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

721–730 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#721

Post by curryst »

samvher wrote: post #588
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…

Not sure if it's just me but it sounds like you're sort of making an argument in favor of NFTs here. The main argument against NFTs I hear is that what is being certified can just as easily be enjoyed by people who are not the certified owner. And you're saying that that's actually the case for regular art as well - but still someone ends up willing to pay $100M for the original! I think there is a case to be made fo…

I think the real issue is that NFTs are really a secondary to the data they're certifying (i.e. the art). In the same sense that "stealing" means something different in the digital world, "ownership" also means something very different. Ownership of physical goods precludes other people owning them. There is only one original. Ownership of a digital good does not preclude other people "owning" it in the sense that they have one they can use/view/whatever.

The only thing you "own" in the physical goods sense of precluding other people from using it, is the NFT itself. It is exclusively assigned to you, other people can't conceptually say they own it.

Another example of how that divide manifests is how would someone show off their NFTs? Art is easy, hang it on the wall conspicuously with canister lights. You could do the same with an NFT piece, or you could put it on your profile or something, but anybody can do that. You're not showing off your NFT, you're showing off the art. Your NFT is just a jumble of cryptographic data. It has to be random for functional reasons, I presume, so it's not like the author can make your NFT a piece of art in and of itself.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#722

Post by nikisweeting »

echelon wrote: post #663
nikisweeting wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What economic incentive to game developers have to respect NFT ownership? Or anyone, for that matter? In VRChat, you can be any model. If I had a game, I wouldn't care who owned the NFT. It's not a value add. As far as I'm concerned, anybody could use it.

The incentive is that the players care about it, and players will actively choose games that respect their avatar/NFT ownership because it allows them to show off their prized avatar and share their persona with a larger audience.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#723

Post by dmitriid »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #695
dmitriid wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. Did you read the file you're referencing? Let me quote it for you (emphasis mine): --- start quote --- Permissioned blockchains as a datastore Solutions can be built on either open source datastores (like mysql or postgres), on proprietary datastores (Oracle), or on blockchains. Our position on this topic is that the proof is in the pudding: let the bidders…

He's still recommending blockchain. Four years after writing the initial article, you think it'd be easier just to say its worthless...but he didn't. There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere.

> He's still recommending blockchain.

He's literally not recommending it in the paper linked. [1]

> There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere.

You'd think that if there was such a discussion, there would be links to it, or articles addressing these points. But,... no.

[1] Edit.

Here's section on permissioned blockchains as a datastore (emphasis mine):

--- start quote ---

Solutions can be built on either open source datastores (like mysql or postgres), on proprietary datastores (Oracle), or on blockchains.

Our position on this topic is that the proof is in the pudding: let the bidders describe the system they can build and the costs, let them choose the underlying technologies they will employ, and let the state’s procurement officials select the most competitive bid. If blockchain offers an advantage, they will be well positioned to win in the marketplace.

--- end quote ---

Here's section on unpermissioned or semi-permissioned blockchains as a datastore (emphasis by the authors):

--- start quote ---

recall that the most complex and burdensome aspect of maintaining a non-Torrens ledger is preventing false data from entering the system. Absent tremendous progress in digital identity, we believe the types of title fraud commonly seen in the lived experience of the several states would be increased by such a system rather than decreased.

--- end quote ---

And then:

--- start quote ---

(v1) We do not see any reason that a permissioned blockchain is inherently more likely to be error-free or fraud-free than the existing system, and so do not believe new technology supports a move to Torrens any more than was the case in the past. (We are open to being proved wrong!)

(v2) Torrens title system implemented on an unpermissioned blockchain. For the reasons described above, we believe this would be a disaster

(v3) imagines that the potential for fraudulent transactions being entered into the blockchain is reduced by using smart contracts or similar means. ... [lists the very serious issue with fraud]

We do not believe the technology is ready to seriously consider moving tens of millions of property owners collectively holding $4 trillion worth of real property in California onto a system such as this one... In contrast, if the adoption was mandatory and universal, it seems likely that just its first year adoption of a system like this would lead to thousands or even tens of thousands of homes being irrevocably and fraudulently transferred

--- end quote ---

And the only "recommendation" is this: if you're evaluating technologies, evaluate all tech, including emerging tech like blockchains on equal footing, and that includes, quote, "potential to make search, record validation, or detection of error or fraud cheaper, faster, or more accurate". In all the points above they considered blockchain on equal footing, and found it wanting.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#724

Post by dmitriid »

keymone wrote: post #687
dmitriid wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s an article from 2017 proclaiming bitcoin is worthless for a payment system It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even talk about payments. > it is now 2021 and amount of value exchanged on bitcoin is more than ever. Amount of value exchanged on bitcoin !== it's useful for payments. Actual payments (…

> It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even talk about payments. it's clear you didn't even pretend reading my comments or understand the words i'm writing. we can be playing this game all day. > Amount of value exchanged on bitcoin !== it's useful for payments. Actual payments (you know, for goods and se…

> but it's the anti-feature

> again, all anti features.

Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money.

It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature.

> this also shows how clueless you yourself are in anything bitcoin related.

and immediately:

> And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year

So you're just confirming the point tht the author said and my update to his numbers.

> micropayments were never supposed to be on chain to begin with.

That's some interesting mental gymnastics. So, according to you, bitcoin is not a worthless payment system, but at the same time you're claiming that it's not supposed to handle the largest chunk of what payment systems routinely handle. I guess, micropayments are an anti-feature, too?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#726

Post by echelon »

nikisweeting wrote: post #722
echelon wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What economic incentive to game developers have to respect NFT ownership? Or anyone, for that matter? In VRChat, you can be any model. If I had a game, I wouldn't care who owned the NFT. It's not a value add. As far as I'm concerned, anybody could use it.

The incentive is that the players care about it, and players will actively choose games that respect their avatar/NFT ownership because it allows them to show off their prized avatar and share their persona with a larger audience.

Okay, but that doesn't mean companies will have economic incentive to support decentralization.

Games don't honor any fiat currency or stocks I hold, any unlocks I made on other platforms, or my Reddit upvotes.

This is going to go nowhere.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#727

Post by ddeyar »

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.

There is a collectible card game under development which i think is similar to Magic The Gathering. https://coa.se/ In this case it makes perfectly sense. It will be released on the Tezos blockchain which is already LPoS. https://tezos.com/

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#728

Post by arcticbull »

tal8d wrote: post #393
paulmd wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

virtually all of those services will still have to exist under crypto. Regulatory frameworks will still exist, centralized entities will provide lightning channels to small-fry actors, firms will still host servers to execute trades based on the network, etc.

Yes, but they will be dealing with a currency that has mathematical guarantees - which changes things entirely. Imagine a scenario in which self driving cars are not only the norm, but they've achieved a perfect safety record due to an open source, formally verified, code-base. In that scenario, do you think the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration still needs 600 employees and a 900 million dollar budget?…

600 employees is nothing. That’s a skeleton crew already. Yeah they’d probably still keep them on payroll to work on developing and maintaining safety standards.

That aside you’re not operating with facts just speculation. You’ve not quantified what you think the fully realized cost is today or what it would go down to in the future.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#729

Post by arcticbull »

ddeyar wrote: post #727
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.

There is a collectible card game under development which i think is similar to Magic The Gathering. https://coa.se/ In this case it makes perfectly sense. It will be released on the Tezos blockchain which is already LPoS. https://tezos.com/

I guess, but if the web front end goes down all you own is some digits. Cool.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#730

Post by keymone »

dmitriid wrote: post #724
keymone wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even talk about payments. it's clear you didn't even pretend reading my comments or understand the words i'm writing. we can be playing this game all day. > Amount of value exchanged on bitcoin !== it's useful for payments. Actual payments (you know, for goods and se…

> but it's the anti-feature > again, all anti features. Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money. It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature. > this also shows how clueless you yourself are in anything bitcoin related. and immediately: > And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year So you're just confirming the point tht the author…

> Ah yes. "Anti-features" like protecting your money.

they aren't protecting your money, they are protecting the financial system in which you're currently being fucked but it happens so slowly that you've fooled yourself into enjoying it.

> It's easy to "refute" the point and call the author "clueless" if you just call anything useful an anti-feature.

how can you not? bitcoin has transaction finality by design. that's the purpose of bitcoin. that's one of the core features. when somebody comes criticizing bitcoin for not having an opposite anti-feature - what are they if not clueless?

> > And yeah, fees today are higher than fees last year

quoting out of context should be bannable offence. also you're just displaying your own ignorance and inability to understand a trivial thing - fees in bitcoin denominated in bitcoin didn't change, price of bitcoin change.

> So, according to you, bitcoin is not a worthless payment system, but at the same time you're claiming that it's not supposed to handle the largest chunk of what payment systems routinely handle

nah, you just didn't understand words. i'll break it down: bitcoin is a system with limited on-chain settlement capacity due to reasons. this means that lower value settlements will get priced out by higher value settlements because higher value settlements can afford to include larger fee. on top of this system one can in context of single on-chain settlement execute billions microtransactions with micro-fees that in aggregate make the onchain settlement economically viable.

so bitcoin is very much capable of handling unlimited number of transactions per second, you just don't understand how it achieves that.

your understanding is on the level of "so your shipping containers with motors attached cant even cross the atlantic ? what's the points in that?", missing entirely the idea of container ships.

Post reply on HN