171–180 of 268 posts
It's stupid at face value. No pyramid required. You cannot intrinsically link real world items to tokens. The source of truth is the real world, not the token. Add an unlimited supply of unique things, and how could anyone expect to make money from this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NFTs are not meant for physical items, they’re digital certificates. People literally burnt a Banksy painting before auctioning its NFT.
So now we have no Banksy painting but someone has a crypto token that says “This represents a Banksy painting” in the code? Since there’s nothing to own or even point to, what’s stopping a second party from claiming they actually have the original Banksy NFT and selling their own? Just the time stamps on the blockchain? What a miserable destruction of real art to profit on a trading frenzy.
The fact not a single person can explain it in simple terms to me is a huge red flag on its own.
I wrote my first Fortran program in 1969. I have been active in the field of computing since then, both as an academic and as a programmer in industry. During this time, there have been several times when I first heard about something new, something potentially game changing. I remember some of them very clearly: 1. Around 1971: a Wang desktop computer. Imagine: a computer that fit on a desk! 2. Visicalc (spreadsheet…
At the risk of going slightly off-topic: I think it's interesting you mention "proving programs correct". My hunch is that formal proofs on code are currently too laborious to be useful in most business situations, but that they will become extremely useful as we start letting the machine/"AI" code for us. I might not have spent enough time in this field (so there might be some Dunning Kruger at play) but I think cod…
Pardon my ignorance, but I’m being sincere. I don’t know much about this field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are (a) very heavily regulated by definition and (b) means to an end, which is to create societal good, ie, foster innovation (I don’t want to argue whether that’s actually the case - I’m just taking the statu quo position) Could one say the same about tokens?
Yes. a) is very heavily regulated by the chain/protocol used to make the tokens work and b) would be to introduce scarcity to digital items, which possibly creates good and fosters innovation (I similarly don't want to argue whether that will actually be the case) in fields which benefit from scarcity.
I’m equivocating if this is the is/ought problem or the Münchhausen trilemma, kinda feels like both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are, as a saas I think. I mean, this gives you all the control, you can charge for all sorts of services and "value adds". There's no reason you, as the maker of this software, would want this available as a block chain. Unless you also create a token and start having people speculate on your anti-counterfeiting blockchain? That's what it looks like to me anyway.
I am not really following you. The appeal of an nft is that it doesn't rely on a saas, it doesn't rely on a trusted third party that needs up time that needs to be available in the future. Jacob Collier tried to sell an nft that granted lifetime access to his concerts. The appeal of such an nft is that it can be traded independently of any third party, on the open market. Of course it depends on Jacob's promise to ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they not only destroyed art, but also wasted energy on creating the NFT, adding to global warming. If there's anything that's not absolute evil in all that, I fail to see it.
I'm sorry, but respectfully, you don't understand the modern art world: the destruction of the physical object and the creation of the NFT was, in this specific instance, the work of art itself. The art world has taken "meta" to extreme dimensions Internet Culture will not realize, perhaps ever.
I mean aren't works of art exactly NFT in real life. Sometimes they also happen to look pretty to look at seems to be a archiach byproduct.
Look, if it's okay to buy limited edition numbered tins with the feces of an artist for 300k then it means anything goes. I don't understand where all these "Destroyed with Facts and Logic" people are coming from.
Its clown world out there already. Maybe, you're just too old to like the new clowns. Nothing wrong about that.
I wrote my first Fortran program in 1969. I have been active in the field of computing since then, both as an academic and as a programmer in industry. During this time, there have been several times when I first heard about something new, something potentially game changing. I remember some of them very clearly: 1. Around 1971: a Wang desktop computer. Imagine: a computer that fit on a desk! 2. Visicalc (spreadsheet…
As with any technology we only see its impact with the pass of time. Bitcoin is holding pretty strong after 12ish years, you can't deny facts. You can question the practical applications but technology is often used in other ways than it was originally intended. In the case of Bitcoin it may prove to be useful only as a cross border digital store of value instead of an every day currency. Same with NFTs, you can dism…
There are no constraints on the supply of NFTs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The contract would give the buyer rights to use the content. When I'm the owner of a physical Picasso then I have the right to sell t-shirts with the motive on it. If someone else would do that, I could sue him. The same idea is behind this NFT hype, you buy the right to use the content. As far as I understand it.
NFTs don't transfer real-world rights. They only transfer the NFT itself. You could potentially create a real-world contract that ties ownership of the real-world asset to whoever holds the NFT, but that would introduce real-world legal issues like voiding the NFT in the event that it was transferred fraudulently and so on. It seems a lot of people have been misled into believing that NFTs are something they're not.…
People using these terms incorrectly to describe "bad investment they don't like" gets old quick.