The global warming argument is pretty tired. I don't see the same commentators applying their concern for global warming over wasteful pointless """""AI"""" or virtually any other kind of computer work. This essay also reeks of producing a surface level argument without diving in further to actual use cases. Many criticized the early internet for its original uses without seeing the bigger picture. You can sit back on twitter and laugh at people who by all means seem to be having a lot of fun and call them stupid for investing in NFTs but part of the price they are paying is inclusion. Similar to people that blow large amounts of money no beanie babies, magic cards, hello kitty goods and whatever else.
NFT: even more deceiving
41–50 of 58 posts
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would you buy the same item if there was no 'get rich quick' label attached to it? I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications, so yes I would continue to interact with them. I would not rule out buying one either, no different than I wouldn't rule out buying a ticket, or rule out buying an in-game trinket for access. If an artist was releasing a work digitally th…
> I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications badges on apps are released by the app itself, they have value because a central authority emits them. > If an artist was releasing a work digitally that I liked, I would consider purchasing the NFT version as well. so of those categories the answer is yes. give the money yo the artisti directly, so they don't have to pa…
I would prefer the NFT version in both circumstances. They inherit current possession and I like the standardized interface. In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account, an NFT may be valuable but I care more about the standardized interface. Most of your discussion has been an assumption of purchasing, not all NFTs need to be purchased or require me to bear the gas fee to obtain current possession. A centralized issuer on their platform is not a feature, to me. Given the choice I would take centralized issuer on the NFT version as I would be relying less on their platform, and even less if they can be inspired to use onchain imagery. There is a thread every day here about a user or their content being deplatformed on some web 2.0 service, now the option for the user is there.
Every circumstance involving an NFT is case by case, one very specific case that I don't actually know bothers you much more than other cases and you are applying it to the entire concept of NFTs. To me, an artist emailing me a proof of ownership is the exact same as an artist messaging me a NFT contract address, to you, the latter suddenly does not satisfy your proof that were you messaging the correct artist, which is an absurdity just because the medium received was an NFT? I personally don't care about the difference. This is going to be a fun conversation to look back at.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
the DMCA is 24 years old and its current use relies on an internet connection more heavily than onchain NFTs do. what stimuli were you replying to exactly, its not clear to me.
the DMCA relies on something called a law and the power of the State to enforce such law, using the force if necessary. your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement and rely on personally checking every single trnsaction, because if you don't and are scammed, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do to get your money back. I'm not sure it's an improvement.
>your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement
Some of us would use a different and much less flattering term than "refinement" to describe the centuries of "evolution" of law and law enforcement.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread isn't about NFTs being an improvement over all copyrighted work, this thread is about NFTs being an improvement over other NFTs. On the consumer side I wasn't suggesting anything, I said what they have to do in response to an already existing market with already existing transactions. This isn't about some future reality we imagine on an internet forum, this is about one you are simply not in. If you thin…
> If you think checking is too hard I'm saying it is useless Who's the authority that certifies that I am the real aithor of the NFT I'm selling? And what the original author can do to prevent it? absolutely nothing. so it's completely useless. you're buying random numbers produced by running some computing device at 100% for a few hours/days would you buy the output of 'cat /dev/urandom'?
It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists, and the corresponding owner in the column to the right. That spreadsheet will survive the bankruptcy of any particular company, which gives the tokens a sense of permanence, and Benjaminian aura if you will, that you don't get from a ledger run by Google.
That is what is is, that is what people find it useful for. It is not supposed to do any other things.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#45"What is stored on the blockchain is most often a link to a web page[6] that itself points to the associated object. Here again, we have lost all idea of decentralization" No where in the article did the author mention IPFS ( https://ipfs.io/ ). The trend with NFTs is that the digital assets are stored on IPFS, typically through a pinning service like Pinata ( https://www.pinata.cloud/ ). With the asset being content…
It is very rare I wouldn't call it a "trend" yet. Also, I agree that using IPFS links addresses the problem of content integrity, but the link can still rot, and having to pay a centralized service to pin your data (even in a decentralized network like IPFS) does not solve the decentralization and disintermediation problems.
It's more than a trend. All the major art platforms and a lot of the major collections host in IPFS.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#46stamp - potentially usable as postage
tulip bulb - can grow a flower with it
beanie baby - plush toy
painting - you can hang it on your wall
pokémon card - can play game with it
NFT - grants you a hexagonal profile picture on Twitter
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications badges on apps are released by the app itself, they have value because a central authority emits them. > If an artist was releasing a work digitally that I liked, I would consider purchasing the NFT version as well. so of those categories the answer is yes. give the money yo the artisti directly, so they don't have to pa…
I would prefer the NFT version in both circumstances. They inherit current possession and I like the standardized interface. In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account, an NFT may be valuable but I care more about the standardized interface. Most of your discussion has been an assumption of purchasing, not all NFTs need to be purchased or re…
> In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account
not valuable in monetary sense, but valuable as "recognized as having a meaning"
they can be assumed to be valid exactly because they are emitted with a non standard interface by some centralized entity who's the solely authoritative source allowed to do that.
on the other hand NFT standard interface is meaningless, because the source cannot be verified.
