn’t already be done by having someone write down a rights assignment on a piece of paper, sign it and hand it over to you in exchange for some consideration?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#506

Post by kjrose »

jerry1979 wrote: post #482

If Alice buys art from Bob, and that art goes up in value due to the open-market activity of anonymous [Carol?, ...], then Alice can donate that now expensive art to a digital museum for a tax write off. Where could Alice get the NFTs appraised? Is the open market activity sufficient? It's almost like the NFT system allows proles to do fancy tax write-offs like their bourgeoisie cousins.

Why does it feel to me like a way to launder money.

Its not like the art market hasn't been used for that for centuries.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#507

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#508

Post by bakatubas »

lloeki wrote: post #351
arcticbull wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

Personally I think these should have a legal license associated with them. Like if the author transfers NFT it transfers the creative license as well (so the purchaser actually owns the art). For instance, Nayan Cat beanie babies can now only be manufactured by owner of said token, and whenever the new owner transfers the token the license goes with it. Etc.

Basically, if Token == Intellectual Property ownership then it makes sense.

This would mean if a creator, say a musician wrote a song and transferred the NFT and it became a wild success in the future, the owner would earn profits from the investment, but so too would the content creator receive the mentioned dividends proportional to the value.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#509

Post by jonwalch »

echelon wrote: post #183
drawkbox wrote: post #174

Short term view NFTs look like a scam or a joke. Long term view we will need digital ownership especially when it comes to content or individual data/items. When the augmented reality spectacle takes over and everyone is looking through AR glasses, rather than through a small device but through their own eyes, digital collectibles will have more value. Shared spaces with others will have collectibles that only exist…

Why are we introducing scarcity to digital goods? That's not a good thing and shouldn't be praised! We rail against companies selling cosmetic additions to games. It doesn't add value. We already have "ownership". The legal framework of copyrights, purchase or goods, and licenses. NFTs are barcodes. People are selling cryptographic barcodes.

There's tens of millions of people that disagree with you regarding cosmetics in games. Gamers largely have disposable income and are happy that they can support their favorite game developers and look "cool" (show off their status) while doing it.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#510

Post by chickenfries »

anonporridge wrote: post #44
chickenfries wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The possibilities of NFTs fascinate me, especially for portable, digital identities and assets that transcend any specific virtual realm and can't be arbitrarily erased by any central authority. I'm struggling to understand the possibilities. Can you enlighten me? It seems like people buying these things are just speculating. Can you paint a picture of what kind of possibilities you're excited about?

This thread touches on it, https://twitter.com/FEhrsam/status/1366248629661552642 A very simple example is that it could partially solve the problem of verifying digital identities. If I follow/friend your NFT based identity, and various virtual realms (games, social media, virtual spaces) integrate with that 'identity' NFT for user accounts, then any new virtual realm I enter, I can immediately find and connect with…

Thank you for your answer. Personally, as a gamer the idea of cross game microtransactions and collectibles does not interest me. Minecraft skins are free and easy to create, you can make yourself look like Mario if you want, or anything else. The idea of putting that on the blockchain instead seems dystopian. On top of that, I’m pretty sure that Nintendo would never want to do such a thing.
Post reply on HN