People Don't Understand NFTs
robert-chung.medium.com
People Don't Understand NFTs
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#2> Finally, here’s where Gucci & Chanel differ from CryptoPunks — and one of the main ideas of why NFTs are revolutionary: you can’t fake it.
Why not?
This seems to be a popular sticking point in the NFT crowd, but it's never really been made clear to me. There seem to be oodles of duplicate NFTs out there (much less ones based on stolen art), so why can't I just make another?
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#3Just bc people don't agree that a surprisingly shitty rendition of a pixel alien is worth $140,000,000, that doesn't mean they "don't understand NFTs", it just means their bullshit detector actually works.
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#4blockchain "baseball cards" is the best quick description I have for NFTs.
It makes less sense than that to me though. Isn't an NFT just, within a specific blockchain, claiming to 'own' or control a bit of datastream? Like a photo, or video, or object model. Except this isn't even insanity normally practiced like copyright or patents; you don't get any of those artificial 'land grab' rights. Just your name attached to the thing within that blockchain?
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#5> Finally, here’s where Gucci & Chanel differ from CryptoPunks — and one of the main ideas of why NFTs are revolutionary: you can’t fake it. Why not? This seems to be a popular sticking point in the NFT crowd, but it's never really been made clear to me. There seem to be oodles of duplicate NFTs out there (much less ones based on stolen art), so why can't I just make another?
Because the picture of Calvin peeing isn't the NFT, the NFT is a cryptographically-secure blockchain that records ownership. They exist so that people can "own" the "real copy" of data that has no reason to be scarce. And like the article says, this worthless math is indeed mostly used for cash grabs and money laundering.
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#6> Imagine the U.S government started incorporating this global ledger to account for home ownership — automatically, they have a reputable brand. Since the code itself is out in public, it can be trusted and audited. Take this idea further and imagine the UN starts to keep track of land ownership for the entire world! Same deal — brand and trust, both satisfied.
Where to even begin with this idea? First of all, many local governments in the U.S. already have public databases of who owns what land. This is a problem that can be solved with a SQLite database, it doesn't need a blockchain.
Second, controlling access to individual pieces of land through ownership is a fundamental function of capitalist states. It's even more important than coining money. Why would a government delegate that to the UN? What would the benefit be? If a state can't effectively control access to land, that's an existential threat and not something the UN's "brand" can solve for you. The potential downsides are huge for everyone involved - sorting out disputed ownership or inheritance now requires a call to Brussels or Luxembourg?
If this is supposed to be a reason why NFTs are useful rather than stupid, I still feel like I'm not getting it. That isn't to say there couldn't be valuable use cases out there.
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#7Just bc people don't agree that a surprisingly shitty rendition of a pixel alien is worth $140,000,000, that doesn't mean they "don't understand NFTs", it just means their bullshit detector actually works.
Well you see that's the whole idea, pixel alien isn't the NFT, the NFT is a cryptographically-secure blockchain that records ownership. They exist so that people can "own" the "real copy" of data that has no reason to be scarce. And like the article says, this worthless math is indeed mostly used for cash grabs and money laundering.
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#8NFTs or whatever we call them in the long run will probably be important. I started working on an Ethereum game dApp in 2017. My NFTs are actual assets in a game that also runs on-chain. By following the ERC721 standard, I don't have to build a marketplace for my game assets. Gamers can just use any marketplace they like. I'm also going to have an ERC20 token that is just the in-game currency. It doesn't have to be ERC20 but by following the standard, again, I get the benefit of being able to trade the currency using most wallets. We're definitely heading towards a new kind of ecosystem where the concept of tokens are going to play a huge role. But I think we're also still pretty early in the cycle of innovation. Exciting times imho.
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#9> Finally, here’s where Gucci & Chanel differ from CryptoPunks — and one of the main ideas of why NFTs are revolutionary: you can’t fake it. Why not? This seems to be a popular sticking point in the NFT crowd, but it's never really been made clear to me. There seem to be oodles of duplicate NFTs out there (much less ones based on stolen art), so why can't I just make another?
Because the picture of Calvin peeing isn't the NFT, the NFT is a cryptographically-secure blockchain that records ownership. They exist so that people can "own" the "real copy" of data that has no reason to be scarce. And like the article says, this worthless math is indeed mostly used for cash grabs and money laundering.
I know the picture of Calvin peeing isn't the "proof," it's just the public facing instrument.
But this still isn't satisfying: anybody can put another transaction on that same blockchain (or a different one) with another proof of ownership. So which one is the real one?
Re: People Don't Understand NFTs
#10> Finally, here’s where Gucci & Chanel differ from CryptoPunks — and one of the main ideas of why NFTs are revolutionary: you can’t fake it. Why not? This seems to be a popular sticking point in the NFT crowd, but it's never really been made clear to me. There seem to be oodles of duplicate NFTs out there (much less ones based on stolen art), so why can't I just make another?
Not only can anyone create another NFT; there's no reason the rightful ccreator can't decide they want to pretend the og NFT was "1 of N" and then create more later, diluting the value of the original.