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

571–580 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#571

Post by fredfoobar »

roywiggins wrote: post #568
theptip wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth noting that NFTs aren’t just cryptokitties; there is a lot more you can do with them. ETH NFT refers to the smart contracts that you would use to digitize ownership of a house or any other (physical or financial) unique asset that you might trade. You can nest an NFT under an ERC20 token, too, so that you can sell partial ownership tokens in your NFT. Of all the use-cases in crypto, I think digitizing ownership…

What happens when a judge says "no, the person who the NFT says owns the house doesn't, it's Bob over there"? When it comes down to it, the entry on the local tax rolls or property registration office is going to be the one that counts.

What's the other proof of ownership?

NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#572

Post by dmitriid »

qqii wrote: post #434
dmitriid wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems

For a technology that's frequently hailed as the best new thing since sliced bread, it's quite telling that it can't exhibit a single of the best parts of current systems. And it's replete with parts that are worse than even the worst parts of the current systems.

> I could retort and point to companies actually using blockchain but you can easily argue flaws in their implementation.

Of course I would. And the articles argues as well, successfully. Because for the absolute vast majority of these real-world companies anything they do can be done better, faster, and more efficiently without the use of blockchain. And if the are not busy scamming people, they are busy re-implementing, often poorly, those "best parts of current systems" that you're so quick to dismiss.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#573

Post by dmitriid »

keymone wrote: post #551
dmitriid wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

ah yes, another bitcoin obituary, there's hundreds of them on the internet posted quite regularly, ever since bitcoin's inception.

It's not an obituary, and you'd know it if you'd bothered to read it. It very aptly describes the perpetual state of bitcoin in particular, and of blockchains in general.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#574

Post by bostonpete »

gruez wrote: post #516
snarf21 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. I have several hand painted reproductions of famous paintings (impressionist). I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I don't need to have $100M. I'm glad that content creators are getting paid n…

>NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. You can say this about literally every non-productive asset, including NFT's real-life counterparts eg. painting or trading cards.

Except those sorts of collectibles drive much of their value from their limited supply.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#575

Post by CyberDildonics »

tal8d wrote: post #542
CyberDildonics wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you blow up the transaction limit you physically centralize the verification process. What numbers are you basing that on? Bitcoin is 1.5KB/s. A $10 vps is 80,000 times faster than that. > because fractions of a second make a big difference No they don't. The examples you are talking about are rare and have very little impact. If the entire network makes blocks once every 10 minutes on average, each miner find…

> What numbers are you basing that on? Bitcoin is 1.5KB/s. You know you can't verify an incomplete block, right? If you think you can just plow ahead after getting the first packet... you are going to have a really bad day once the other miners notice that you can be fooled into wasting hash power on bogus headers. You know that blocks get announced by the miners after they solve the hash, in chunks that can be up to…

> you are going to have a really bad day once the other miners notice that you can be fooled into wasting hash power on bogus headers.

What are you even talking about here? 900KB takes a fraction of a second to transfer on a modest internet connection, any miner with $10 a month for a VPS can transfer that is a millisecond. No one said anything about downloading fractions of blocks, you hallucinated that.

> Anyone sitting at the 32MB buffer would be getting their lunch eaten. This is about as fundamental as it gets, so you might want to do some reading - because you've clearly got a big blindspot.

What is it that you think is even happening? Blocks get sent out. One has 32x the transaction throughput. Why do you think 32MB or more would be anything other than trivial to send and receive? Any miner can send and receive that in a second.

> I don't pay much attention to the joke coins.

Bitcoin cash already has more sustained transactions than bitcoin. Maybe you should reach beyond the propaganda of /r/bitcoin

> it even has a name: the selfish miner strategy.

Miners that do that take the risk that someone else will propagate a block before them since they didn't share the previous block they found. Empty blocks have much more of an impact on bitcoin because the throughput is so constrained. Empty blocks do not have much of an impact on the usability of bitcoin cash because it has plenty of throughput. A miner maliciously mining empty blocks on bitcoin will also leave a lot of money on the table because they won't get transaction fees.

> you obviously thought you knew how things worked, and you obviously don't

Everything you said is either completely made up or an exaggeration of some minor effect. In your last message you compared something with a 10 minute window to millionths of a second. For some reason you ignored this and ignored the actual numbers of modern bandwidth. You keep using hyperbole but won't quantify anything because the numbers don't add up.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#576

Post by jamesgreenleaf »

zemo wrote: post #530
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…

what is the use-case for an NFT for an in-game virtual good? A sword from World of Warcraft (WoW) can already be traded between players within WoW, since the environment in which it appears is already centralized and that's already provided by the environment. Trading a WoW sword outside of WoW has ambiguous logic. Let's say you sold your WoW sword to a Destiny player. Ok, does the sword still exist in WoW or not? Wh…

I will help clear up some confusion if I'm able.

