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

The Merge

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 184 posts

Re: The Merge

#171

Post by polygamous_bat »

seibelj wrote: post #141
kareemsabri wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they don't use your marketplace are the royalties not collected?

There is an Ethereum protocol standard (similar to RFCs in the internet context) that defines a standard for NFT royalties https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2981 FYI I am an author of this standard. It is widely supported across the ecosystem https://royaltyregistry.xyz/ My company doesn’t care where our NFTs travel or trade on. We get our royalty regardless.

> The royalty payment must be voluntary, as transfer mechanisms such as transferFrom() include NFT transfers between wallets, and executing them does not always imply a sale occurred.

So how is this an improvement over what we have right now? If the buyer and the seller may wish to do so, out of the goodness of their hearts, they can always send part of their sale price to the artist. So why are NFTs necessary in any way, if you cannot programmatically enforce it? (And you never can, the reason of which you already know: if I wish to do so I can make a transfer between my two wallets and a sale look exactly the same.)

At which point do these selective, and potentially intentional misleading claims about NFTs go from ignorant to fraudulent? Especially when you may stand to earn a lot by making people believe in your misleading claims?

Re: The Merge

#172

Post by randomran01234 »

randomran01234 wrote: post #153
rufusroflpunch wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are accepting that the network can hard fork to change the hash algorithm, then why not accept that they can do a soft fork to blacklist UTXOs or any one of who-knows-how many possible defenses? Changing the hashing algorithm is a nuclear option and probably not necessary in the astronomically unlikely event that someone managed to get 51% of hash rate for any amount of time. edit: Blacklisting UTXOs is entire…

Good question, I’d be interested to hear a core dev’s thoughts on this.

I’ve thought about this a bit more.

You can target the UXTO so that their value in crypto starts back at zero. But because they still have the mining hardware, they still control 51% of the hash power that secures the network. They can just mine from a different address and it won’t be clear who to target until they once again begin to produce majority blocks on the chain. This way they can continually attack the chain and render it useless.

When you burn a PoW miner’s crypto addresses, you aren’t burning their capital and stake, because it’s in the form of mining hardware, not tokens. When you burn a PoS staker’s crypto, you are burning their capital and stake which is in the form of tokens.

Re: The Merge

#173

Post by dale_glass »

kranke155 wrote: post #165
dale_glass wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mostly everything can be done in the traditional way - and much faster indeed. The point of blockchain is a superior social solution, not technical. That's highly arguable. It's a superior social solution if you buy into a very, very specific kind of "social", and are happy with systems that operate within a very limited realm. Eg, if you like the existence of things like chargebacks, then the blockchain isn't the…

This is true and also why I think NFTs worked so well - they solved a digital asset problem, not a physical asset problem. I suspect that’s the kind of problem blockchain will solve more. The “physical things on blockchain” movement is sort of not working out imo.

I don't think NFTs worked well at all -- they had a brief spike of popularity then were mostly forgotten.

Right now BendDAO is in trouble because nobody really cares about NFTs anymore, they can't sell the ones they got as a collateral, and already ran out of funds.

Re: The Merge

#174

Post by kranke155 »

dale_glass wrote: post #173
kranke155 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true and also why I think NFTs worked so well - they solved a digital asset problem, not a physical asset problem. I suspect that’s the kind of problem blockchain will solve more. The “physical things on blockchain” movement is sort of not working out imo.

I don't think NFTs worked well at all -- they had a brief spike of popularity then were mostly forgotten. Right now BendDAO is in trouble because nobody really cares about NFTs anymore, they can't sell the ones they got as a collateral, and already ran out of funds.

The NFT scene I am part of, running on Tezos markets like Versum and FXhash, is incredibly vibrant. The idea that somehow the market is gone is really only true for the wash trading / BAYC madness, which was silly and meaningless to begin with.

Artists on FXhash are selling out editions of 200 in 15 minutes. It’s an incredibly vibrant market and the whole concept of FXhash is a revolution in generative art.

NFTs are not dead.

Here are 3 real artists selling NFTs right now.

Deeway Kwon

https://twitter.com/deekaymotion?s=21&t=ipDuaTxacsrVG2ZqS5Nb...

Kato https://objkt.com/profile/tz1LA28RxLyzg4iV9jxDLrmzgC6WwCHT2f...

Jose Gasparian https://objkt.com/profile/gasparian/created

Most of “web3” is scams, ponzis and foolishness. But NFTs are changing the lives of digital artists everywhere.

Bizarrely this seems to be something that most people at HN are completely alienated from. But NFTs work.

The fact that not everyone is making millions anymore is irrelevant - as a working artist in a cheaper country you can make a decent living if you develop a community. It can also be a very healthy second income.

