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

At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 253 posts

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#141

Post by hnthrow1010 »

adrr wrote: post #140
choward wrote: post #15

> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant. Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.

How do NFTs work with copyright laws? Does owning an NFT grant you rights and how does that work with copyright law?

The short answers are: they don't, no, and it doesn't. Some NFTs do have a separate legal document saying you get a copyright license (or maybe even the copyright) if you "own" the NFT, but this is not required, and is entirely separate from the NFT. The author could very easily mint multiple NFTs of the same thing or just sell more licenses of the same thing on the side; if you look into the fine print of any NFT marketplace they will say straight out that you are not actually getting any exclusive ownership of anything unless the seller explicitly says so in separate legal terms. And even then, it usually is on the buyer to do any due diligence to make sure that the copyright actually belongs to them and the artwork isn't ripped off.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#142

Post by derekp7 »

0des wrote: post #139
InitialBP wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wifi access does not universally mean the ability to receive texts, it can depend on your particular device and mobile carrier.

Wait how do I do text over wifi?

I believe Google Voice can do text directly from the app, no cell service required (just an internet connection). And my phone service has been able to do LTE over WIFI for a number of years.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#143

Post by breakfastduck »

adrr wrote: post #140
choward wrote: post #15

> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant. Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.

How do NFTs work with copyright laws? Does owning an NFT grant you rights and how does that work with copyright law?

No, it does not because the NFT is a receipt. You are literally buying a receipt for your purchase of... a receipt.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#144

Post by 0des »

noAnswer wrote: post #137
doopy1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No realistic takes on crypto allowed on HN, you might get banned.

Bitcoin can only process 7 transactions per second globally. Ethereum 25. That is not fast. If you want to get an actual transfer cheapness goes out of the window. And it is not anonym either.

There are much faster cryptoasset networks, which I'm sure you already know, but the problem then becomes liquidity and volume required to not create slippage in the process.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#145

Post by vba616 »

lupire wrote: post #112
vba616 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course. Just like you can create anything, and license it as you wish, and keep a list of authorized licensees on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape . The NFTs are better because...

NFT provides a decentralized way to transfer the ownership in a globally visible way. Look, I hate cryptoc, but this is about the one thing in the whole world that NFT is actually good for.

How is it decentralized?

Perhaps people use the word differently.

I don't understand the word "decentralized" to mean "not occupying a specific physical location".

To me it means more like "having many independent parts" or "not having a single point of failure".

For example, land titles in the US, I believe, are decentralized. There is not one single national/federal list of who owns what.

But having a blockchain is like having that list. I don't know if that is "centralized" in an absolute, yes/no way, but it seems more centralized.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#146

Post by bredren »

nikanj wrote: post #32
rejor121 wrote: post #22

Nobody could see this coming! Lol Seriously, crypto has yet to solve any real world problems I’ve faced. And NFTs are just the worst. Money laundering schemes at best. If I can’t buy an apple easily with crypto, it’s useless.

Fully anonymous global ransomware would be really hard without cryptos. Monetizing hacked boxes would be much tougher if you could not turn them into Monero miners.

So would dark markets.

Dark markets are described as a small piece of the pie for LE.

But P2P music sharing / digital music sales was also that way until they couldn't be ignored and ultimately destroyed traditional music distribution.

There is a reason big, reliable markets get shut down and it isn't all exit scams. It's because they're incredibly successful and they would not be so without crypto.

The ransomware market is too hard for most to get into and the "deals" take time to put together. There's not a great reason for them to prop up coin value.

However, dark markets are open to just about anyone, and presumably haven't even begun to touch growth potential.

All that said: throw in parent's value prop too--is bitcoin worth $20k a coin today? IDK, maybe? I sold bitcoin-embroidered hoodies at the first ever national bitcoin conference in san jose for half a coin and that seemed a bit nuts.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#147

Post by rglover »

mnd999 wrote: post #89
rglover wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> exactly the force needed to distribute crypto more widely into more hands Yes, but not "crypto." Bitcoin. The entire crash was due to VCs and hedge funds overleveraging into shitcoins [1]. It started with Luna and that created a domino effect for the rest of it. Sprinkle on the panic typical to all markets and kablamo. In essence, that's good (albeit painful to some degree) because it's a truly free market. Bad pla…

Bad players will be back next week with a better con.

Welcome to humanity, skipper.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#148

Post by Spooky23 »

choward wrote: post #15

> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant. Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.

I remember when my nine year old commented on the YouTuber “What’s inside” guy trading a Tesla for some NFT - “dad, that’s really dumb”

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#149

Post by serf »

adrr wrote: post #135
CameronNemo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real cryptocurrency wallet also would have worked.

I wonder what percentage of the crypto population has wallets compared to having all their crypto on an exchange. I don’t know anyone with a wallet.

having all of your currency on an exchange, regardless of the currency, has never been a good idea.

(signed a MtGox victim.)

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#150

Post by idiotsecant »

blahblah123456 wrote: post #76
bhtru wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's more on simply poor cell service if anything at all though no? The tech even then seemingly worked for you then. Your anecdotal is comparable to saying students at a college not being able to add one another on Facebook in it's early days, because the campus Wi-Fi was on the fritz.

Yes, but in real life blame doesn't matter. What matters is the alternative (a hardwired credit card terminal or cash) would've worked, and this didn't.

That's essentially saying the same thing as if the cell phones didn't work a hardwired landline would have.

It's true, but it's also missing the point.

Post reply on HN