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

The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#81

Post by jtxt »

threeseed wrote: post #21

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…

Yeah I think the art/jpeg part of it is somewhat meaningless. The creator can probably still can claim copyright, and of course anyone can copy it. At one level it's lust a link to URL that can be bought and traded.

But also: proof of ownership of a NFT can be access to something else, that can be the "utility" defined by the NFT creator. Like the Board Ape Yacht Club gives access to parties. Others give other value add like YouTube revenue license rewards if the NFT shows up in an animation for example. (Quarter Machine) I think "utility" is where more of the potential is. It can be valuable with the people/company backing it and keeping their word.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#82

Post by acdha »

legutierr wrote: post #71
threeseed wrote: post #21

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…

"NFT" means "Non-fungible token". It means that one token of a type is not strictly equivalent to another token of the same type. It does not mean "a link to a JPEG that is hosted on OpenSea." > You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. Often this is the case, but it doesn't need to be the case, it shouldn't be the case, and it was never intended to be the case. Yes, it is stupid that people are buying NFTs…

The problem is that the salespeople _frequently_ misrepresent NFTs as having legal meaning as a key part of the explanation for why you should pay so much for one and they _never_ mention that the same basis you'd need to convey the legal contract also means that you have a system you can use instead of a blockchain at much lower cost.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#83

Post by ccamrobertson »

WriterGuy2021 wrote: post #10

"An astrobiologist says non-fungible tokens do not bode well for our species’s future. " This is a historical subhead.

And the article doesn't fail to live up to it --

"...because of the potential [of blockchain] to outpace any efforts to transition to zero-carbon energy production."

I think that even the most craven cryptocurrency and NFT buyers have yet to envision such exponential scenarios that 'blockchain' consumes resources at a clip that subsumes other greenhouse-gas activities like, flying, driving, HVAC, etc.

"There is of course another solution: We stop reinventing things like currency or certification until we have a proper plan [...] until humanity has figured out a way to generate all our energy cleanly, from solar, nuclear, and so on, would make more sense."

"There is of course another solution: We cease all human behaviors [...]".

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#84

Post by [deleted] »

strict9 wrote: post #8

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#85

Post by gruez »

deergomoo wrote: post #75
threeseed wrote: post #21

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…

Even aside from the baloney idea of ownership they offer, the thing that continues to baffle me about NFTs is that the very nature of them assumes that ownership is inherently valuable. Buying a painting allows me to hang it on the wall and admire it, where is where I derive the value of owning that painting. Buying a digital videogame allows me play it, even though there is no physical good (and is also a questionab…

>Buying a painting allows me to hang it on the wall and admire it, where is where I derive the value of owning that painting.

That's true, but why do people spend millions on an original [famous artist] painting? If all they want to do is admire the painting, surely a high quality replica (ie. the type that can fool the naked eye) would be more than sufficient?

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#86

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

friendlydog wrote: post #42

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.

This is a bad argument.

Just because something we currently do is worse than something we want to do, doesn’t mean the new thing is good. Nor does it mean we should add to our current burden unnecessarily.

It also ignores what we use the old thing for. Flight has enabled so much: fast response to disasters, faster shipping of goods, saving human lives. The entire planet can benefit from flight. Crypto is used by a small minority and seems pretty much fueled by speculation.

The only legitimate use of crypto is as a currency in places where the economy is poor, or the state can too easily seize your assets etc.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#87

Post by legutierr »

fabian2k wrote: post #58
legutierr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

So I don't claim to understand any of this in detail, I only have some superficial knowledge here. How much of the NFT space works without Ethereum? My understanding is zero. 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.

Solana is a platform that is frequently used to issue NFTs, and people are releasing NFTs on other blockchains as well. There is a significant incentive to move to these other platforms, because Ethereum is so expensive to use. But yes, most NFTs are issued via Ethereum smart contracts.

Ethereum is operating a proof-of-stake network right now in production, and is scheduled to end proof-of-work later this year. My sense is that they will likely complete the transition before the close of 2022, or in 2023 at the latest.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#88

Post by api »

friendlydog wrote: post #42

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.

Umm... commercial aviation is just a tad more useful...

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#89

Post by perrygeo »

friendlydog wrote: post #42

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.

But air travel has tangible social and cultural value: visiting clients, friends, colleagues, and family.

NFTs do not provide social value. That's the central argument to the article. Did you read it?

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#90

Post by [deleted] »

rr808 wrote: post #70
threeseed wrote: post #21

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…

Even worse is that a bunch of NFTs are sold by people that didn't even own the art in the first place. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-a...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN