Benefit of the hindsight
-
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork.
️I don't see how it's much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
You didnd't purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven't figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
-
Explain to me one such benefit please
For you as a user, this example can be interesting: event tickets.
Today, the market is dominated by companies like Ticketmasters and scalpers. Artists have very little control over their ticket price. Here in The Netherlands, some prominent artists started using GET to issue their event tickets on (these are technically NFTs). This gives them the assurance that the audience pays a fair price for the tickets and that scalpers cannot trade it for a higher price. Both the audience and the artist are better of using this technology, than issuing their tickets via Ticketmasters.
https://guts.tickets/
E.g. Dutch article with prominent artists starting sales via GUTS in 2018, and they still use that platform today: https://www.parool.nl/kunst-media/jochem-myjer-en-youp-van-t-hek-pakken-ticketfraude-aan~bc419f5c/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F -
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
-
Bitcoin is still fucking shit. That just amounts to "I wish I was there first in this this pyramid scheme". It doesn't change what it is.
Sure, never said otherwise, so you can see how someone could theoretically think maybe nft is the next bitcoin and want to get in early.
-
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
Iain M. Banks had a similar idea in The Player of Games. In the book AI is so realistic that all real photos and videos have to be logged and timestamped for authenticity.
-
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
There's not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry
-
I initially thought they were like numbered art prints, with a more robust way of guaranteeing authenticity.
That was the marketing hype.
They were actually selling numbered receipts of art prints.
-
"Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place."
For real cash ofc.
-
My first wife was tarded. She's a pilot now.
She pilots the Tardis.
-
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
Yeah. Crypto bros ruined crypto with their greed.
Crypto is still really cool but now when people read that word they just think scam. So it's never going to happen
-
You didnd't purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven't figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn't "purchase my photos"? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
-
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.
-
And time travel! But you have to drive real slow for it to work
Joke's on you: I constantly time travel for free!
Granted, it's always in the same direction and at the same rate of time change, but no fancy bridges are required.
-
With your scheme you can't prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can't be extracted from the camera.
Trusted, cryptographic timestamps exist, and have for some time. NFTs don't add anything new.
-
I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I'm sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.
Every ticket scheme for NFTs fails because of a simple reason: contract law. Venues don't stick with TicketMaster because they like it. TicketMaster's store front doesn't have any magic technology; a room of overcaffinated fresh CS grads could recreate it in a weekend of binge coding.
Venues stick with TicketMaster because they are contractually obliged to do so. NFTs do not and cannot change that legal reality.
-
This post did not contain any content.
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
-
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn't "purchase my photos"? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
It's having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That's the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere "ownership certificate" which is not legally recognized is "ownership" is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with "magical" bytes instead of "magical" words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can't understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An "ownership stamp", no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that "ownership stamp" and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it's you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That's the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a "certificate of ownership", it's there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it's some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen "logic"
-
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
Millenials had beanie babied wut
-
It's having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That's the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere "ownership certificate" which is not legally recognized is "ownership" is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with "magical" bytes instead of "magical" words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can't understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An "ownership stamp", no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that "ownership stamp" and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it's you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That's the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a "certificate of ownership", it's there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it's some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen "logic"
bruh it's really not that difficult. Fan sends money to artist. Fan receives some magical bytes in return. Could fan have right clicked and downloaded the artwork without paying? Of course. But fan wants to support artist. Because fan likes artist's art. It's how any digital "marketplace" works, NFT or not. All this "legal system" and "ownership" and "legal registrar" nonsense you're pulling up is completely irrelevant. You're reading too much into it.
-
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork.
️I don't see how it's much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
yeah exactly I still haven't heard a single explanation of what makes NFTs a "scam". People just shout that word and expect you to accept it. Seriously, which part of a consensual transaction between two well-informed parties qualifies as a "scam"?
