161–170 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The creator is almost always the artist. Provenance is what gives NFTs their value. The value of a Beeple NFT minted by a random user is $0.
The value of a Beeple NFT minted by Beeple is $0. The market just hasn't discovered that yet. An NFT has no more value than a JPG. I'll longbets anyone that says otherwise.
The NFT thing seems to be settling out. It's for collectables, like Magic, the Gathering cards. I've been following this because I'm interested in virtual worlds. There are at least four virtual worlds that use some kind of NFT thing to register land ownership. Nobody does much in those worlds, and the graphics aren't all that good. It's all about trading land and speculating in some minor cryptocurrency. The newest…
https://github.com/skepticoin/explorer/blob/master/00038cce6...
'To own the SKEPTI from this transaction or any derived transaction is to "own" 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500. (AKA the White House). #metaverse'
What I dont understand is what stops you from minting the same thing on multiple NFT blockchains and why is it any diferent than something centralized, and thats why I dont like all the NFT hype (I may be dumb and dont get what NFTs really are)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m over forty and quite frankly, I’m tired of this ageist crap. This entire premise is complete fucking bullshit. Do yourself and everyone over 40 you come into contact with a favour and pretend you never believed anything so toxic.
>This entire premise is complete fucking bullshit I'm over 50 and this does not match with my observations of the world. Older people, as a general trend, do in fact seem to be resistant to new ideas. There are exceptions, of course. The trend still stands in my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The creator is almost always the artist. Provenance is what gives NFTs their value. The value of a Beeple NFT minted by a random user is $0.
What stops a record company from including a clause assigning any NFTs (and/or the revenue therefrom) created by the artist during the contract term to them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the conference essentially just borrows the name, in effect. The conference is highly vendor oriented, unlike Blackhat or Defcon. The speakers, however are RSA themselves. Keep in mind that they are no longer associated with the company. And the theme "crypto means cryptography" is a losing battle, I think.
Either defcon or blackhat had as their keynote speaker the head of the NSA. Wtf. Try that at the CCC conference . Never going to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the conference essentially just borrows the name, in effect. The conference is highly vendor oriented, unlike Blackhat or Defcon. The speakers, however are RSA themselves. Keep in mind that they are no longer associated with the company. And the theme "crypto means cryptography" is a losing battle, I think.
The eponymous RSA conference is run by RSA Security LLC, the same people who backdoored their products for the NSA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Security κρυπτός means hidden or concealed, and I intend to die on this hill.
The books in everyone's backgrounds :D We get it! You're experts!
I was really hoping they were going to dunk on the technology itself, like how the media of the NFT is lost if the platform hosting it is ever compromised - only the meta data is stored on the blockchain. Instead, they just attacked the contents of the NFTs, akin to my mom telling me my pokemon cards are a waste of money all those years ago. Value is only whatever someone is willing to pay.
It's important to remember that these people are also the kind of industry personalities that would speak at and participate in a conference run by an organization in 2004 that backdoored their crypto products for government bribes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG I'm of the belief now that those associated with the RSA conference are more interested in the publicity/reach of the conference than anything t…
…I guess NFTs are awesome after all. Where’s my credit card at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess, you're over 40? The following Douglas Adams quote sums it up perfectly: Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things. NFTs were invented in 2017. So if you're over 40, it is against the natural order of things. But the id…
I’m over forty and quite frankly, I’m tired of this ageist crap. This entire premise is complete fucking bullshit. Do yourself and everyone over 40 you come into contact with a favour and pretend you never believed anything so toxic.
Very often things invented when we are older seem to be utterly pointless to us. We literally can't get why people are excited about them. And I see this tendency in people in my age range more than in my teenagers. I personally have to back up and go from first principles to avoid it.