Re: The Merge

#175

Post by dale_glass »

kranke155 wrote: post #174
dale_glass wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think NFTs worked well at all -- they had a brief spike of popularity then were mostly forgotten. Right now BendDAO is in trouble because nobody really cares about NFTs anymore, they can't sell the ones they got as a collateral, and already ran out of funds.

The NFT scene I am part of, running on Tezos markets like Versum and FXhash, is incredibly vibrant. The idea that somehow the market is gone is really only true for the wash trading / BAYC madness, which was silly and meaningless to begin with. Artists on FXhash are selling out editions of 200 in 15 minutes. It’s an incredibly vibrant market and the whole concept of FXhash is a revolution in generative art. NFTs are…

You're pulling on my leg, right? Let's see:

kato is being followed by 43 people, Jose Gasparian by 24. That's "nobody cares" territory. I've seen not particularly amazing furry artists sign up for a new site and gather 200 watchers in a single day by just posting a couple decent pictures. Both of those people seem to have been around for about a year.

If you look at the lists you posted, nobody's offering anything. kato has a single picture with "offer = 0.30". Gasparian has a single picture with "offer = 5.0".

Okay, let's see what fancy stuff those people own instead:

https://objkt.com/profile/gasparian/owned?sort=lowest_ask:de...

https://objkt.com/asset/hicetnunc/768355

Oh look, in the history they all sold for 3, and now somebody is trying to sell their copy for 500.

Now for kato:

https://objkt.com/asset/KT1C6ikdV1dCEdzfqG1wevsfMtZbP5zr1Tuh...

Same shit, bought a thing for 1.5 trying to resell for 1000.

Look at activity: https://objkt.com/asset/fxhash/1110428

In a single day, a NFT goes from creator through half a dozen owners. Yeah, I don't think those people even look at what they buy, and lots of people own lots of random crap, like barely distinct pictures from the same series.

I don't know what this is, but it's not an art market, because it certainly never occurred to me to buy a picture and then put it for sale again on the same day for a couple dollars more. That's more like using NFTs as money. It could be money laundering, or payments for services, or wash trading, but whatever it is, it doesn't much like an art market to me.

Re: The Merge

#176

Post by kranke155 »

dale_glass wrote: post #175
kranke155 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFT scene I am part of, running on Tezos markets like Versum and FXhash, is incredibly vibrant. The idea that somehow the market is gone is really only true for the wash trading / BAYC madness, which was silly and meaningless to begin with. Artists on FXhash are selling out editions of 200 in 15 minutes. It’s an incredibly vibrant market and the whole concept of FXhash is a revolution in generative art. NFTs are…

You're pulling on my leg, right? Let's see: kato is being followed by 43 people, Jose Gasparian by 24. That's "nobody cares" territory. I've seen not particularly amazing furry artists sign up for a new site and gather 200 watchers in a single day by just posting a couple decent pictures. Both of those people seem to have been around for about a year. If you look at the lists you posted, nobody's offering anything. k…

How glib.

Kato has 4000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/TrofimovaKato

Jose has 2300 on twitter https://twitter.com/josegasparian

The place where people meet and follow each other on the NFT space is twitter, not OBJKT. OBJKT is just where the art is sold.

Jose has just recently sold out his first piece on FXhash - 200 editions at 2xtz - 400$ - in 15 min.

It's a art market, even if you don't want to see it. I just took two random artists out of a hat that I like.

You're also of course conveniently ignoring DeeKay because he doesn't fit your pattern - he just had a piece recently sell for 1$ million.

Re: The Merge

#177

Post by sph »

rcxdude wrote: post #149
paulgb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's absurd today, but how many bitcoin halvings until it isn't? When people talk about the security of bitcoin, there's a tendency to pretend that the network's security isn't 98% subsidized by a diminishing pool of unminted bitcoin.

Yeah, this is why I think bitcoin is long term not worthwhile. While the vision was a digital currency which would be widely used to transact with, it was plausible that transaction costs would be sufficient to secure the network (though it would still be difficult to actually price them effectively). But as a 'store of value', it will start to become either expensive or insecure as the mining rewards peter out.

The time to mine a block is "constant", in that it takes an average of 10 minutes whatever the network size.

When the mining rewards peter out, big ASIC farm miners leave the network, the mining difficulty goes down, and so does the energy and hardware investment required to mine a single block. But at the same time, smaller time miner can enter the network and mine with less powerful hardware.

If all miners were to quit tomorrow, the difficulty would go down so much that you could mine a block, in 10 minutes, with a Raspberry Pi Zero.

