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

TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

thenftbay.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 257 posts

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#201

Post by TekMol »

cr1895 wrote: post #136
TekMol wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you married? Say a new technology comes up that lets me clone your wife. Perfectly. Down to the last atom. Would you then be ok with your wife being destroyed and replaced by the copy? If you are not ok with that - aren't you just as irrational as the people who buy NFTs?

That's an absurd hypothetical. A human being isn't an object...do you also mirror their consciousness?

An NFT is also not an object.

Regarding consciousness - do you think consciousness is not made of atoms? What is it made of?

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#203

Post by Uehreka »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #133
Uehreka wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the age old “this isn’t for you” is applicable here I disagree. When people are going around calling this a revolution that will change the fabric of society, they can’t just revert to “maybe it’s just not for you” when they have trouble explaining it or defending it. Either this is revolutionary or it’s a niche thing, but it can’t be both.

But doesn't every revolution start out with a niche of early adopters that see the potential in something where everyone else just sees the clunky first prototype? Bitcoin in the early days may not have been for you, but if your retirement fund starts holding an amount of crypto it will become 'for you' then. The Tesla Model 3 is for a lot more people than the model S, and so on. Why would a revolution need to be 'fo…

I’m pretty sure almost everyone who buys a Model 3 thinks that a Model S is “for them”, they just can’t afford it. When the Model S came out, it was clear what it would be good for, and all that needed to change was to get the price down and the scale up.

And if someone was like “What’s the big deal with the Tesla Model S?” I could say things like “This car runs on electricity, so it will help reduce our carbon footprint. It’s also really fast, really quiet, has more storage space than other cars, has better software than other cars.” and the person asking the question would have an answer.

What I wouldn’t do is say “Whatever, when this is the only kind of car you can buy, you’ll understand.” Which is the answer I get a lot when I ask questions about crypto and NFTs.

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#204

Post by barnabee »

BTCOG wrote: post #188
chrisco255 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can screenshot the Mona Lisa or print out a signed Mickey Mantle rookie card, but it's not the same thing is it? The verifiable timestamp and record of account associated with a wallet address (public key) that is known to be associated with the artist that produced the work is the same as establishing physical provenance for a unique item. And as for value goes, NFTs are far more liquid than physical art wo…

Chrisco255 - This is precisely the rub of the scam. You bought it, hook, line, and sinker. But this is 100% incorrect. An NFT owner does not own the artwork. You are just scammed into thinking you bought a free and downloadable to all JPEG image.

This statement doesn’t really make any sense. It’s like saying a car doesn’t have 4 doors because some cars don’t have four doors.

An NFT is a basic, fundamental piece of technology that represents unique digital tokens (token A is distinct from and not exchangeable with token B, unlike money and stocks and most tokens before them that are interchangeable with others of the same kind), usually on a public blockchain (though that’s not technically required).

If the artist signs a contract assigning all rights to the artwork to whoever holds the NFT they minted (and some do), sure they own the artwork!

If a domain name system is programmed to let whoever owns an NFT device where it points to, then the NFT holder owns that domain as much as you own any domain you purchase in the traditional way (especially if that system itself is verifiably immutable).

On the other hand if all the NFT signals is that you bought a limited edition token linked to a piece of art from its creator and that you donated a lot of money to a certain charity, some people want to be known for that kind of thing and see value there too, that’s ok!

And yes, if you buy something with no rights, perhaps not even from the creator of the art because you didn’t check, because you think it might go up in value… maybe you got scammed.

Technology helps people do more, and that includes scammers. The presence of scammers is irrelevant and unrelated to the presence and possibility of interesting, useful, or fun use cases. The fact you don’t find them interesting, useful, or fun doesn’t make the technology itself a scam or everyone involved a scammer, it just means your preferences lie elsewhere.

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#205

Post by pavlov »

clippablematt wrote: post #191
pavlov wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NFT is a bit like going to a book signing. The author sits there, but instead of signing your book, he just hands you a piece of paper with a number printed on it and says "next". You also need to give him a pile of casino tokens in exchange. With luck, somebody else will appreciate your story of how the famous author touched this uniquely numbered piece of paper while thinking about his book, and will give you a…

Youre almost there. But its more like tens of thousands of people putting hundreds of billions of dollars on the line to say that they witnessed the author sign your book, verifying your claims to whoever challenges them. Which turns out to be pretty useful and maybe have value.

Well, they didn’t actually witness the author signing anything. They witnessed the numbered piece of paper on a table in a bookstore, and the author may or may not have been present.

