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

At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 253 posts

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#181

Post by hnthrow1010 »

colinsane wrote: post #180
hnthrow1010 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what you're leaving out is that they work just fine without blockchains. The addition of blockchains just makes them worse.

earlier you said blockchains cannot do these things. now you’re saying that blockchains aren’t the best for these tasks. pick one or the other and stick to it. don’t confuse things by claiming one point and then going on to argue a different point.

Blockchains indeed cannot do that, those things are added on separately, they exist independently of blockchains, and have uses outside of it. If this is hard to understand, let me illustrate with a more clear example. Some blockchains have smart contracts, and you can technically write a game of chess into a smart contract. This does not mean that it is accurate or meaningful to say "blockchains can play chess" or "chess is a feature of blockchains" or something like that. Even if blockchains became totally unpopular for everything else, and were only used to play chess, it would still not be accurate as the idea of a blockchain still would not actually include the ability to play chess. It is about as accurate as saying "chess is a feature of tables". Also, it would be pretty horrible to play that way and blockchain gaming is a total disaster, so I doubt that would happen.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#182

Post by el-salvador »

kgwgk wrote: post #122
dhosek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

San Salvador is a different country from El Salvador, just for the record.

San Salvador is not a country - it’s a city. The capital of El Salvador.

Yup! That's correct.

I would say that being able to differentiate between El Salvador, Salvador and San Salvador is a shibboleth for those familiar with El Salvador. They are easy to confuse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#183

Post by gkoberger »

Gigachad wrote: post #178
gkoberger wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so they don't actually already do it, but they could do it. How would you keep track of who currently has ownership? How do you make sure I don't sell ownership to 5 people, or keep using it myself? Do I need to hire a lawyer each time? Yes, this can be done without the blockchain. But also, does it matter to you if the code is in SQL or the blockchain? The blockchain is just a technology. (I do think the envir…

Ultimately these are problems that just do not need solving. There is no real world use case to sell and transfer ownership of a stock photo multiple times.

Will it save lives? No.

But experimenting with copyright law is fascinating. It’s like saying, 20 years ago, that concepts like Creative Commons solves no real world use case.

I don’t think 5 years from now BAYC will matter. I do think, however, experimentation with intellectual property, copyright and ownership will.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#184

Post by taylorius »

raylad wrote: post #16
choward wrote: post #15

> Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his restaurant. Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.

That actually doesn't apply to Bored Apes. With those NFTs you get copyright ownership of the image.

What use is the copyright ownership? Does anyone have any interest in the images, other than their speculative "value" as an NFT? I can't imagine anyone being able to (for example) sell posters or prints of a bored ape. Or is my imagination simply lacking?

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#186

Post by hnthrow1010 »

EL_Loco wrote: post #167
outworlder wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fast Not fast. Most cryptocurrencies have unbearably slow transaction or confirmation times. Maybe if you are buying a car, they will be confirmed by the time the paperwork is done. Even with initiatives like the lightning network, it's still slow. So much so that some of the major exchanges will tally your transactions off-chain, to be confirmed later. > cheap It really isn't. Be it gas fees or computational power…

I'll agree with anyone saying that this NFT craze is idiotic, and that most cryptocurrencies don't have any utility, but to say that crypto isn't fast, cheap or secure is like saying 90's internet couldn't have webpages with pictures because gopher couldn't have pictures. I send money to my sister from my algorand wallet to hers in one second (literally), any amount for something like $0.0001. I'm not well versed eno…

>Right now it's by far the best method to send money accross the globe.

No it is not. In banking and in payments, security typically means that there are guarantees your money will not suddenly disappear or get stolen by hacks and fraud, which cryptocurrencies have zero guarantees against. In fact, it is extremely likely that at some point your money will disappear, because the value of these coins is extremely manipulated. And that is not even getting into the huge number of defi hacks, rug pulls and bankruptcies that have happened recently.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#187

Post by nkrisc »

gkoberger wrote: post #23

I dislike crypto, especially NFTs. But here's my best attempt at understanding. BAYC transfers ownership of IP for the ape you've bought. It's not just a picture of the ape on OpenSean; you can use it. There's something really fascinating about this. It's one character, but it's also broadly part of the larger ecosystem. We're so used to, say, Disney owning IP. But what if you could spend $300k and have a restaurant…

At least Mickey Mouse has some cultural significance. Does anyone give a shit about these ape cartoons beyond the fact they’re NFTs?