Re: The Merge

#178

Post by dale_glass »

kranke155 wrote: post #176
dale_glass wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're pulling on my leg, right? Let's see: kato is being followed by 43 people, Jose Gasparian by 24. That's "nobody cares" territory. I've seen not particularly amazing furry artists sign up for a new site and gather 200 watchers in a single day by just posting a couple decent pictures. Both of those people seem to have been around for about a year. If you look at the lists you posted, nobody's offering anything. k…

How glib. Kato has 4000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/TrofimovaKato Jose has 2300 on twitter https://twitter.com/josegasparian The place where people meet and follow each other on the NFT space is twitter, not OBJKT. OBJKT is just where the art is sold. Jose has just recently sold out his first piece on FXhash - 200 editions at 2xtz - 400$ - in 15 min. It's a art market, even if you don't want to see it. I…

> Kato has 4000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/TrofimovaKato > Jose has 2300 on twitter https://twitter.com/josegasparian

Still very, very small potatoes

> It's a art market, even if you don't want to see it. I just took two random artists out of a hat that I like.

No, it's not. It's an art market used as a proxy for something else. I like art. I get reselling it. But when you buy a bunch of stuff and immediately put it back for sale for a few bucks more, that's not art appreciation. In the best case it's arbitrage, in the worst case it's something more sinister.

> You're also of course conveniently ignoring DeeKay because he doesn't fit your pattern - he just had a piece recently sell for 1$ million.

It's very much an outlier yes, so probably something very different.

I don't really buy that this piece makes somebody feel anything worth paying $1M for. Come on, we've been doing this theme for ages. Here's an ad based on that concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsI6z13Su8 -- it's from 2002.

If somebody has $1M to spend on a single picture, why would they? They could hire a dozen artists for a year. Have them safely work on some sort of masterpieces, or have them at the patron's beck and call to make any random ideas the patron has.

There are reasons to spend $1M on a single art piece, but pretty much none of them have anything to do with the art.

Re: The Merge

#179

Post by kranke155 »

dale_glass wrote: post #178
kranke155 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How glib. Kato has 4000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/TrofimovaKato Jose has 2300 on twitter https://twitter.com/josegasparian The place where people meet and follow each other on the NFT space is twitter, not OBJKT. OBJKT is just where the art is sold. Jose has just recently sold out his first piece on FXhash - 200 editions at 2xtz - 400$ - in 15 min. It's a art market, even if you don't want to see it. I…

> Kato has 4000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/TrofimovaKato > Jose has 2300 on twitter https://twitter.com/josegasparian Still very, very small potatoes > It's a art market, even if you don't want to see it. I just took two random artists out of a hat that I like. No, it's not. It's an art market used as a proxy for something else. I like art. I get reselling it. But when you buy a bunch of stuff and immed…

Your arguments are so weird I don't know how to answer them.

People buying and selling something constitutes a market in general definition but you seem to make the effort to redefine it - in any way that makes it so NFTs will never count.

It's either wash trading, or a scam, or something. I don't understand why you're jumping through all these hoops to convince yourself that this isn't real when I am presenting you evidence that it is, but you seem impossible to convince so I won't try.

Suffice to say I buy and sell art in NFTs using my own money, I have my own NFT collection, and I don't scam people nor do I buy from scammers. That to me constitutes a market.

Re: The Merge

#180

Post by dale_glass »

kranke155 wrote: post #179
dale_glass wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kato has 4000 followers on twitter https://twitter.com/TrofimovaKato > Jose has 2300 on twitter https://twitter.com/josegasparian Still very, very small potatoes > It's a art market, even if you don't want to see it. I just took two random artists out of a hat that I like. No, it's not. It's an art market used as a proxy for something else. I like art. I get reselling it. But when you buy a bunch of stuff and immed…

Your arguments are so weird I don't know how to answer them. People buying and selling something constitutes a market in general definition but you seem to make the effort to redefine it - in any way that makes it so NFTs will never count. It's either wash trading, or a scam, or something. I don't understand why you're jumping through all these hoops to convince yourself that this isn't real when I am presenting you…

Sure, it's a market if somebody is buying and selling.

My views aren't particularly weird and complicated. Let's see, resuming:

* Crypto has very limited applications if any outside of the financial area, and limited even there. We won't be doing general computing on blockchains, we'll be doing extremely limited subset of financial problems, if anything.

* NFTs are a mostly stupid idea.

* NFTs are not about art. They're about money. Art is an excuse and the art attached to a NFT has very little importance.

* NFTs are falling in popularity.

* Crypto and NFT markets are chaotic, full of scams, money laundering and wash trading and in general not worth getting into.

* Pretty much nobody buys NFTs for the art value.

Yeah, there's going to be an exception here and there. But I don't for a second believe that paying a million to claim ownership of a quite banal animation is something that shows art appreciation. I think it's far more likely that account A wanted to transfer $1M to account B.

And geez, why do it on NFT sites if you're in for the art? Buy something from an artist on DeviantArt or FurAffinity or something. You can get amazing art for not very much money at all.

Post reply on HN