NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

Ah, yes. Let's imagine a real-world scenario: I pay for some goods. The seller never delivers the goods.

Real world: I have an arsenal of tools at my disposal that can help me return my money.

keymone and bitcoin: no, it's an anti-feature, these tools only protect the financial system.

> how can you not? bitcoin has transaction finality by design.

Please say "finality of transaction by design" a few more times. This will surely address the issues raised.

> fees in bitcoin denominated in bitcoin didn't change, price of bitcoin change.

and immediately below:

> lower value settlements will get priced out by higher value settlements because higher value settlements can afford to include larger fee.

So chose one, please. The fees didn't change? Or they change all the time, and you have to pay for the "privilege" of sending money?

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

I mean, you can call 0 an infinity and even do maths around that. However, there's an actual tangible reality: actual real-world transaction times in bitcoin are 10 to 30 minutes. Your "infinite transactions per second" don't work if I pay for something and have to wait for 30 minutes for the transfer to settle.

> 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.

Ah, yes. The mythical systems that are yet to materialize anywhere. And, by the way, if you're creating a separate system to aggregate multiple transactions, that's ... centralisation. Something that bitcoin is supposed to be against.

> missing entirely the idea of container ships.

So far you've addressed zero of the issues raised besides payments. And with the issues about payments you've demonstrated next to zero understanding of what people realistically want from a payment system. Oh, and you've devolved to calling white black and vice versa ("10 to 30 minutes per transaction is actually unlimited transactions per second").

Indeed, and that's the source of many issues.

> on top of bitcoin you can build the arsenal of tools.

Which shows again that you didn't read the article, or read it and didn't understand a single argument in it.

> Lower value transfers got priced out because fees that previously were low in dollar terms have become high in dollar terms because Bitcoin was previously $1 and now it’s $50,000.

So, both the article and me were correct about transfer fees.

> Payments in payment channel are settled as fast as your internet latency

Once again, payment channels are required due to inherent limitations of Bitcoin. So, in order to combat the absolutely real and valid issues raised in the article, you dismiss them out of hand, while... advocating for additional systems built on top to valiantly combat these issues. smh

--- start quote ---

Only two transactions are settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. the first transaction and the last. The first transaction is used to open the channel by locking the funds, and the last one to close channel and get each participant his final balance back. So in a typical payment channel, only two transactions are added to the block chain but an unlimited number of payments can be made between the participants.

--- end quote ---

So, all transactions are happening outside bitcoin in a completely separate system just because Bitcoin can't handle all this.

> so for all intents and purposes transaction capacity in bitcoin payment channels is infinite.

Of course it's not :)

It's two transactions in Bitcoin, so the actual transaction time of the actual assets in Bitcoin that people care about will be (10 to 30 minutes) times 2.

And it's the capacity of the payment channel, and that depends on the implementation.

And on top of that the actual true transaction time and transaction capacity will depend solely on when the payment chain will commit those transactions to blockchain.

Congratulations, you've invented classical banking.

Oh, yes. They still don't solve the actual use-case of "micropayments": receiving multiple "micropayments" from multiple people. So, a cafe would get flooded with "micropayments" from dozens of people during rush hour. In payment channel terms this will be two transactions per person with a micropayment on a blockchain with unknown fees and waiting times. Perfect.

> Payment channel systems are already built and they don’t require centralisation.

Of course they do. It's a separate system built outside of bitcoin that aggregates multiple transactions between users. Aggregation simply by definition implies centralisation.

> You obviously know next to nothing yet you keep arguing trying to pretend to be smart and knowledgeable.

These ad hominem attacks sure do make you look smart and knowledgeable.*

The most charitable interpretation is that it's a way to reward artists for creating digital art in a new way.

The HN article for this comment thread shows the risk here though. If the monetary incentives become pushing these tokens, then the most successful 'creators' will be the people that can maximize getting people to pay for these dumb tokens. The incentives are bad and you end up with the 'artists' being mostly ICO style scammers.

It's like the corrupting influence of ads on media, tokens value will be a similar but different corrupting influence.

You could argue how is this different than monetizing anything? I think it's because of the pseudo-value/speculation driving people to spend more on the hope of a future return. That's the psychological hack of fake scarcity.