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#188

Post by colinsane »

hnthrow1010 wrote: post #181
colinsane wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

earlier you said blockchains cannot do these things. now you’re saying that blockchains aren’t the best for these tasks. pick one or the other and stick to it. don’t confuse things by claiming one point and then going on to argue a different point.

Blockchains indeed cannot do that, those things are added on separately, they exist independently of blockchains, and have uses outside of it. If this is hard to understand, let me illustrate with a more clear example. Some blockchains have smart contracts, and you can technically write a game of chess into a smart contract. This does not mean that it is accurate or meaningful to say "blockchains can play chess" or "…

this is a fun game of pedantics, isn’t it.

> It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way.

even in the comment you just wrote, you’re still arguing a different point than what you originally said. this time you’ve shifted from “cannot be used to do” to “cannot do”.

there are interesting discussions to be had (why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-preserving coins before blockchains? what are the better ways of achieving such global systems, and solving double-spend/consensus than blockchain, today?). but it’s impossible to have those discussions if you keep claiming one thing and then arguing the other thing.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#189

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

bredren wrote: post #146
nikanj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully anonymous global ransomware would be really hard without cryptos. Monetizing hacked boxes would be much tougher if you could not turn them into Monero miners.

So would dark markets. Dark markets are described as a small piece of the pie for LE. But P2P music sharing / digital music sales was also that way until they couldn't be ignored and ultimately destroyed traditional music distribution. There is a reason big, reliable markets get shut down and it isn't all exit scams. It's because they're incredibly successful and they would not be so without crypto. The ransomware ma…

> But P2P music sharing / digital music sales was also that way until they couldn't be ignored and ultimately destroyed traditional music distribution.

Traditional music distribution was buying an easily damaged CD for $20 a pop (in 90's dollars). We would have moved to digital distribution anyway, P2P was just a catalyst.

Re: At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now

#190

Post by hnthrow1010 »

colinsane wrote: post #188
hnthrow1010 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchains indeed cannot do that, those things are added on separately, they exist independently of blockchains, and have uses outside of it. If this is hard to understand, let me illustrate with a more clear example. Some blockchains have smart contracts, and you can technically write a game of chess into a smart contract. This does not mean that it is accurate or meaningful to say "blockchains can play chess" or "…

this is a fun game of pedantics, isn’t it. > It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. even in the comment you just wrote, you’re still arguing a different point than what you originally said. this time you’ve shifted from “cannot be used to do” to “cannot do”. there are interesting discussions to be had (why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-pre…

>even in the comment you just wrote, you’re still arguing a different point than what you originally said. this time you’ve shifted from “cannot be used to do” to “cannot do”.

I think it is clear enough that I meant the same thing. If that wasn't clear, you can ask for further clarification. There is no need to make this into a pedantic game.

>but it’s impossible to have those discussions if you keep claiming one thing and then arguing the other thing.

No, it is not? Why would it be? In fact I will have those discussions with you now.

>why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-preserving coins before blockchains?

We don't have those with blockchains either. They are not permissionless nor are they privacy preserving except under some very extreme and impractical circumstances. You can have your permission to use a blockchain revoked if all the miners/validators reach consensus on blacklisting your wallet. Also, all public blockchains have no privacy by default as all the data is public.

>what are the better ways of achieving such global systems, and solving double-spend/consensus than blockchain, today?

Basically anything else, because blockchains do not actually "solve" consensus. The "consensus" is done simply by paying off the participants in increasing numbers as an incentive to stop them from bad behavior, it has nothing to do with the actual blockchain itself. They are able to "solve" double spend in a very contrived way, at the expense of being able to solve any other problem that might befall the network. The traditional way to solve double spend is to use good old fashioned accounting, it doesn't have that same constraint.

Post reply on HN