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

601–610 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#601

Post by ericbarrett »

berenza wrote: post #583
roywiggins wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

there is work being done on bridging smart contracts with contract law and it may be further along than you think. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/blockchain-leg... https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2020/12/how-smart-contrac... https://www.ikigailaw.com/how-have-different-states-in-the-u...

When I read about smart legal contracts, all I can imagine is Google's live-staff customer support combined with government flexibility. Is this the future we want?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#602

Post by bostonpete »

gruez wrote: post #581
bostonpete wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

paintings might be limited in supply, but trading cards are easily mass produced.

They are easily mass produced, but the companies still limit the supply specifically so there is value for collectors

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#603

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#604

Post by fredfoobar »

snarf21 wrote: post #489
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 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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#605

Post by cam0 »

"A fool and his money are soon parted"... This is a great way to part the early, non-sophisticated but luckily wealthy bitcoiner and ETH-holders from their rapid and "easily" won windfall.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#606

Post by nikisweeting »

whateveracct wrote: post #541
jonwalch wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cosmetics in games largely have value due to the game being online and multiplayer, which means NFTs aren't useful for them because there is already a central server to manage ownership. They don't buy cosmetics just to show off their status, but to actually make their character look different when playing with a group of people who can see it. It's rarely "oh look - expensive" it's more "oh look - freaking Cowboy Ur…

That will change when cosmetics can be shared across multiple games, which is already starting to grow with the onset of custom multi-game avatar+identity APIs being provided to game developers.

When you avatar persists across multiple different games, it makes sense to have an ownership mechanism that isn't managed by a single central authority.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#607

Post by Taek »

reaperducer wrote: post #596
yawnr wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. There are people who happily pay $10,000+ for an Italian purse. There are people who are happy with a $10 Chinese knock-off. There are people who happily pay $2,000 for an Apple laptop. There are people who are happy with Linux on a $100 machin…

You should also account for how early NFTs are. If you've been following blockchains for a while, you may recall that in 2012 and 2013 there were an ocean of Bitcoin knock offs that distinguished themselves by changing things like the difficulty adjustment algorithm, or the hashing function, or the total coin supply. All of these "altcoins" to experts seemed to be completely useless and many chalked the entire category up as worthless. Eventually of course a lot more interesting altcoins were invented, and it turned out to be a great source of innovation, it just had a hurdle to cross first.

I feel like NFTs today are roughly where altcoins were in 2012. Lots of good fundamentals to the ideas, but most of the implementations are really missing the mark. Whatever the NFT equivalent of Ethereum, Zcash, Sia, etc is... it's not here yet. And it may yet be a year or two until it first appears.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#608

Post by Kiro »

What prevents someone from creating another NFT platform for tweets and do the same thing? The tweet is only unique on the Cent Valuables platform, not on the blockchain itself. Or am I missing something?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#609

Post by Taek »

bostonpete wrote: post #574
gruez wrote: post #516

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. 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.

The entire point of NFTs is that you can attach a verifiably limited supply to a set of collectables. Just like with their real world counterparts, you can have knock-offs and reproductions that people collect, but the owner of the actual original one knows they have something of a limited set.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#610

Post by lottin »

cachvico wrote: post #553
lottin wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The buyer gets to own not the tweet but a "digital certificate of the tweet" which is the actual NFT thing. So what they buy is a certificate although I'm not sure what it certifies.

It certifies two things: 1. That you paid a certain amount for the certificate. 2. That there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). Pretty much exactly like owning a baseball card, then.

But when you buy a baseball card you get a card. Here it seems that you only get a receipt stating that you have paid (aka the certificate) AND NOTHING ELSE.
Post reply on HN