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

Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

artnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 262 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#231

Post by tablespoon »

silverlake wrote: post #206
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust That makes the NFT redundant.

I paid intermediaries $10k to transfer a house title to me. Took a few weeks and many contracts. I agree NFTs are silly, but real world systems need to improve quickly.

> I paid intermediaries $10k to transfer a house title to me. Took a few weeks and many contracts.

I'm pretty sure you didn't pay that for the transfer of the house title. Most of that was for other stuff that happened around the same time, like getting a mortgage and having your lender make sure they're not going to be left holding the bag.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/closing-costs-m...

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#232

Post by koonsolo »

tablespoon wrote: post #227
koonsolo wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X: there are no use cases Y: here are the use cases X&Z: let's downvote and be negative anyway. Welcome the usual crypto discussions on HN. Why do people still bother?

> X: there are no use cases > Y: here are the use cases You misunderstand. My gist was there were no practical use cases, and the response was to enumerate some im practical ones. I think the thing that confuses some people is that (like cryptography) some of the biggest problems are on the onramps and offramps, not in the core technology itself. > X&Z: let's downvote and be negative anyway. It's right an proper to b…

Like I said, if someone comes with an obvious use case, and you claim it's not a use case, or however you want to twist your words ( impractical use case or whatever), well, then the discussion ends right there. What else do you want to discuss then?

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#233

Post by gonehome »

dmitriid wrote: post #223
gonehome wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts. That you can't or won't recognize this is what I'm talking about. "Literally no new thing", "I look at reality" (implying I only make stuff up), "wishful thinking", "precisely zero knowledge", "Without fail in 100% of cases this is the case", etc. etc. There are interesting conversations to have…

> Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts They are facts: 1. "Gated community is centralized by default" is a fact. 2. "Literally no new thing has come out of this" is a fact. 3. "Not to mention use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a gated community" is a statment that has a fact in it: "use cases where you…

Previous threads that go into details/have interesting conversation about specific capabilities so we don't have to rehash all of it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30729538

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30630008

If I had to pick one general one, probably this: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti...

This list is good: https://danromero.org/crypto-reading/

For your specifics:

1. I'm not sure I get this point - the ability to verify membership is decentralized and anyone can build things leveraging that. In the urbit case this works well for auth/ID. Ownership can also be transferred without a central authority (this is new).

2. This isn't true (Urbit IDs are another easy example), but decentralized state consensus is something you get from blockchain that didn't exist before. That's a new thing (and lots of other new things come from that idea).

3. Anonymity is a different feature sure, not a guarantee in any of this.

The reason I mostly avoided engaging on the specifics is because the rest of your comment and the way you engage suggests it won't be worthwhile.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#234

Post by notyourday »

colpabar wrote: post #65
tablespoon wrote: post #24

From another article on the same topic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/14/twitter-n... : > Man who paid $2.9m for NFT of Jack Dorsey’s first tweet set to lose almost $2.9m > ‘This is the Mona Lisa of the digital world’, says crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi who bought the NFT in March 2021 This is a good example of why so many people don't take cryptocurrency seriously. It full of hype men who spout tr…

This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. People will say that crypto is important because it's decentralized and non-fiat or whatever, with the implication being that it's not controlled by a government. But we have seen time and time again that that isn't true, and if a governme…

> So in all seriousness, what is the point of crypto, other than a "new stock market"?

The society needs to start hanging banksters. This is a way there.

It is a market where the scum fat cats who entrenched themselves in political class by buying politicians do not have a monopoly on swindling gullible public.

cryptocurrency democratized behavior of scum. It is a good thing. When JPM Chase f!cks grandma out of her house there's some hand waving goes on as Chase does good hence maybe it was grandma fault and the CEO of JPM does not go to prison where he belongs. When grandma gets screwed by Jose the Neighborhood slickster, society will get the incentives to throw everyone who behaves like Jose the Nieghborhood slickster into prison, ensuring that the CEO of JPM and wall st bros go there as well.

And that's a good thing.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#235

Post by MartinCron »

j4yav wrote: post #220
MartinCron wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does one view list(s) of NFTs? A better question is "why" anyone would want to look at lists of URLs pointing to things that someone is pretending that they own by having an entry of their ownership in some arbitrary public ledger.

I had an idea to make a physical NFT picture frame that would only show things other people own, to contrast with the ones that only show ones you own, but I decided it was too absurd.

There's something subversive about that... a display of things that other people are pretending they have ownership over.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#236

Post by dlubarov »

ineedasername wrote: post #217
drexlspivey wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why usually NFTs point to IPFS addresses which are just hashes of the content and it doesn't matter where they are hosted.

Seems like a very lossy form of compression. Not to mention that hashes usually aren't reversible. Not a great stand in for the real thing, especially when the real thing might be a widely available jpeg. There's really something I don't understand about how an NFT, apart from cryptographic foundation, is different enough from, say, a UUID in a traditional database. Also it would be funny if there was a (very highly…

Whoever owns an NFT can prevent the pre-image from being lost by just personally storing it. If they wanted to ensure the pre-image is easily accessible to others, they could additionally host it on IPFS.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#237

Post by stnikolauswagne »

lmkg wrote: post #50
srvmshr wrote: post #27

Pardon me. I never understood NFTs and never planned to be on board. But from my nascent understanding of what NFTs comprise, I couldn't understand why first tweet ever is a real NFT. The tweet is publicly available so there is no exclusivity. Anyone can look far enough & find it. The second being ownership. The tweet was always time stamped & in Jack Dorsey's name. Buying it as NFT will not really change its attribu…

It's actually an NFT of a screenshot of the first tweet. Note that for space reasons, NFTs do not generally "contain" their payload. The actual contents of the blockchain is just a URL of the screenshot. The URL points to a centralized server, and the screenshot is publicly accessible. But yes, the Tweet itself remains under Twitter's purview, i.e. centralized. An NFT can only contain authority or ownership recognize…

In this particular case its actually both, I went through the trouble of actually checking whats going on, the actual NFT points to a link of a JSON payload that contains both a „link“ key (which points to the twitter link of the tweet) and an „image“ key (which points to a jpg hosted on the same server the json payload is hosted).

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#238

Post by silverlake »

tablespoon wrote: post #231
silverlake wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paid intermediaries $10k to transfer a house title to me. Took a few weeks and many contracts. I agree NFTs are silly, but real world systems need to improve quickly.

> I paid intermediaries $10k to transfer a house title to me. Took a few weeks and many contracts. I'm pretty sure you didn't pay that for the transfer of the house title . Most of that was for other stuff that happened around the same time, like getting a mortgage and having your lender make sure they're not going to be left holding the bag. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/closing-costs-m...

Title insurance for very expensive homes in NYC is around $10k. Closing costs were much much more.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#240

Post by jjeaff »

diputsmonro wrote: post #184
poiuiopkj wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No practical purpose EXCEPT for the ability to easily take assets across borders to leave authoritarian regimes, bringing a form of storing assets to the 2 billion or so unbanked individuals of the world, and comparatively cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country. These are just a few of the incredibly practical use cases that quite literally change people's lives.

All of those things that make it easy to move money out of authoritarian regimes also make it easy to move money into them - see the recent North Korea hack. Turns out that when you purposefully build a system without any guardrails or oversight, then bad actors will find exploits and there will be no way to stop them. Regulation and oversight might be good things, actually.

How would Bitcoin work for a sanctioned authoritarian regime like north Korea? Who would they trade it with for useful currency or goods? It's not like they can just create a Coinbase account and cash in the Bitcoin for USD.
Post reply on HN