191–200 of 769 posts
Such transaction costs knock out most of the applications that are not "Make Money Fast".
I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
> A lot of Web3 platforms are in fact centralized. Your wallet (MetaMask), marketplaces (OpenSea), APIs (Alchemy) are all central platforms. Sure, they use a distributed database (blockchain), but before that it’s still a Go app on AWS, meaning its centralized. > Your wallet (MetaMask) Run your own node. This is lazy reporting to reach the end point about fawning over FreeBSD (its in the article, literally an article…
yeah just buy an 86TB drive every year and run the node 24/7 to avoid penalties
>You should inspect their smart contracts
how many people are actually able to do this
I'm not against crypto and i'm not sure yet about web3 but if it requires buying some kind of token to participate then i am skeptical.
I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
I too struggle with the concept. But I imagine the supporters of NFTs would say the value is in being the only person who can put that sign. It seems like an extremely bizarre form of conspicuous consumption, but there we go.
If only that were true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it overvalued at this point? Will reach its end of growth soon and stay niche? You can’t be truly bullish about something and tell me at the same time that I missed the boat.
I can, actually. Those who invested two years ago have likely already made more money than anyone investing now can. Bitcoin was $20 like… 10 years ago? What price would BTC have to reach for you to get the same level of return if you invested now compared to back then?
Frankly, a world where Bitcoin doesn't eventually see a 2100 times increase in value is also probably a world where it doesn't become a generally-used global currency. If the argument is that Bitcoin's valuation is going to slow down from this point on, then in my mind that is basically a concession that it's not going to revolutionize the world the way that its proponents claim.
I don't think people completely understand how incredibly niche cryptocurrency still is and how much it would have to grow before it overtook fiat currencies.
Of course, the question is whether BTC's utility actually is going to increase the way its proponents claim (which I am skeptical of). But if it did increase, it's hard to imagine an increasingly limited deflationary asset that's going up in utility value wouldn't also see proportional price increases.
I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know exactly one legitimate use case for blockchain: a public ledger like bitcoin. The thing is that you don’t need more than this one online currency though, right? It’s also the safest in terms of PoW [1]. I don’t see any reason for all other altcoins to exist other than charting and trading on exchanges (which is certainly fun, but does not provide value). [1] https://howmanyconfs.com/
A public ledger is not inherently valuable. A trusted ledger is valuable, but a ledger doesn't have to be public to be trusted. When I swipe my card at the grocery store, I'm not shaking in my boots with my fingers crossed, doubting whether the transaction will be recorded as transmitted or not. If for some looney toons secret agent reason you need a transaction to be public, you can tweet a picture of the receipt. O…
Of course, because as the customer nothing bad happens to you if it’s not. Worst case scenario, the merchant doesn’t accept your payment and you either have to pay with cash or not buy anything.
The worst case scenario for the merchant is substantially worse. If the payment doesn’t go through, they lose money. This could happen days or weeks later if the customer decides to chargeback the merchant. There are countless stories of payment processors siding with customers, placing holds on a business’s funds for extended periods of time while conducting investigations, etc.
I would actually take the opposite stance. Unless a ledger is public and independently verifiable, there is no reason to trust it at all. Nearly every instance of financial fraud has relied on people trusting a private ledger.
I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
I still can't get over that NFT's are just a URL pointing to the data. They don't even have an on-chain hash of the digital asset. It's like selling a sign pointing to houses for the price of the house, and claiming you own the house, hoping that the sign will increase in value the way the house does, and bragging about it. For reference: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
A market for digital, digital picture frames currently exists and it has high margins. That is the extent of my thought on the what people are buying.
They aren't advertised that way though and the transaction receipt of purchasing the digital, digital picture frame can be a valuable asset.
Regarding where the images being viewed are stored, many are not following best practices and should be scrutinized for that, but that is separate from the concept of digital digital picture frames, as many do leverage the sales pitch of the technology pretty well and store the entire image onchain or pin them on another censorship resistant storage system.
But I think people overthink it. Who cares that people are buying digital digital picture frames? Just sell digital digital picture frames!