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

241–250 of 262 posts

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

#241

Post by jjeaff »

mirntyfirty wrote: post #180
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.

This isn’t happening and it’s not the purpose. “Unbanked” is an imaginary word. If a person is “unbanked”, it’s likely that they are also “uninternetted” and/or “uncomputered.”

That's really not true. You'll find a lot more people with no bank account than you will with no internet access at all. Many of the poorest in the world still have at least a cheap cell phone with some internet access.

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

#242

Post by cyanydeez »

poiuiopkj wrote: post #150
tablespoon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I would say no. It's a technology that serves no practical purpose, since the problems it addresses are ones purely created by certain peculiar ideologies. If you're not indulging in one of those ideologies, there's no point. And, like y…

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.

Easily: just need the energy consumption of a medium sized country

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

#243

Post by crtasm »

gonehome wrote: post #30
ryanbrunner wrote: post #19

I genuinely don't know since most of my knowledge of NFT stuff comes from people commenting it vs. primary sources, but are there very active markets for NFTs in general beyond initial offerings? Like is there an active, healthy and functioning market for BAYC, or was it more about an initial rush and now a bunch of people have tokens that have value on paper but no market to realistically sell them?

There’s an active market, but it’s mostly winner takes all and ones that establish a brand/community (helped by the tokens gating access to merchandise or events). Also good when token includes IP. BAYC/MAYC is the biggest, milady seems to be getting traction (not sure why). These specific ones are also easy to liquidate for now because of opensea bots willing to sell ~10% below “floor” so they can flip later. I made…

Is anyone selling NFTs for IP rights to video clips, sports or otherwise?

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

#244

Post by jpetso »

jjeaff wrote: post #240
diputsmonro wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps not, but they can sell their crypto reserves to other actors who are in a position to exchange them, for stuff that's actually useful to them.

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

#245

Post by tablespoon »

koonsolo wrote: post #232
tablespoon wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> 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?

Did you not read the comment where outlined some of the holes in those use cases?

Here's a gist of how these coversations usually go:

>>>> We should use literal bricks as currency.

>>> That sounds dumb and pointless.

>> No it isn't. Here's an obvious use case: if you want to buy something from me, you can push over a wheelbarrow of bricks to make the exchange. This is superior to fiat because it's hard currency, and far more difficult to steal than banknotes or even precious metal coins. No way the government can confiscate it, it's too heavy. IT'S THE FUTURE OF MONEY!!1!

> That doesn't make any sense. It's a PITA to cart around bricks, banknotes and coins are way more convenient. Also the government has trucks.

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

#246

Post by simpsond »

boopboopbadoop wrote: post #144
simpsond wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like baseball cards. That said, there are some interesting use cases where the NFT is paired with off-chain cash flow. See royal.io, where IP rights for music are represented by NFTs and the owner of the NFT receives royalties. I think having a liquid market for that kind of investment is more tractable than a jpeg without real IP rights.

In regards to the music royalties example, what’s the benefit of using NFTs over whatever systems already exist?

I would say the NFT market places make it easy to buy/sell (liquid). Since contracts are composable it could be sold to a contract with distribution properties so there can be fractional ownership. Programmable money flows.

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

#247

Post by koonsolo »

tablespoon wrote: post #245
koonsolo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? Did you not read the comment where outlined some of the holes in those use cases? Here's a gist of how these coversations usually go: >>>> We should use literal bricks…

If it has a $2T market cap and people are actually using it for that usecase, what the fuck are you arguing then?

But like I said before, these kinds of discussions are totally useless.

You don't get the usecase, fine, no problem, move on already, there is no point of discussing this any longer.

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

#248

Post by tablespoon »

koonsolo wrote: post #247
tablespoon wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Did you not read the comment where outlined some of the holes in those use cases? Here's a gist of how these coversations usually go: >>>> We should use literal bricks…

If it has a $2T market cap and people are actually using it for that usecase, what the fuck are you arguing then? But like I said before, these kinds of discussions are totally useless. You don't get the usecase, fine, no problem, move on already, there is no point of discussing this any longer.

> If it has a $2T market cap and people are actually using it for that usecase, what the fuck are you arguing then?

Market cap doesn't mean squat here. The one use case that cryptocurrency has satisfied is being a speculative investment.

If some true-believer dude claims he's actually carting around brick-bux in a wheelbarrow and that it's great for buying things (and maybe occasionally actually making a transaction), that doesn't actually mean it's a good choice for that use case. It just means that guy isn't making very good decisions (or is dishonest).

> But like I said before, these kinds of discussions are totally useless.

No. There's quite a lot of utility in disputing BS, because that has a chance of eventually making it go away.

> You don't get the usecase, fine, no problem, move on already, there is no point of discussing this any longer.

I do understand the use case, I just think the application of cryptocurrency to it is BS. If you think there's no point discussing it, you're welcome to stop.

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

#249

Post by anm89 »

adoxyz wrote: post #10

NFT's are a scam.

I feel like a scam would imply that an effort to conceal the nature of NFTs is occurring when in reality they are just throwing it out pretty transparently and saying buy it anyway, it's cool and there will be a greater fool, and then people just buy them.

That's just stupidity on the part of the buyer IMO, not really a scam.

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

#250

Post by dmitriid »

gonehome wrote: post #233
dmitriid wrote: post #223

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 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:…

> 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.

The reason is simple: 99.9999999% of all discussions with crypto people follow the same pattern. After a decade of snake oil, you don't expect snake oil salesmen to engage in anything productive.

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

These reiterate a few false dichotomies and false equivalences as in "Banks don't won’t protect you from wire fraud" === "same in crypto". Not the same.

There is some value in "having your money with you always", but fails to account for two things: the need for immediate and continuous internet access, and security (https://xkcd.com/538/)

> if I had to pick one general one, probably this:

which is void of any interesting discussion, doesn't address any problems, and reiterates that "bitcoin is a speculative asset"

> This list is good

I may skim through it, but I won't hold my breath.

> For your specifics

How it started: "The interesting bit is gated community access/easily verifiable ownership of membership"

How it's going: "we build this OS with blockchain built in, we verify identities there". Also: "nonymity is a different feature sure"

Authentication, authorisation and memberships have overlapping concerns but are not the same thing. And this is the thing I absolutely loathe in these "productive conversations":

- when faced with facts or reality, the narrative is always shifted. We were talking about memberships? "Well, let me talk about something else"

- complex issues are just brushed aside as being non-important, non-essential, trivial, or that they will be magically solved. Anonymity? "oh, it's a different feature set"

- literally no one is pausing to stop for even a second beyond the absolutely obvious use cases. Because the next set of use cases is merely immediately obvious.

In a world where everyone is tracking everyone anonymity is essential.

"Ownership can be transferred without central authority"? What recourse is there when that happens without the owner's consent (even people developing "smart contracts" currently fall prey to errors in their code logic)?

What happens when gated communities (which are centralised by default) ban you based on something completely unrelated because all of your membership info is easily available and verifiable (your church group outs you as gay, your teacher's union fires you because you're a furry, you can't find a job because of a felony offence)?

---

So, after more than a decade of snake oil, I will call snake oil for what it is until proven otherwise. No amount of "you just have to believe", erm, sorry, "you have to be curious" will convince me otherwise.

Post reply on HN