131–140 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could consider using the admin policy for disabling the Tor functionality: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/454
Not my choice to make anymore: literally cannot run Brave anymore -- it's blocked at the binary executable level (via CarbonBlack).
a) on desktop computers (i.e., not smartphones that have better default security with sandboxing, permissions, Secure Enclave/equivalent hardware, etc.)
b) embedded in an application like a web browser that has a large attack surface
I think the mention of hardware wallets and the recovery phrase should be stronger recommendations on this page, and not left as an optional or “if you read till the end” thing.
I didn’t see a description of how this wallet could be moved around (from one computer to another) or any plans for making that easier (other than the use of the recovery phrase). The recovery phrase does need a lot more prominence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a crypto wallet with a javascript API, so web apps can do crypto things.
Is it useful to me if I don't have any crypto to put in it? Because I'm interested in the IPFS access etc, but I don't hold any crypto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a "push notification" style in-app message that I am calling an "Ad". I don't know what the correct terminology is within Brave's chrome.
Yeah, those are opt in. Go to settings - "Brave Rewards" to disable ads in push notifications.
Did somebody with real practical experience switched away from Metamask to Brave Wallet? Just want to know how your experience was... does it work with all sorts of blockchains like Metamask?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it useful to me if I don't have any crypto to put in it? Because I'm interested in the IPFS access etc, but I don't hold any crypto.
Yes in that you can access web3 sites “authenticated” by your wallet, but you couldn’t transact on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What they don't tell you about BAT is that you cannot extract or trade the ERC20 without first going through their authorized 3rd-party custodial wallet service with KYC and your "earnings" don't accrue in your native Brave wallet either.
That killed it for me. What’s the point of a wallet if I have to do a shuffle to use it? Blockchain is hard enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave was all about crypto from the beginning: Basic Attention Token
Yeah, I always found that...let's say "curious." Programmer/typographer Matthew Butterick summed up my feelings relatively well with "It's just substituting one set of ads for another... for publishers, it's the same old shakedown, but run by Brave instead of Google or Facebook; for users, Brave is still going to collect data about you." That Brendan Eich himself went around crankily responding to anyone who linked t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not the parent but I have some thoughts on this. I’m of the opinion that tokens when applied to digital art typically aren’t providing much value, aside from say bragging rights / social status since digital art can be copied and viewed without owning the token. One might argue that these tokens help pay artists but 1) if that’s all one cares about then donating to them directly will give them more money since tr…
> aside from say bragging rights / social status since digital art can be copied and viewed without owning the token https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lis... This is a pretty high resolution copy of the Mona Lisa. If I went to see it at the Louvre in person, I wouldn't be able to see this level of detail. I've never even seen the thing with my own eyes, but I know it's a pretty big flex by the…
> I've never even seen the thing with my own eyes, but I know it's a pretty big flex by the French that they own it.
> It was insured in 2021 for $870M.
That's fair but I would argue that physical ownership of it is different than digital ownership in that physical ownership inherently has some fundamental copy protections built in (at least to a point). Also I do think that the art market in general is a bit special in that it's kind of hard to assign an underlying value to the asset given that art is so subjective from both a personal and cultural perspective.
Some in this HN discussion have made the comparison to star registries and that seems apt as theoretically anyone can start their own star registry and naming a star in there largely has no effect outside of that [1][2][3][4]. If you want to pay a few bucks to "name" a star in some one's personal record of account then fair enough; I can see how that could make a fun gift, especially for a child. But if now you were to spend a couple thousand or millions of dollars then I'd really start to question the intent of the registry.
Maybe I misunderstood your point though.
> It's not about donating to the artist directly, exactly. It's about putting a value on their work, which is likely more valuable to the artist than a direction donation.
Also a fair point.
> Maybe, but if you ever need to "really" own the piece for some reason, you'd have to reconcile to mainnet anyway, and the artist would get paid then.
If the royalty fee is percentage of the resale value, which I believe is common [5], then ownership can still be had without paying the fee by any party by selling the token to the contract for free, trading the contract for some amount, and then triggering the sale from the contract to the contract holder for free. Since the amount the token is ever sold for in this scenario is 0 then no fees are ever owed.
Now if a fixed amount royalty fee were used then one party would have to pay the fee to put the token in the holding contract and then the final party would have to pay a fee to take it out but in between the contract could be traded fee free.
> Actually, most artists want their work to be widely seen. This creates a virtuous cycle. You buy an artist's work, which increases the value of that work, which increase the artist's exposure, which increase the artist's perceived value, which increases the value of the work you purchased, which leads to more sales for the artist, etc.
So artists want their work to be widely seen to increase its popularity and desire and narrowly owned so that value can be assigned and transferred.
I'm not sure how NFTs on their own accomplish this for digital assets. It seems to me the inherent fungibility of the digital art sets it apart from physical art or objects. Just because the token is non fungible doesn't make the asset it intends to represent non fungible. One would need some way to enforceably and meaningfully bind the two fully or partially (say with a limited view count per individual, restricted use, etc) to accomplish this. Without any restrictions on the digital art then all you have left is social perception as an enforcement mechanism.
Now that I think about it I think that's the crux of the argument.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_designations_and_names...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Star_Registry#Fa...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Star_Registrar
4: https://duckduckgo.com/?kae=b&k1=-1&kam=osm&kak=-1&kax=-1&ka...
5: https://www.nft-innovation.com/post/how-do-nft-royalties-wor...