To know if this piece of paper was actually touched by the author, we still need verification outside of the blockchain.

It’s not obvious to me that all this has any value. “The author probably blessed a number” certainly doesn’t have the emotional connection of an actual physical signature, for example.

In a way NFTs seem to resemble the medieval church practice of selling indulgences. If you believe in the authority of those mass-produced blessed pieces of paper, they have value.

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#206

Post by barnabee »

jensensbutton wrote: post #68
ahelwer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I can explain. I understand why others value them, although I don't agree with the valuation (as a litmus test, I also think shelling out $30k for a genuine Rolex is very stupid). My lack of agreement also does not prevent me from participating and profiting off the people who think they do have value, although I have not done so. There are basically two theories of their value: the collectible theory and the…

> storage, fakes, and transaction costs. NFTs solve all three NFTs solve none of these problems. The underlying asset is not stored on the blockchain and can be deleted at any time. Fakes are unaddressed since you can only validate you are the owner of a specific url and there's no guarantee that what you own is the original version (bytes are easy to copy). Any validation of authenticity must happen OFF of the block…

> The underlying asset is not stored on the blockchain and can be deleted at any time.

If the asset is stored on IPFS, as many are, this is simply not true. Even if the asset falls off the network (which the creator, owner, NFT holder, and anyone else can prevent by pinning it themselves) then as long as you have the file(a) and the IPFS software you can put it back at any time, and it’ll have the same URL thanks to content addressability.

I’d certainly agree that any NFT that links to a digital asset in a mutable / non-content addressable way is worthless.

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#207

Post by barnabee »

Macha wrote: post #124
djyaz1200 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good explanation of why some people perceive NFT's to have value, setting aside if they do or not. The people who believe they have value I think expect at some point a business model will emerge to provide them with income for access to the "art" they "own". The way to make a business model is to associate copyright ownership with the NFT ownership and then assert those rights by filing DMCA takedowns (and…

> The way to make a business model is to associate copyright ownership with the NFT ownership and then assert those rights by filing DMCA takedowns (and/or lawsuits) everyday to anyone who displays the "art" without paying for the privilege and using the NFT owners original work as the source file. The issue is you need the legal process to tie ownership of the NFT to ownership/transferrable license/whatever of the w…

Contracts are a PITA! If you can write one, once, probably based on a completely standard template and then never talk to a lawyer, sign a transfer of ownership, worry about where that ownership info is stored and updating the information when it changes, etc. because the initial contract deferred all that to the owner of the NFT which can be bought and sold with a couple of clicks, I’d call that a massive improvement! Even if a contract is still needed somewhere, the friction is gone.

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#208

Post by ASalazarMX »

nefitty wrote: post #192
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get a certificate of ownership for your clothes - but you don't actually hold that certificate, it's a digital record in some database. I mean, it's as valuable as what others believe it's worth, and like any common object with the word 'supreme' on it, there's people who consider these things valuable.

The best analogy I've heard is, "Imagine you spent $1,000 for a painting. Now, instead, imagine you spent $1,000 to buy the receipt."

And any other person can have an identical painting, but without the receipt.

NFTs are a scam to introduce artificial scarcity and make someone else pay for it. The "art" (speaking of the picture in the root comment) hardly has any value itself.

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#209

Post by barnabee »

npteljes wrote: post #126
serverholic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are put on IPFS which can exist forever.

URLs can also exist forever. The real point is that they are digital assets that don't exist on the blockchain itself.

The content at a URL can be changed at any time, NFTs that don’t prove that the content that serve hasn’t changed make for worthless NFTs.

IPFS is ideal for this use case because the URL contains a hash of the content meaning that either the original asset is served or nothing (which you can fix if you have the asset).

Re: TheNFTbay.org – The Billion Dollar Torrent (All NFT's from Ethereum and Solana)

#210

Post by goodoldneon »

cr1895 wrote: post #115
e_proxus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that would almost approach some "real" value for NFTs... Let's say you have digital artwork in a lossless format. You then take the world by storm with the compressed version. Everyone loves it. You sell an NFT with a hash/URI/encoding of the original uncompressed version encrypted so only the owner on the blockchain can decrypt it. Needlessly to say, this would only work for digital art that is compressibl…

The creator of the lossless one can also just decide to distribute that lossless version after selling an NFT of it. Doesn't that defeat the point of only the NFT owner having control of it?

Yep. DRM can only go so far. Physical goods inherently have scarcity but digital goods don't
Post reply on HN