I love that the embedded video immediately below the article is titled "WATCH: A beginner's guide to NFTs, the crypto potentially worth millions"
Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
41–50 of 200 posts
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#42The tulip comparison strikes me as being rather specious. For starters, tulip bulbs of the same variety were absolutely fungible.
It's more like trading cards. If you own some rare rookie card, you don't actually own that baseball player, just a sort of paper token that references the baseball player. But, since people see value in the reference itself, the value of the token ends up deriving from both the player's celebrity and the rarity of the baseball card.
NFTs riff on this concept by being digital, and having it be common for there to be limited runs of only 1.
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#43The tulip comparison strikes me as being rather specious. For starters, tulip bulbs of the same variety were absolutely fungible. It's more like trading cards. If you own some rare rookie card, you don't actually own that baseball player, just a sort of paper token that references the baseball player. But, since people see value in the reference itself, the value of the token ends up deriving from both the player's c…
NFTs for MTG would make a lot of sense. Right now it's kinda like that, but there's a market on MTG servers.
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#44I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
Isn't that what copyright is about?
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#45I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases – instead of the record companies, instagrams, and etsys of the world. I fail to see how this won't be a net positive for wealth equality when we're shifting the advantage to those who have historically been taken advantage of.
There's a difference between making royalties for distribution of copies of an item and making royalties for transferring a single item from one person to another. One makes sense, the other is a weird misleading way to rent to people.
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#46I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
You can just wrap the NFT inside a holding contract, then trade access to the holding contract without triggering an actual sale. At least on ethereum you can do this.
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#47I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
> Imagine if cryptocurrency started doing that?
It happened, that's SafeMoon. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme? That's their selling point!
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#48I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
This is about as easy to enforce on the blockchain as it is in meatspace... All you have to do is "wrap" the NFT in a smart contract, then move the smart contract around. The NFT itself is not moving (its owner is the smart contract) so it won't trigger the fee.
Some artists choose to attach "perks" to their NFTs – i.e. meet and greets, access to private communities. They could choose not to honor these perks for NFTs held by contracts. They could even choose to re-mint the work if the new owner is doing nefarious things with the old one (though many would see this as a dubious action)
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#49I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…
The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases – instead of the record companies, instagrams, and etsys of the world. I fail to see how this won't be a net positive for wealth equality when we're shifting the advantage to those who have historically been taken advantage of.
> The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases...
This is just factually incorrect. I don't know why there's so much confusion here... it's the creator of the NFT that controls where the money goes, not the creator of the artwork. I don't know why people think that it's the artist that gets the money--that doesn't make any logical sense--how would a system like that even work?
Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases – instead of the record companies, instagrams, and etsys of the world. I fail to see how this won't be a net positive for wealth equality when we're shifting the advantage to those who have historically been taken advantage of.
> The people receiving royalties are the artists in these cases... This is just factually incorrect. I don't know why there's so much confusion here... it's the creator of the NFT that controls where the money goes, not the creator of the artwork. I don't know why people think that it's the artist that gets the money--that doesn't make any logical sense--how would a system like that even work?
In most legitimate uses of NFTs the creator is the artist.