First, I don't think the big use case is for items being traded between different games. However, a system like that is possible. Blizzard would be a good example here, since their games have a high degree of cross-pollination, and they frequently offer promotions that unlock similar items in several of their games at once. So, owning a Blizzard "magic sword" token might give you a sword item in WoW, another one in Diablo, and a sword card in Hearthstone, each adapted for its own game. This is a small use case, in my opinion.

I imagine that the big use case is for any game developer (indies especially) to leverage the marketplace without having to build one, or be locked into one provided by a single publisher/distributor. The game itself does not have to be p2p as you're suggesting. Game architecture would remain centralized, and would communicate with a blockchain where the tokens are stored.

The process might look like this:

1) A player purchases an NFT representing an in-game item issued by a wallet owned by the game developer.

2) The player sends that token to a smart-contract address, also owned by the developer, with a memo that identifies their player account.

3) The smart contract notifies a centralized game server, then sends the token back to the player's wallet.

4) The in-game item appears in the player's inventory, within the game.

There could be any number of steps involved, and the contracts could operate however you'd like. The token could be destroyed after a single use (like purchasing keys for loot crates in CS:GO) or used and traded any number of times. The game server would have to keep track of which player account controlled which token, and update players' inventories whenever the token changed hands.

One more thing - NFTs can be programmed such that creators receive an automatic royalty (a percentage of the sale lands in the creator's wallet address) whenever the item is sold on the blockchain, no matter who is selling to whom. This could be huge for indie developers, who would benefit not only from selling the original items up front, but also from the long-tail resale of such items between their players.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#577

Post by roywiggins »

fredfoobar wrote: post #571
roywiggins wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when a judge says "no, the person who the NFT says owns the house doesn't, it's Bob over there"? When it comes down to it, the entry on the local tax rolls or property registration office is going to be the one that counts.

What's the other proof of ownership? NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.

My point is, that states have monopolized property transfers and there's all sorts of weird and arcane laws and practice around how you transfer property- especially real estate- and convincing the state to recognize an NFT as evidence of anything is going to be a real challenge.

ex, if the law requires an actual notarized handwritten signature to transfer ownership, what you and I do on the blockchain will simply not count when it comes down to it.

If I accidentally burn the NFT that represents ownership of my house I'm definitely still the owner of the house, there's no world where a government would shrug and say "I guess nobody owns it anymore, oops"

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#578

Post by thinkloop »

yawnr wrote: post #517
snarf21 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. I have several hand painted reproductions of famous paintings (impressionist). I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I don't need to have $100M. I'm glad that content creators are getting paid n…

I’m skeptical about NFTs too but trying to keep an open mind, because at the end of the day, while you or I personally don’t need the 100M to enjoy the impressionist art, you can’t ignore the fact that someone out there is in fact willing to pay that for the original. And that’s kind of the same weird authenticity bragging rights situation.

There's a big practical difference between owning an original and owning a print. People have discovered secrets behind paint or canvas before. New technologies often allow us to introspect qualities of the art that we previously didn't know (chemicals used, techniques, tools, lifestyles, etc.). An original is a snapshot of history that includes tons of unique information that is simply not available in prints or nfts.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#579

Post by teucris »

> The more time and passion that creators devote to chasing the NFT, the more time they’ll spend trying to create the appearance of scarcity and hustling people to believe that the tokens will go up in value. They’ll become promoters of digital tokens more than they are creators.

This has always been an issue with art. Artists can be promoters of their art to support their livelihood (“sell out”). I do not think that stops making people creators.

And a small nit: > Unlike some stocks, it doesn’t pay dividends or come with any other rights.

Many NFTs pay a cut of future sales back to the creator. For that reason, I think of NFTs more like a stock than a claim of uniqueness.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#580

Post by krsdcbl »

iambateman wrote: post #444

Consider baseball cards. I own 5000 cards with a total value of about $50. A few NFT’s will be very very valuable. The first one George Clooney sells. The first one ever created. The 6 Banksy sells under a pseudonym that no one realizes for a year. The song Taylor Swift limits to 1 copy. But almost all of them will be worthless. The difference between baseball cards and NFT’s is that for generations, no one really ca…

I'd agree for a lot of the "random things getting NFT'd" - but it's definitely different in the art market, where right now quite some moderately known artists are making okay money from digital art through nfts. Not Mona Lisa kind of money, but it definitely does open up the art market for digital creators in a beneficial way.

A picture isn't inherently worth anything, it's worth what someone will pay for it and doesn't depend on some kind of novelty character

Post reply on HN