201–210 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's not a wash trade.. it was just a publicity stunt. I know the guy who did it!
I suspect that the guy who did it now owes the IRS a large commission in the form of taxes.
haha that’s a meme in crypto space about being that guy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they are the new baseball cards.
Please stop with this ridiculous comparison. I can hold a baseball card. I can look at it. I can put it on a binder. It's an object of appreciation, like a painting I hang on the wall. It is tangible. NFTs are nothing but an empty concept which seduces programmers with a weak grasp on reality. It's fairy dust, or an eunuch's cum. NFTs are magical thinking, occultism for programmers.
I'm very surprised that those (the JSON and the picture) are not stored in a decentralised way e.g. IPFS or Swarm. So if I buy an expensive NFT, and the domain goes down, the NFT is now worthless? We should be on the lookout for any of these domains expiring, then we will buy them and upload Rick Astley GIFs
Not all are doing it the wrong way.
But some are definitely doing unnecessarily centralized things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like this $500,000,000 flash loan backed wash trade of punk 9998. [1] [1] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/crypto-punk-500-million-sa...
that's not a wash trade.. it was just a publicity stunt. I know the guy who did it!
Whew, good thing it's not a security, otherwise it would 100% absolutely be a half billion dollar illegal wash trade, and that kind of stuff comes with time in the big house. IANAL, but stunts, amirite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that the guy who did it now owes the IRS a large commission in the form of taxes.
The tax remindooooooor haha that’s a meme in crypto space about being that guy
It’s not a good look to be on the receiving end of government benefits and services, gloating about your lack of contribution and encouraging others not to. This may look good in crypto circles but here in the real world it makes you look pretty bad, not gonna lie.
I've always wondered how those Bond villains accrued an army of employees on their remote militarized outposts helping them do crime, though I'm beginning to suspect they just slippery-sloped their way into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I might be close to getting it. But with a baseball card, I control the baseball card. Right? With the NFT, I have no control over the resource linked to from the NFT. If that server goes away, doesn't the thing that provided NFTs its value also go away? Its like if someone scratched off the photo from my baseball card, doesn't that baseball card become valueless at that point?
Continuing with the analogy you can own a rare baseball card of an all star player but many other people also own it. With NFT there is (usually) one and only one owner so it’s like there is only one card that have been produced. For instance check what they did with the NBA and dunks. They are selling short videos of every dunk. So there is only one possible owner of a dunk sold. That’s it. So only one guy own the o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I might be close to getting it. But with a baseball card, I control the baseball card. Right? With the NFT, I have no control over the resource linked to from the NFT. If that server goes away, doesn't the thing that provided NFTs its value also go away? Its like if someone scratched off the photo from my baseball card, doesn't that baseball card become valueless at that point?
NFT and baseball cards are both pointers: they point to something you don't control. You control the pointer, not the thing they point to. So if we can agree that the card has value because "it's about Honus Wagner", and not really about the picture on the card, then NFT's and those cards are very similar. But on the other hand, you could indeed claim that the card has value because of the picture itself. But I still…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please stop with this ridiculous comparison. I can hold a baseball card. I can look at it. I can put it on a binder. It's an object of appreciation, like a painting I hang on the wall. It is tangible. NFTs are nothing but an empty concept which seduces programmers with a weak grasp on reality. It's fairy dust, or an eunuch's cum. NFTs are magical thinking, occultism for programmers.
But it is an apt comparison. NFTs collectibles are a subset of the NFT technology use, and are similar to trading cards. There are two generations of people that don’t care about holding something to determine value so how is that a line in the sand.
Only a subset of people purchase baseball cards (or any collectible for that matter) exclusive as an investment, and even if I bought Action Comics #1 mostly due to its monetary value, it is not just a token, it is an actual artistic object that can be appreciated for it's intrinsic and historical qualities.
Does the same can be said about NFTs? I don't even know what an NFT is, objectively. A string of bytes? If so, does people appreciate its binary code or whatever? Whatta fuck is it? A virtual contract that states you own real state on the third moon of a planet that does not exist?
No, collectibles are not an apt comparison, and this argument only serves to show how its proponents are detached from reality...
Besides, even the generations you mention usually purchase things that can be artistically appreciated somehow. If I purchase a Fortnite skin, I'm purchasing the ability of having that skin applied to my character. It is something I enjoy looking at, having the knowledge that others can look at it as well. I cannot hold it in my hands, but it has some kind of existence. NFTs are not like that at all. They're like contacts in which the only guarantee is the payment one can collect.
But I suppose even programmers need a mysticism...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ownership of the underlying asset depends on what you understand by ownership. Only in the sense that equally anyone can claim ownership of anything. It's just noise rather than a substantial point.
Anyone can claim ownership of anything, NFT or not. That's why there are lawsuits over ownership of property and wars over disputed territories. NFT ownership concerns those who engage in the community, just like Bitcoin concerns those who are engaged with it. What is Bitcoin after all? A transaction record in a distributed ledger. Exactly the same thing as NFT. It exists only because someone said so in a community t…
NFTs don't just get to sit aside from society though. Both as a community and in terms of redefining things like ownership. As we can see in this very conversation.
In some cases NFTs actively embrace regular ownership models. For example Meebits where they very pointedly do not give you ownership of the art, it explicitly remains the property of Larva Labs LLC. And in fact your rights to the use of their IP with the Meebits you buy are extremely limited. Similar is true of cryptopunks.
This has been a fun conversation and you make some interesting points but I'm done for now.
>ERC-721 is the standard that dictates how one should create an NFT. Each ERC721 NFT must have a tokenURI field, that is an external link to a JSON file stored on an external server ... You can notice the image field, which is a link to an image. Not just a link, a link to a link! And when that server goes down next year, all those JSON files will vanish.
Does it also store a hash of the content? What if the content at the URI changes?