51–60 of 154 posts
One of my favorite rappers, Nas, is selling royalty rights to his songs as NFTs[0]. I think selling NFTs as if they were trading cards is silly, but what Nas is doing? I think that's actually pretty cool. Thoughts? 0: https://www.nme.com/news/music/nas-to-sell-royalty-rights-to...
Here we go again. 'NFTs is a scam', 'web3 is a bubble', 'This is a going to crash', etc. They already know it is a scam, ponzi and a bubble which is why everyone is cashing in on the hype before it collapses. 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,…
I don’t think this is fair. Thousands of people will be scammed out of their savings. Peta joules of energy will be wasted. Hundreds of art pieces will be stolen. This is entirely preventable with legislation and enforcement, and while we wait for that, this damage can be minimized by informing the public. Just ignoring NFTs until the bubble bursts is allowing unnecessary harm to continue. That is not a very humane course of action.
> 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…
> Blockchain technology is purposefully burdensome and computationally distributed, making it notoriously energy intensive. Estimates put the energy used to create and trade a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin on a par with the total consumption of a country like Sweden. And that’s without accounting for the environmental footprint of the physical computer hardware. Another critic who is willing to criticize without updati…
I think you probably mean proof-of-work which is the most energy intensive.
At least those scammers send you a participation badge suitable for framing.
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…
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If nobody can take it from you, you "own" it, and everything else follows from that. "It" being: your crypto identity bound to some metadata.
So the funny part is that if you buy an NFT not only can I legally copy it but I can approach the artist, buy the copyright and then sue you for copyright infringement.
Commercial aviation makes up 918 million metric tons of carbon. Bitcoin mining makes up 22 million metric tons. I'm less worried about NFTs than I am air travel.
And there's no reason for it. None.
There are better cryptocurrencies: ones with no mining, that use a fraction of the energy.
Nano, for example, uses six million times less energy per transaction, and is mining free. It's fully operational, putting every Bitcoin maxi lie to shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is fair to criticize this technology on the current state, any future improvements first have to prove themselves.
Among the most popular blockchain networks right now, only Bitcoin and Ethereum and their forks (including code forks like Dogecoin and Litecoin) are still using proof-of-work. And Ethereum is moving away from it. After Ethereum migrates to proof-of-stake, of the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market cap, only Bitcoin, Dogecoin and Tether (which is a multi-chain stablecoin) will operate on proof-of-work networks. https:/…
They're moving away from it is fine, but they haven't yet. I'll believe it when they actually do that. And then we'll see how that idea works in practice. And we'll see if there are any new, interesting problems with proof of stake.
> It’s possible to see a purpose for cryptocurrencies, but NFTs are (for now) almost comically bereft of anything most of us would associate with social or cultural value. They incentivize energy production and research into better energy production. That isn't trivial.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
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…
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If nobody can take it from you, you "own" it, and everything else follows from that. "It" being: your crypto identity bound to some metadata.