What prevents someone from creating another NFT platform for tweets and do the same thing? The tweet is only unique on the Cent Valuables platform, not on the blockchain itself. Or am I missing something?
Nothing, you are missing nothing.
NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
611–620 of 786 posts
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#612Earlier quoted context omitted.
paintings might be limited in supply, but trading cards are easily mass produced.
They are easily mass produced, but the companies still limit the supply specifically so there is value for collectors
But the same dynamic exists with NFTs. The issuers can limit supply to ensure value for collectors.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the other proof of ownership? NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.
My point is, that states have monopolized property transfers and there's all sorts of weird and arcane laws and practice around how you transfer property- especially real estate- and convincing the state to recognize an NFT as evidence of anything is going to be a real challenge. ex, if the law requires an actual notarized handwritten signature to transfer ownership, what you and I do on the blockchain will simply no…
Blockchains are a shortcut to social consensus, not the final word. There is substantial value in the state giving credibility to a blockchain, allowing an NFT title for a house to be transferred digitally.
That value does not disappear if the state + courts also build in processes for over-ruling the on-chain owner of an object and forcibly transferring it to someone else. The core value here comes from how much easier it is to clear all of the red tape in a fully programmatic world.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even without proof of stake, it's possible to make transactions low-cost. Bitcoin is going to burn power whether or not you attach your token-tracker to it. If you design a system with thousands to millions of users that makes one bitcoin transaction per day to secure itself, then it's responsible for a pretty negligible amount of wasted power.
> Even without proof of stake, it's possible to make transactions low-cost. only at the cost of reversibility. the central thesis of proof of work is that an attacker must expend more energy than the "main" chain, across the duration of time they want to be able to reverse a transaction (older transactions require more time). The amount of energy expended is determined by mining rewards - over time, mining profit wil…
That's a perfectly fine analysis for a standalone network, but that's not what you'd want to use.
If you tie into bitcoin or ethereum once per day, you get the full security while only being responsible for about a millionth of the power use.
That means your NFT trades will only be 100% locked in once a day instead of continuously, but that's plenty.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hoping we can do our NFT trading on non-PoW chains within the next couple years. This should reduce the environmental impact to that of baseball cards.
I've seen a bunch of artists jump on https://www.hicetnunc.xyz (which uses Tezos, which apparently is a Proof-of-Stake chain?) after the "wait, ETH uses how much energy?!" shock.
It is LPoS. It means you're able to delegate your validation rights. So you don't need to run a node to participate in the staking process, you just delegate to a baker. And It's self amending. Every 3-4 months a proposal with upgrades will undergo a voting phase. All bakers are able to vote on this to accept or reject the proposal. The source code is written in a purely functional language on which formal verification is applied.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think of it as a certificate of authenticity. If it's not made/endorsed by the artist it's not worth anything.
Exactly. What would you say if I told you I have a famous painting and a certificate of authenticity and am willing to sell you the certificate for $$$ and keep the painting?
What if it's a digital painting where all copies are identical? The certificate basically is the ownership.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#617NFTs are 21st century Dadaism.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's say I buy a NTF $1000 and get a digital copy, what prevents me (barring legalities) to perfectly duplicate it and massively redistribute it (not the token, the distributed supposedly high quality file) for a fraction of $$$ and turn a profit The file is usually publicly accessible, why would anyone give you money for something they can just download?
Some rich dude has bought the "first tweet" for $2.5 million, despite the fact that it's publicly accessible [0]. I imagine it's about showing off how rich they are. They could achieve the same result by throwing $2.5 million into a furnace. https://twitter.com/jack/status/20
There's no social validation in throwing $2.5 million into a furnace. Spending $2.5 million on a tweet means you are validating everyone who believes that NFT's are real and an industry with a promising future. Especially in an environment where these objects are so hyped and driving a lot of venture capital investment, participating has large social benefits.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. What would you say if I told you I have a famous painting and a certificate of authenticity and am willing to sell you the certificate for $$$ and keep the painting?
What if it's a digital painting where all copies are identical? The certificate basically is the ownership.
Suppose I own a game on steam. I pay a friend to write me a certificate saying whoever owns the certificate owns the game. I sell you the certificate. You pirate the game. Do you own it?
If the NFT doesn't come with conventional legal rights, you don't own the thing the NFT points to in the real legal system. If it does, it's redundant.
Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
The buyer gets to own not the tweet but a "digital certificate of the tweet" which is the actual NFT thing. So what they buy is a certificate although I'm not sure what it certifies.
It certifies two things: 1. That you paid a certain amount for the certificate. 2. That there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). Pretty much exactly like owning a baseball card, then.
But this would only make it unique on the CENT blockchain, no? What if another blockchain becomes the standard offerer, wouldn't that devalue everything on the CENT blockchain? Further, wouldn't we expect multiple blockchains to be competing to become the "primary" chain in which these items are deemed valuable, i.e. CENT and blockchain A & B & C trying to be the medium which holds a unique cert to Jack's first tweet. Jack's first tweet has a unique copy on each blockchain, but being that each chain has it's own NFT of jack's tweet, the digital certificate of the tweet is not necessarily unique. Or is twitter supposed to maintain their own blockchain that creates NFTs for each of their tweets and users are going to assign the most value to this chain since it's maintained by the company itself?
Further, I don't understand how this works in music/art. Grimes' copy of her music is issued on Nifty Gateway, but isn't that art only valuable as long as users assign value to the Nifty Gateway platform? What stops another art blockchain from becoming more desirable/valuable and creating a NFT of Grimes' art there? Doesn't that erode the value of the original NFTs?
What am I missing here?