What value have an NFT emitted by opensee identical to one emitted by opensea?
None.
They both signed through a very complex and superfluous mechanism the same bytes, but that means absolutely nothing.
Everybody can do that and when everybody can emit something, its value as unique item is NULL.
Standard interfaces around say app badges could easily be solved by a wrapper api, assuming someone would want to do that. I assume nobody would want to, because the value is not in the interface, it's in the assurance that the "1 million karma points" can be assumed to be factually true, not just an arbitrary hash in an arbitrary list of meaningless transactions.
> one very specific case that I don't actually know bothers you much more than other cases and you are applying it to the entire concept of NFTs
NFTs solve no problem, but they create a lot of them.
The only problem they solve is money laundering (crypto killer App!)
You might not know it, but if you take a picture of Paris and publish it in a book, yo should pay the city of Paris.
You might not know that it's illegal to take pictures of the tour Eiffel at night (I swear it is).
If I publish those items as NFTs I can potentially make a lot of money and nobody can stop me.
What do you think the incentive of such a black market would be?
Find a cure for cancer or scam people?
they are only another way for scammers and market abusers to transfer money from consumer pockets into their own, with the false promise that they will keep growing in value, while the infrastructure they rely on could easily die tomorrow and reach zero value overnight.
With the current rise of energy prices and winds of war in Russia, crypto mining is exactly the first thing that's going to disappear, it's natural selection baby.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
the DMCA relies on something called a law and the power of the State to enforce such law, using the force if necessary. your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement and rely on personally checking every single trnsaction, because if you don't and are scammed, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do to get your money back. I'm not sure it's an improvement.
>your suggestion is to give up centuries of refinements on law making/enforcement Some of us would use a different and much less flattering term than "refinement" to describe the centuries of "evolution" of law and law enforcement.
> Some of us would use a different and much less flattering term than "refinement"
you can use whatever term you like, it's been a refinement process nonetheless.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
you have simply exchanged proof of ownership of a link with proof of ownership of an hash
Correct. But this specifically solves the problem at hand. Rather than storing an entire image, video, etc. on the blockchain, you store a concise representation of that content. The collision-resistance property of a cryptographic hash ensures that the probability of finding two differing NFTs which hash to the same value is negligible. You would include the link in the token as well, but if the link ever rots, you…
> you store a concise representation of that content
which is meaningless.
because cosmic rays could flip a bit during the transfer and the content would be different, hence not yours anymore.
it's this the kind of ownership you want for the future?
I surely don't.
imagine if your car was considered another car after a scratch makes it non-identical to the one you bought and you had go through the process of establishing that it's your again and again.
> The collision-resistance property of a cryptographic hash ensures that the probability of finding two differing NFTs which hash to the same value is negligible.
that's a bug in this situation.
collision resistance is good fro cryptographic hashing of content that MUST STAY identical.
ownership means I can do whatever I want to my property and still be the owner.
If I buy a painting I can spray paint the world "OK" over it and it would still be my painting.
If I am a popular author maybe now it's worth more money than before.
NFT would make something like "Fountain" of Duchamp impossible.
> you have some way of proving what the original link pointed to.
that now points to a zoophile porn video
congrats.
Re: NFT: even more deceiving
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you think checking is too hard I'm saying it is useless Who's the authority that certifies that I am the real aithor of the NFT I'm selling? And what the original author can do to prevent it? absolutely nothing. so it's completely useless. you're buying random numbers produced by running some computing device at 100% for a few hours/days would you buy the output of 'cat /dev/urandom'?
It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists, and the corresponding owner in the column to the right. That spreadsheet will survive the bankruptcy of any particular company, which gives the tokens a sense of permanence, and Benjaminian aura if you will, that you don't get from a ledger run by Google. That is what is is, that is what people find it useful for. It is not supposed to do any other thing…
> It's a spreadsheet that is a list of tokens created by artists
or by people that found something slightly interesting and put it on the blockchain for money.
here's no assurance that some artist made it, there's no assurance the author is the one selling it, there's basically no assurance, apart that they are trying to trick people into thinking that it's an investment.
It's, in other words, a scam.
> That spreadsheet will survive the bankruptcy of any particular company
It won't.
Monuments in Rome have survived thousands of years and hundreds of wars.
98% of NFTs will last at max few months
> that you don't get from a ledger run by Google
at least I can sue Google if they publish on their ledger the hash of something I made and someone else sold without my permission...
> That is what is is, that is what people find it useful for
Please, don't try to sell me your snake oil.
That's the opposite of why people want them.
People absolutely don't care about the item, proof is that the majority of items sold as NFTs would never ever have a market outside of the speculative bubble (and in fact they never had one before).