21–30 of 154 posts
You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. The ownership is not recognised in any country, by any court or international body.
All you have is an entry in a logical database that says you own it. But unless you have signed a contract with the seller transferring or licensing copyright then it as meaningless as you buying a certificate saying you've named a planet.
They incentivize energy production and research into better energy production. That isn't trivial.
> NFTs are comically bereft of anything we would associate with social or cultural value. This subjective opinion is frequently trotted out to describe digital items that people pay money for. The arguments used in this piece can just as easily apply to video games or anything else. There isn't anything new presented here, just one person railing against something they do not like using familiar arguments. IMO not th…
90% - 98% of these NFTs will not survive and will be worthless, so let us ignore this common form of NFTs (images, videos, etc) and look at NFTs that have utility and value like blockchain domain names like ENS, which at least that is useful.
The fact you cannot store the NFT image, video or audio on the blockchain tells you alone it is a scam anyway. Even if you could do that, how would you totally remove the image, video or audio if criminals and terrorists also use it for storing illegal content?
So, if you think it is going to collapse, just ignore it. Otherwise we will all be back to complain about NFTs in another thread once again.
I'm as concerned as the next person about energy use, but I did read some counterpoints in an article published yesterday [1] The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is reportedly going to investigate cryptocurrency’s effect on the environment... But the meme that bitcoin or cryptocurrency uses as much power as one country or another, promoted by The New York Times last Sep…
I’m not sure why I expected any better from a partisan think tank.
They pushed back on Nic Carter (I’m guessing here) because he has a financial incentive to make crypto look good. This is not hard to understand.
I checked out OpenSea a few days ago to see what was selling. I went in with low expectations but I was still shocked. The hottest NFTs are all trash. It's a bunch of dumb ape doodles and piles of variations on the same few templates. Some of them are algorithmically generated. It's just shockingly dumb, yet I have smart people I follow on Twitter and elsewhere who are convinced this is all world changing. I keep ask…
It’s rather frustrating how well the market has been rewarding bad decisions
When the GAP is getting into NFTs, you know the bubble has already burst. Pogs3.
People have been buying "high end" artwork as a tax shelter for a 100 years. Proving ownership through digital means instead of paperwork is insignificant to the practice.
The worst thing is the constant and malicious lie being perpetuated. You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. The ownership is not recognised in any country, by any court or international body. All you have is an entry in a logical database that says you own it. But unless you have signed a contract with the seller transferring or licensing copyright then it as meaningless as you buying a certificate saying…