571–580 of 636 posts
> #2: NFTs prove neither ownership nor uniqueness NFTs can prove current possession, it's not about legal ownership of the art. Colloquially this is called ownership, which is why we say ownership. Surprising how complicated this is for people, when the user experience doesn't have any ambiguity about it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't silly to order Pizza over the internet. In fact, it was maybe the first example of a web order form on the world wide web [0]. And this is after the existing 20-year widespread success of pizza delivery by phone. I don't know why so many people willfully ignore history here. [0] https://seclists.org/interesting-people/1994/Aug/57
This is like saying it wasn't silly to order pizza using bitcoin 10 years ago. Obviously you can find examples of people doing it and people praising them for it, but it was clearly not the general feeling of the public at the time, just like it isn't the general feeling of the public with cryptos now.
The difference is that online ordering was useful: it was easier, saved time, and businesses loved that it was cheaper, reduced errors, and avoided needing to pay people in phone banks to avoid busy signals. If you built things on the web, you had clients beating down your door from all kinds of businesses because they and their customers saw immediate benefits from adopting it.
In contrast, that Bitcoin pizza buyer was going against the grain of a deflationary currency — they paid a processing fee to use a more difficult, slower process to order a pizza and the deflationary model means that they were taking a long-term loss versus holding it — and a decade later, the vast majority of people still have no benefit to using a cryptocurrency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you read my comment? AMM's were impossible without blockchain. I did. Let's see: Me: "no one can provide even a single one that... isn't relying on circular references" --- start quote --- The most basic to me is the Automatic Market Maker system. For example Uniswap is a system with only a few (relatively speaking) lines of a code at its core and a team of a couple of dozen. --- end quote --- Oh, look. A thing…
So if Goldman Sachs ran an AMM for stock trading then that would make it all legitimate?
Stock trading is actually not that far removed from trading fictional coins: it's almost pure speculation that has little basis in reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The blockchain facilities standardised transfer across a decentralised medium. It hasn't. It standardised the transfer of otherwise meaningless numbers, that's true. In order for your winde order to work, a centralised, trusted party has to verify and accept those numbers, and say that, yes, they represent something meaningful to them. The same goes for every other example. "Want to trade something for an in-game w…
>> The blockchain facilities standardised transfer across a decentralised medium. >It hasn't. It standardised the transfer of otherwise meaningless numbers, that's true. Sure, but that alone can have value. The idea being that people have already built entire trading platforms around tokens, fungible or not. Somebody who wants to enable easy trading of some asset (or futures contract or whatever), hoping for improved…
Yes. It may have perceived value. I mean, people spend money on useless skins in games, and perceive those as having value.
> Especially if it is anticipated that physical settlement demands will not be especially common.
Of course, you're buying wine futures and you're hoping that no one will demand the actual physical settlement of, you know, delivering you the actual wine. Sure. That's what NFT scam is all about.
> It might be simpler to get your single-vineyard wine futures up and running on crypto than trying to get it listed as a new contract type in a traditional futures exchange.
Call me when
1. might becomes is, and
2. it actually requires blockchain, and
3. has any applicability on the real world (like enforcement of contracts)
> Obviously settlement for physical goods is a centralized processes (or possibly a somewhat decentralized process relying on courts and contracts). This is equally true for any exchange, crypto-based or not.
Your so close to getting it.
> like people in countries with failing economies
I wish crypto-peddlers would stop pushing this extremely stupid narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rules about the 21Million which is the only thing that matters here can't be changed. What would stop it being changed? It's been a house waiting to collapse for 12 years now. Tether has only been trading since 2015 and only prominent the last few years. Other cryptocurrencies have seen multiple bubbles and collapses. The thing that would convince me personally is that all the get-rich-quick marks and scammers le…
Why don't you tell me first what would make it possible since you seem to be privy to information no one else is. How are you going to change that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the potentially interesting idea of wallet-as-resume. IE allowing different types of access depending on what sorts of things you've done with your wallet in the past. Certainly not for all applications, but a certain level of implied competency might be appropriate in some cases.
"Service X preemptively bans me because I signed up for service Y with my wallet" sounds like the opposite of censorship resistance and decentralization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the data belongs to an individual consumer, the data must actually be deleted at the customer’s request to comply with GDPR and CCPA.
A great theory but in practice in this specific case the legal system will be forced to capitulate. Either a country has to ban all crypto mining or not enforce GDPR on chain nodes. Seems obvious which way it will land in the long run.
> #2: NFTs prove neither ownership nor uniqueness NFTs can prove current possession, it's not about legal ownership of the art. Colloquially this is called ownership, which is why we say ownership. Surprising how complicated this is for people, when the user experience doesn't have any ambiguity about it at all.
if you sell nft of your car, do I legally own your car?.. No I just own NFT that refers to your car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nobody in the commercial paper markets have heard of them You've spoken to Evergrande and friends? > to buy BTC you really first bought Tether (or USDC) and then traded your tether for BTC a minute later Nnnnno, not everyone uses sketchy and/or first-gen CEXs...
I don't think I need to explain how risky it is to buy subprime commercial paper denominated in non-US currency to back up your USD reserves. It's not like Evergrande is teetering on the verge of a massive default or anything...
Anyway, I agree with you, and hope Tether goes away soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this type of thing (to me) is always what happens when reality meets the blockchain? What is someone steals my NFT? I would expect a court would say the wine is still mine, so the NFT doesn't represent ownership any more. What is someone loses the private key to their NFT? Do we just throw the wine down the drain? Again no.
The NFT is supposed to work like a bearer bond. You have to trust the issuing entity to honor it, but beyond that, possession is 10 tenths of the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bearer_bond IIRC with wine futures you have to either collect your wine or pay for its storage, if you abandon it then at some point (per the contract) it belongs to the winery. At least with wine I think there is a lot of precedent here,…
Personally, I don't want the world to go back to "Bearer Bonds", and given they were banned I'm guessing the US government (and I imagine other countries) doesn't either. However, I'm glad to hear a basis for NFTs.