21–30 of 54 posts
That surprised, me I thought the whole point of these smart contracts were that everyone could see them like the transactions that take place.
The submission title does not specify who can take anybody's tokens. Anyone who reads the article can see that the author claims that Open Sea administrators can seize anybody's tokens, and questions whether it is legal for them to retain this ability. This is much more of a nuanced situation than "omg open sea has a backdoor all your nfts are belong to us". The author also says that they will write more about this in a follow-up post.
I believe the author is correct. This is behaviour pertinent to Open Sea's ERC1155 contract (called the Open Sea Shared Storefront), and not their marketplace as a whole.
The Shared Storefront is OpenSea's proprietary NFT contract that artists can use to create for free on. OpenSea will allow you to create NFTs for free using their centralized servers as a temporary backend and they only get minted on-chain if they sell. It's understood that the Shared Storefront is controlled by OpenSea. While it's a nice feature for beginner artists it is also frequently abused by scams and copyrigh…
What makes a 'high quality' NFT, in your opinion or experience?
This is a bad title on the HN submission. I suspect the title is intentionally designed to capture people's attention and mislead them. The article title is much better: Does OpenSea Shared Storefront have a backdoor? The submission title does not specify who can take anybody's tokens. Anyone who reads the article can see that the author claims that Open Sea administrators can seize anybody's tokens, and questions wh…
That actually is how I first read it. Not saying that doesn't make this a bad thing, but the HN title should really be reverted to the article title.
I find it really weird that they had to decompile the smart contract. That surprised, me I thought the whole point of these smart contracts were that everyone could see them like the transactions that take place.
There has been a move toward centralization in the NFT space with Opensea and Magiceden marketplaces completely dominating the space, largely to the detriment of projects and / or users. One recent example: project royalties are now optional, so projects relying on these royalties from sales have had the rug pulled out from under them. I expect we'll start to see some backlash where major new NFT projects build more…
Given this, it must be asked how NFTs are in any way different from the traditional art markets for the artists themselves.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/02/whats-going-on-with-nft-ro...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is low-effort bait like this being upvoted? Do people seriously want to have another off-topic flame war? It's like people are compelled to upvote generic sarcasm. Extremely disappointing.
Because it is accurate
I was glad to see it flagged and dead after my comment, but then someone even vouched for it. Like it's such an important comment that it needs to be heard. Even the premise is questionable (does quality presuppose it is moral?) but it's obvious what the parent means and commenting on it is just bait.
The Shared Storefront is OpenSea's proprietary NFT contract that artists can use to create for free on. OpenSea will allow you to create NFTs for free using their centralized servers as a temporary backend and they only get minted on-chain if they sell. It's understood that the Shared Storefront is controlled by OpenSea. While it's a nice feature for beginner artists it is also frequently abused by scams and copyrigh…
What makes a 'high quality' NFT, in your opinion or experience?