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

Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

artnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 262 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#181

Post by [deleted] »

poiuiopkj wrote: post #150
tablespoon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. I would say no. It's a technology that serves no practical purpose, since the problems it addresses are ones purely created by certain peculiar ideologies. If you're not indulging in one of those ideologies, there's no point. And, like y…

No practical purpose EXCEPT for the ability to easily take assets across borders to leave authoritarian regimes, bringing a form of storing assets to the 2 billion or so unbanked individuals of the world, and comparatively cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country. These are just a few of the incredibly practical use cases that quite literally change people's lives.

[deleted]

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#182

Post by otikik »

srvmshr wrote: post #27

Pardon me. I never understood NFTs and never planned to be on board. But from my nascent understanding of what NFTs comprise, I couldn't understand why first tweet ever is a real NFT. The tweet is publicly available so there is no exclusivity. Anyone can look far enough & find it. The second being ownership. The tweet was always time stamped & in Jack Dorsey's name. Buying it as NFT will not really change its attribu…

According to my server, I am the owner of that image, not that other guy.

That's all there is to it.

Someone set up a server which allowed people to upload images and "claim property", then they put some high-level fake purchases, and played on a lot of guys' gullygreedity. If the server is gone tomorrow, then the blockchain will "remember" that there was something there, but when you try to see it you will just get a 404.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#184

Post by diputsmonro »

poiuiopkj wrote: post #150
tablespoon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. I would say no. It's a technology that serves no practical purpose, since the problems it addresses are ones purely created by certain peculiar ideologies. If you're not indulging in one of those ideologies, there's no point. And, like y…

No practical purpose EXCEPT for the ability to easily take assets across borders to leave authoritarian regimes, bringing a form of storing assets to the 2 billion or so unbanked individuals of the world, and comparatively cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country. These are just a few of the incredibly practical use cases that quite literally change people's lives.

All of those things that make it easy to move money out of authoritarian regimes also make it easy to move money into them - see the recent North Korea hack.

Turns out that when you purposefully build a system without any guardrails or oversight, then bad actors will find exploits and there will be no way to stop them. Regulation and oversight might be good things, actually.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#185

Post by otikik »

manholio wrote: post #48
dannyw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.

> Jack Dorsey sold it So what? If Jack Dorsey took a dump, preserved in resin and sold it as an abstract representation of his first tweet, how would that be different, more genuine or less genuine than this NFT?

Everything old is new again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#186

Post by DebtDeflation »

belter wrote: post #179
colpabar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. People will say that crypto is important because it's decentralized and non-fiat or whatever, with the implication being that it's not controlled by a government. But we have seen time and time again that that isn't true, and if a governme…

These are amateurs, you supposed to buy your own NFT for fks sake... "Analyzing the Very Bizarre Sale of Melania Trump’s $170,000 NFT" "The crypto used to purchase the former first lady’s NFT came from the NFT creator themselves, blockchain records reveal." https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7vpx8/analyzing-the-very-bi...

>you supposed to buy your own NFT for fks sake

You joke, but that is exactly correct. The only real use case for NFTs is money laundering. Create silly NFT, purchase it from yourself with millions of dollars from some other illegal activity (using shell entities to hide your identity), money is now "laundered" having been legitimately earned by selling an NFT.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#187

Post by gonehome »

dmitriid wrote: post #173
gonehome wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff. If you’re right you can look back smugly. If you’re wrong you’ll eventually figure it out (or not), won’t matter to me. I think you’re probably wrong.

> I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff. Ah. The inevitable ad hominem argument. > I think you’re probably wrong. See, the difference between you and me lies in this "probably". You believe , with nothing to back your beliefs. I look at reality (including the reality that I worked at a company that worked with memberships, ticketing, "gated communit…

It’s not an ad hominem - it’s a critique of the type of discourse. You’ve already made up your mind as evidenced by this reply (what you claim is “reality as it is”) and will just argue in favor of that conclusion.

You’re right the difference is in the “probably”, but you’re wrong about what it means. I’m not so certain, but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists. Perhaps unfair for me to dismiss you as early as I did, but I just suspected your reply wasn’t in good faith.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#188

Post by fallingfrog »

Yeah, I don't get the whole NFT thing at all. They're supposed to confer "ownership", but ownership in what sense? If I own a house, I have rights like the right to tell someone else not to enter, or the right to make modifications, or whatever. "Owning" an NFT of a monkey conveys no rights that I can see. It's literally meaningless.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#190

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #44
ok123456 wrote: post #13

Just in time for the tax deadline.

That's not how taxes in the US work. If he sold it now he'd only be able to take the loss on his 2022 taxes, and even then he better hope he has a lot of gains or else he'll need to carryover the loss.

You're obviously unfamiliar with corporate loss carry back.

Anyone buying an NFT for $2.9M is almost certainly doing so as a business.

Post reply on HN