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

Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#111

Post by hatsunearu »

gfxgirl wrote: post #85
chrischattin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artist sells painting for $1k. Buyer then sells painting for $1M. Next buyer sells for $10M. Original artist only made $1k on a $10M painting. Shouldn't the original artist be able to participate in the upside of their creation? I'm not seeing the "evil" here. Just a way for creators to cut out the middle men. Or, just a different way of structuring a contract. There's a lot of moralistic FUD against crypto on HN rig…

That's not how things are supposed to work AFAIK. I go buy a book, DVD, CD, video, etc for $10. I can then resell it for $8 or if it becomes rare for $20. The original creator only gets the first $10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Well, it's how everything else works, but there's no saying that it's meant to be this way.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#112

Post by intotheabyss »

hannasanarion wrote: post #29
dpflan wrote: post #5

Has anyone watched the discussion? This article is, well, not sure what value I'm getting out of this: cryptographers discuss the merits of NFT...OK..."Shamir then announced plans to, at some point in the future, theoretically mint his own NFT." The concept of NFT is fine, the problem is the implementation plus resources/energy costs, right?

The concept of NFT is basically nothing. Even if they somehow stopped wasting outrageous quantities of energy wouldn't change the fact that they're nothing but collectable receipts.

Uniswap V3 liquidity positions are NFTs. Are those useless receipts?

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#113

Post by djoldman »

zcw100 wrote: post #12
djoldman wrote: post #3

> Certainly it's not harmful — some people collect coins, some people collect stamps, some people collect NFTs. If they want to pay money for this, it's fine with me. Exactly. If someone makes some purposeless set of objects and others buy and sell them and money is lost and gained by informed adults in the process then.. nothing? If one thinks that NFTs are inherently a BAD THING then it may be more accurate to say…

Because NFT's have nothing to do with collecting digital trinkets and everything to do with money laundering. The only thing that is remarkable about NFT's is how absolutely brazen they're being about it. The only positive is that hopefully it will keep them from screwing around with the housing market that has real life consequences for people although now we're just throwing away electricity rather than empty house…

If NFT money laundering is:

  acquire Ethereum with dirty money -> buy NFT's -> sell NFTs for Ethereum -> sell Ethereum for USD -> deposit USD in bank account
I fail to understand how that is materially different from:

  acquire Ethereum with dirty money -> sell Ethereum for USD -> deposit USD in bank account
Besides there being more steps with NFTs, I don't understand how it would attract less scrutiny.

In both cases, one must acquire Ethereum in the beginning with dirty money. This can be done on a foreign exchange, transfer in the Ethereum to a domestic exchange and sell it for USD.

In both cases, large deposits in bank accounts will be flagged by banks for review by the authorities. It's not a very good idea.

Arguably, USD stablecoin is a much more efficient method. Just buy them, and sell them off slowly and deposit the USD in ways to avoid scrutiny. This can't be done with Ethereum because of the volatility: you can't wait because your money might lose a ton of value.

My 2 cents. I am not a lawyer.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#114

Post by thebean11 »

scatters wrote: post #103
dschnurr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some artists choose to attach "perks" to their NFTs – i.e. meet and greets, access to private communities. They could choose not to honor these perks for NFTs held by contracts. They could even choose to re-mint the work if the new owner is doing nefarious things with the old one (though many would see this as a dubious action)

Eh, so write a warrant to buy the NFT for a dollar, then sell the warrant.

I think that would be difficult to do trustlessly though, without a smart contract holding the NFT. How can I force you to send me the NFT if I exercise?

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#115

Post by [deleted] »

chrischattin wrote: post #33
supernova87a wrote: post #28

I don't mean to distract from the main conversation, but I want to talk about how insidiously evil it is that NFTs can be coded to send the original creator a percentage $ cut off of every subsequent transaction for all time. If that's not hard coding wealth inequality and a new class of asset owners, I don't know what is. This is disturbing, along with the whole thing itself anyway. Imagine if cryptocurrency started…

Artist sells painting for $1k. Buyer then sells painting for $1M. Next buyer sells for $10M. Original artist only made $1k on a $10M painting. Shouldn't the original artist be able to participate in the upside of their creation? I'm not seeing the "evil" here. Just a way for creators to cut out the middle men. Or, just a different way of structuring a contract. There's a lot of moralistic FUD against crypto on HN rig…

[deleted]

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#116

Post by intotheabyss »

lottin wrote: post #106
Trias11 wrote: post #8

I totally agree. Tulips was the first thing that came to my mind as well. However as a technology NFT has it place, especially when crypto ecosystem evolves beyond ETH limitations

I disagree, I don't think it has a place. It's useless.

I said this elsewhere, but Uniswap V3 liquidity positions are NFTs. Are those NFTs useless?

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#117

Post by driverdan »

Animats wrote: post #14

The NFT thing seems to be settling out. It's for collectables, like Magic, the Gathering cards. I've been following this because I'm interested in virtual worlds. There are at least four virtual worlds that use some kind of NFT thing to register land ownership. Nobody does much in those worlds, and the graphics aren't all that good. It's all about trading land and speculating in some minor cryptocurrency. The newest…

> They already have five cryptocurrencies of their own, plus an NFT system.

Pretty clear what their priority is. It's not building a good game, it's making money off of suckers.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#118

Post by intotheabyss »

Y_Y wrote: post #107
doggosphere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy will negligible upon Eth 2.0 PoS merge

This was a stupid comment about how I didn't like the nomenclature and now I regret making it.

If only we had access to the internet in order to look up things we're confused about. I highlighted ETH 2.0 PoS, right clicked "search Google" and the answer to your question is the first result.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#119

Post by th0ma5 »

intotheabyss wrote: post #109
singold wrote: post #93

What I dont understand is what stops you from minting the same thing on multiple NFT blockchains and why is it any diferent than something centralized, and thats why I dont like all the NFT hype (I may be dumb and dont get what NFTs really are)

Because the NFT is only as good as the blockchain it was minted on. The vast majority of (valuable) NFTs are minted on Ethereum. If someone mints the same NFT on Flow for example, it won't be as valuable because it's a copy (verifiably so) and it's secured by a centralized chain. NFTs are supposed to live on as if they were physical objects, so minting an NFT on a centralized chain has a significant risk of not exist…

Right, and Ethereum is effectively centralized https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re...

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#120

Post by intotheabyss »

th0ma5 wrote: post #119
intotheabyss wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the NFT is only as good as the blockchain it was minted on. The vast majority of (valuable) NFTs are minted on Ethereum. If someone mints the same NFT on Flow for example, it won't be as valuable because it's a copy (verifiably so) and it's secured by a centralized chain. NFTs are supposed to live on as if they were physical objects, so minting an NFT on a centralized chain has a significant risk of not exist…

Right, and Ethereum is effectively centralized https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re...

You can't be serious with that link? That entire subreddit was run by one person who clearly had a mental health disorder. I remember that person very well.

edit: I'm not arguing every single point here because a lot of them aren't even relevant anymore, and frankly I just don't care enough to go through them with you. I'm not trying to win an argument. The information is freely available for all to see and people can do their own due diligence

Post reply on HN