81–90 of 297 posts
Soon you'll need a way to authenticate NFTs (prove that the one you're bidding on was minted by the advertised artist), and then you'll immediately lose the proposed benefits of NFTs -- decentralization and anonymous trust.
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
I had this opinion too, but if you think about something like trading cards or any other “limited” collectibles that were mass produced, rather than one of a kind art, it’s sort of the same thing with regards to artificial scarcity.
You mean like Beanie Babies? "limited" collectible physical objects that went up and up in value.
Never heard of them? Yeah, that's because they stopped going up in value. Then stopped having value at all. It was about 20 years ago, who remembers that?
The most interesting aspect of NFTs IMO is that they explore what ownership really means. Is it physically possessing something? Is it a receipt? Is it provenance? Is it the ability to destroy something permanently? Is it the ability to deny others access? Is it irrefutable and verifiable proof, without trusting any single entity, that an entity holds an exclusive status relative to a good?
it's none of these things because all you buy is an hyperlink. If the art itself was hosted on the blockchain directly (they are not, it would be too expensive), then it would be interesting.
minting a completely image onchain is also not too expensive and can also be passed on to the community, as most relevant NFT collections are minted by the community and not the artist. people stand up their own websites for this, the people minting their own artwork directly on the marketplaces are their own segment and that has remained a race to the bottom with starving artists crowding it.
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
FXhash has created a generative art market like it’s never existed before, it’s created an amazing art scene without precedent I’ve ever seen. It also allows for generative art to interact with the blockchain to make every art piece unique.
IE if you mint on FXhash, each generative art piece is slightly different due to a randomising function in the art pieces. This means each and every NFT is unique since they all went through a slightly different values for some of their features. I highly recommend anyone criticising NFTs to think about this since it’s an absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before. The artists scene around FXhash is just incredible.
I have to be honest. I view NFTs as one of the dumbest things to come out of the crypto space. I see the use cases, but frankly I don’t think it’s innovative nor does it solve something in a really unique way. Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
It’s nice that you can say you “own” your very own star as stipulated by the star rights granting corporation, but in reality it means nothing other than you can say so… but I can claim a million other stars without needing a corporation and no one can take them away from me but also anyone else can make a claim on the same stars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not surprised that this is the top comment, it seems to be the overwhelming sentiment on HN, which is unfortunate. My perspective is that it's very early for NFTs and the large majority (you included) are fixating on what you're seeing in the space today, or put differently, you're being shortsighted. Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the do…
We've been hearing this tune from cryptoenthusiasts for over a decade now, maybe you should revisit your comments from a few years ago? If you dig in my own comments on this website you can probably find discussions from 2017 or even earlier where I ask when people think that cryptocurrency tech is going to finally deliver something useful. It's always "one or two years from now". It's always "we're early". Remember…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes for mega cringe lords like Gary Vee. Dude is like 60 and dresses like a Fortnite teenager so he can peddle NFTs to kids as an investment strategy. I always found him to be annoying and the NFT space basically confirmed it.
He's 46. I think NFT's are laughable, but if you're gonna play the agism card, at least get the details right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not surprised that this is the top comment, it seems to be the overwhelming sentiment on HN, which is unfortunate. My perspective is that it's very early for NFTs and the large majority (you included) are fixating on what you're seeing in the space today, or put differently, you're being shortsighted. Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the do…
Partially agree - but people have been excited about e.g. smart contracts for the last ~5 years, yet which consumer or B2B apps are using them now? When Web2 came along, Gmail, Maps and Facebook were immediately exciting and obviously better than what came before. How much longer do we need to wait for those Web3 killer apps, that appeal to users who aren't purely in it for token price speculation?
Nfts may or may not be the blockchain's killer app (I think they are), but the average person's track record identifying a technology's killer app is a tad less than perfect
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You see that it was minted by Wallet X, which the artist has confirmed is theirs. The image it's pointing to is irrelevant. You're buying a unique digital signature. Is it inherently valuable? No, but it's scarce. There's only one such entry on the blockchain and it can only be owned by one wallet at a time.
But anyone can create infinite ledgers and create their own entries on those ledgers all day. Snowflakes are unique too, but that doesn't mean any of them are particularly valuable.
It's all a social construct.
Since they're minted from a different address than the original they're not a replica aren't they? They're a different token.
I just read https://networked.substack.com/p/web3-i-have-my-daots and there's a cute analogy about buying the Mona Lisa, but only getting a record written in some obscure room saying that you own it, i.e. you never actually take possession of the Mona Lisa. You can tell people you own it, but they have to go the obscure room and verify your ownership. Who would do that, for literally anything, especially a jpg?
I forget the name of assets that designed merely to show wealth (e.g. a Hummer), but those work because everybody sees you with that asset, constantly. For NFTs to work in the long term, you would have to expect people to validate authenticity of these things.
edit: Veblen is what I was looking for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good