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

NFT Canon

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: NFT Canon

#101

Post by ALittleLight »

inthewoods wrote: post #54
dvt wrote: post #33

NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-dump token, but rather with DR…

VCs are geared to take big swings and bets. Makes total sense that they would buy into anything that has the potential to be a billion dollar idea, even if the likelihood of success is 1-5%. What's interesting about NFTs to me is that an org like the NBA is one of the most successful - but I guess that makes sense because, as others have posted, they generate all the NFTs and can validate them. So it seems to me that…

I don't think NFTs are a good fit even for something like NBA Top Shot. You can already buy custom emotes or skins or whatever in video games. No NFTs necessary, just use the game's database for record keeping, not an NFT.

Re: NFT Canon

#102

Post by rusk »

gnopgnip wrote: post #65
rusk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say “this is the genuine article” why do you even need a blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably “a cryptographic representation of something unique” EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist in that only one owner can derive the value from it.

An NFT on the blockchain can be verifired crytographically that it is the "original", it can't be duplicated, and you can transfer it to anyone if you have the private key and the gas. A token off the blockchain controlled by a centralized group could transfer ownership without a key at all. They could issue the same one to more than one party and duplicate it. Someone else could claim to own the record and they coul…

The real world item that the token refers to is by definition “a token off the blockchain”.

Re: NFT Canon

#103

Post by [deleted] »

hobs wrote: post #85
DennisP wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just glanced at their white paper and it refers to multiple registrars, so stuff might not be just at Mattereum.[1] Besides that, I think an immutable public record of ownership is worthwhile. It's something you can use as evidence in court. If it were just their database and they changed it, what recourse would you have? [1] https://mattereum.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/mattereum-s...

The same one you'd have with any proof of ownership in a society with laws.

[deleted]

Re: NFT Canon

#104

Post by DennisP »

spinchange wrote: post #97
jsutton wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning on good ole' paper, or in a government database somewhere that you have no visibility or access to. Is this preferable to an ownership record that you, the gov, or anyone else can verify from your phone?

Things like deeds and titles aren't necessarily locked away without visibility but are necessary to prove ownership in a court of law, the venue where doing that is most consequential. Technologically, it's redundant and unecessary to maintain shared ownership records of everyone else's assets. Practically, if you don't trust the state / your representative government to maintain & adjudicate property ownership right…

We're not talking about replacing the register of deeds here, and the government isn't going to maintain ownership records of random collectibles.

We trust online brokerages to maintain our ownership on securities with databases alone, but those are heavily regulated. The government isn't likely to enact regulation on baseball cards and action figures either.

So for safety we're pretty much down to paper documentation and a cumbersome sale process. That's slow and expensive, which is why rich people do it and regular people don't. Until now.

I don't see why people think blockchains have to exclusively do new and unprecedented things. It's productive to do old things more efficiently.

Re: NFT Canon

#105

Post by pilaf »

CynicusRex wrote: post #36

“A man who is rich but ignorant he called a sheep with golden fleece.” —Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes, with Other Popular Moralists by Robin Hard, §326.

My English is probably lacking (not a native speaker), but I can't parse that sentence for the life of me, let alone understand what it means. Curiously enough, googling it brings up exactly two results: the book you cite and this HN thread.

Re: NFT Canon

#106

Post by inthewoods »

oleganza wrote: post #100
inthewoods wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VCs are geared to take big swings and bets. Makes total sense that they would buy into anything that has the potential to be a billion dollar idea, even if the likelihood of success is 1-5%. What's interesting about NFTs to me is that an org like the NBA is one of the most successful - but I guess that makes sense because, as others have posted, they generate all the NFTs and can validate them. So it seems to me that…

Don't confuse VC's position to have more capital, closer to action, so even if their bet is shit, they'll be able to exit with profit because they entered on lows and pumped it to everyone else.

Oh I don't think they'll necessarily profit - I'm saying that they are incentivized to take a lot of risk. But I don't think that makes them either any smarter or that they'll have a guarantee of being able to get out before the walls collapse.

Re: NFT Canon

#107

Post by spinchange »

DennisP wrote: post #104
spinchange wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like deeds and titles aren't necessarily locked away without visibility but are necessary to prove ownership in a court of law, the venue where doing that is most consequential. Technologically, it's redundant and unecessary to maintain shared ownership records of everyone else's assets. Practically, if you don't trust the state / your representative government to maintain & adjudicate property ownership right…

We're not talking about replacing the register of deeds here, and the government isn't going to maintain ownership records of random collectibles. We trust online brokerages to maintain our ownership on securities with databases alone, but those are heavily regulated. The government isn't likely to enact regulation on baseball cards and action figures either. So for safety we're pretty much down to paper documentatio…

It's not really physical collectibles that need this, it's digital ones. (Physical collectibles have popularly accepted professional grading services that authenticate and certify) So then I guess the question is why isn't a central database maintained by a trusted authority (ies) just as good as a blockchain maintained by everyone?

Re: NFT Canon

#108

Post by cyclopus »

pilaf wrote: post #105
CynicusRex wrote: post #36

“A man who is rich but ignorant he called a sheep with golden fleece.” —Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes, with Other Popular Moralists by Robin Hard, §326.

My English is probably lacking (not a native speaker), but I can't parse that sentence for the life of me, let alone understand what it means. Curiously enough, googling it brings up exactly two results: the book you cite and this HN thread.

The he is referring to Diogenes, an ancient philosopher. And Diogenes is calling rich but ignorant men sheeps with golden fleeces.

"A man who is rich but ignorant he[Diogenes] called a sheep with golden fleece."

Re: NFT Canon

#109

Post by MR4D »

chrisco255 wrote: post #93
MR4D wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same was true for Beanie Babies. eBay grew huge because of them. Today, eBay is around, but not Beanie Babies, at least not in any significant sense. I think NFT will be the same. Eventually we might put real estate on it and do something useful, just as eBay has become much more than a place to trade Beanie Babies.

Right, but while you can knock on Beanie Babies, how long have other collectibles held up over decades or centuries? Art works from the 15th century are extremely valuable today. If the blockchain is still around in 500 years, is it conceivable that an early gen Crypto Kitty could have a lot of value by then? Of course it is. Video games were looked at as toys for kids, but now have evolved until a multi hundred bill…

> Video games...

But that copy of Pac-Man that I have on my raspberry pi is worth exactly nothing.

And an NFT of it should be worth the same unless it gives me other rights (like copyrights, or something else of value).

Re: NFT Canon

#110

Post by Igelau »

Rule35 wrote: post #88
Igelau wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the other reason I hate NFT. The only plausible use case is as a terrible DRM key.

Or, a better DRM key... at least you could transfer it without permission.

Not really. Access to the content referred to by the NFT happens at the whim of the platform. That gives them the ultimate leverage. In this case, transfer doesn't amount to much if the "object" is rendered useless.
Post reply on HN