Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 200 posts

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#171

Post by bitcurious »

wearywanderer wrote: post #59
bitcurious wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine if cryptocurrency started doing that? Isn't this essentially what proof of steak is? A tax on all transactions proportional to how much you already own, but disproportionately applied to smaller users. That last bit is key. Speaking of Ethereum for a second - the largest asset owners will be institutions which can transact off-chain, which means that fees are being payed more often by folks that don't have t…

I've always felt that the best way to prove steaks is with forks.

Quick, invest in Beyond Meat! It’s the future of blockchain.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#172

Post by crazygringo »

klodolph wrote: post #91
rcxdude wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most legitimate uses of NFTs the creator is the artist.

How would you know if an NFT is legitimate? There's no "legitimate" bit on the NFT that distinguishes it. If you wanted to support the artist, wouldn't it be faster, easier, cheaper, and more reliable to support them directly, through Patreon or something similar?

But the NFT is supporting them directly, if they minted it.

I personally think NFT's are silly, but there's zero argument to be made that they aren't supporting the artist. The artist minted them in the first place.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#173

Post by crazygringo »

billytetrud wrote: post #45
dschnurr wrote: post #38

Earlier 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.

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.

> the other is a weird misleading way to rent to people.

There's nothing weird or misleading about it, and it's got zero to do with renting.

It's simply like a real estate broker commission, gallery commission, or whatever.

The concept of a commission has existed for a long, long, long time.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#174

Post by deckard1 »

herodotus wrote: post #154

I still don't get it. Sure art work is artificially priced. But if I buy a Picasso original, I can hang it on the wall, show it to my friends, look at it closely, burn it, even. Yes, "bragging rights" might be part of it, but I own something physical and (probably) scarce or unique. What do I actually get when I buy an NFT?

you go to Picasso with a piece of blank ordinary paper. The paper says "Guernica" on it. You get his signature. There is a notary with you and it is notarized.

That's an NFT. You now have a signed piece of paper that refers to a piece of art that you don't actually own. You're free to go to the museum (in NFT this is IPFS, or the regular web) and see it. But so is everyone else.

Now imagine instead of Picasso signing your piece of paper, an autopen is signing it. Pumping out however many copies of that signature it wants to in a day. And instead of a notary it's the blockchain recording the transaction.

That's an NFT.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#175

Post by baryphonic »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #152
wearywanderer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always felt that the best way to prove steaks is with forks.

It's a shame that ecoins with proof-of-steak can't be ecofriendly. Maybe that's for the best, since you could accidentally eat your steaks and lose your money.

You referring to proof-of-steak directly releasing greenhouse gases in the form of bovine farts?

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#176

Post by klodolph »

crazygringo wrote: post #172
klodolph wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know if an NFT is legitimate? There's no "legitimate" bit on the NFT that distinguishes it. If you wanted to support the artist, wouldn't it be faster, easier, cheaper, and more reliable to support them directly, through Patreon or something similar?

But the NFT is supporting them directly, if they minted it. I personally think NFT's are silly, but there's zero argument to be made that they aren't supporting the artist. The artist minted them in the first place.

> The artist minted them in the first place.

That's completely false. Anyone can mint an NFT. Artists have minted some of them, and other NFTs are created without the artists' permission.

I don't get why people are saying this when it's so obviously false, like, it does not pass the smell test for basic credibility.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#177

Post by seibelj »

Pils wrote: post #95
supernova87a wrote: post #28

I 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…

I believe this is wrong. Creator percentage isn't coded into the Ethereum-based NFT's themselves, it's done at the marketplace level. Currently, if you bought an NFT on Foundation and sold it on Opensea, there isn't a way to encode directly into the NFT a guarantee Foundation's royalty agreement would be followed. EIP-2981 is the draft protocol-level NFT royalty implementation, but you will note that it's opt-in and…

I am an author of this EIP. You are correct. It is impossible to enforce unless the chain itself has NFT trading as part of a core feature. Otherwise it’s the honor system. But IMO this will be quite successful given the social pressure.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#178

Post by [deleted] »

visualradio wrote: post #133
smrq wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First we had proof of work, and it consumed all the world's processing power. Then we had proof of space, and it consumed all the world's data storage. Then we had proof of steak, and it consumed all the world's food. Thus ended humanity.

First we had gold, and the Spanish looted the New World to acquire it and found themselves no richer. Then we had real estate mortgages and used deeds to estates instead of gold, and the speculators wrote up intangible asset prices as high as possible to get more money from central banks. Then we had digital gold, and no one used it because money is credit and no one wanted to pay excessive interest to internet goldb…

[deleted]

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#179

Post by a1369209993 »

geofft wrote: post #61
supernova87a wrote: post #28

I 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…

Moreover, how is this not just a form of DRM?

You can still copy the underlying data however you like - if the NFT says http://example.com/foobar.jpg you can just do `wget http://example.com/foobar.jpg`, regardless of whether you've even seen the NFT, and assuming you can access foobar.jpg at all, you can then copy it however you like.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#180

Post by [deleted] »

chrischattin wrote: post #33
supernova87a wrote: post #28

I 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…

Artist sells painting for $1k. Buyer then sells painting for $1M. Next buyer sells for $10M. Original artist only made $1k on a $10M painting. Shouldn't the original artist be able to participate in the upside of their creation? I'm not seeing the "evil" here. Just a way for creators to cut out the middle men. Or, just a different way of structuring a contract. There's a lot of moralistic FUD against crypto on HN rig…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN