Benefit of the hindsight
-
Solana and Ethereum are both centralized scams that have been going down vs Bitcoin for the last year, despite the bull market.
Scams with ETFs regulated by the government, audited by the government through MANY lawsuits, multiple bills being proposed to regulate the indusy.... so scammy right? Legit products. Both of them. Centralization isn't a make or break for any crypto really, they don't have to be decentralized to be a valid product.
And price doesn't matter at all, not sure why you even mention it. It bears nothing on the conversation at all.
-
Honestly provides basically no benefits that existing token systems don't already handle. Games have been tracking completely unique items as commodities in a large market for a long time - the only benefit new to NFT was decentralization, which basically nobody peddling them understands anyway.
The only thing it opens up is that as a game developer I can make a contract that turns NFT items from another game into NFT items of my game. Like HyperDragons that you level up by feeding them CryptoKitties, without consent or approval from CryptoKitties devs.
But why on earth, as a game developer, would you ever do that... Well, other than as a PR stunt.
-
Beanie babies were beanie babies for millennials. I still have some.
Sure, but millennials weren't the generation that brought us things like this. They thought they could horde them to fund their kids college. I know firsthand, my mom spent hundreds of thousands on them claiming they would only go up. Now she's got nothing. God forbid she buy a fucking savings bond.
-
Uh oh, you've offended the people who are prone to falling for scams and grifts. Across multiple generations.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I think it's also the younger users here don't know/remember the time when all Boomers flipped their shit and thought Beanie Babies were THE ONE TRUE investment strategy. They didn't watch their parents blow their entire retirement fund on a scam. Instead they were the ones that actually got to play with them, so naturally they look back on them fondly.
-
Near the peak of the NFT craze I was gifted (as part of an initial mint) an NFT, which I turned around and immediately sold for $3k. Last I looked it was worth about $200. That's the extent of my experience with NFTs.
Still surprised it's worth $200. I thought it'd be worth a few cents or maybe a few dollars at most
-
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.
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that's very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I've searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn't look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn't be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
-
Bitcoin is currently at all time highs
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Whats your point?
-
This post did not contain any content.
When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I'll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn't mean shit, it's just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I had too much money once. I bought some nft Reddit avatars for like 2k and it is still there somewhere but I am too lazy to even check on that
It’s somewhere there some kind of nft safe they have or something like that. It’s all very clunky.
I think I had to note down some access code at some point or something like that, it’s all too tiring to remember and unclear if there is anything you can do with it
-
How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is "yes". It's always "yes".
The only question is, can you hold the tiger's tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren't the last one holding it.wrote on last edited by [email protected]Scam or not some of them are very useful to pay for some not so legal things
Investing in currency is already dumb, in cryptocurrency? Doubly so
-
Unfortunately for them that ship has sailed. It's not hard to get in on a scam like this of you do it early enough, i probably would have done it if i had enough money when this started (don't judge, much, money is important when you don't have it) and i probably would have gotten out like a bandit. Now though, it's mostly targeting them.
Nobody is going to judge a cute and awkward baby trans girl needing cash on my watch. That’s for sure.
-
Sounds to me like you never read the Bitcoin whitepaper.
People don't care because crypto is literally a made up thing.
Sure, people make money off of it. But people make money off loads of things. That doesn't change that it's literally a made up currency that has tons of people scamming the shit out of people for a quick buck.
-
I used to work in Tech back in the late 90s, during the first bubble and up to the Tech Crash. I also worked in both Investment Finance and Tech Startups much more recently.
I can't even begin to describe just how angry, disgusted and dissapointed this unholly intersection between Tech and Hyperspeculative-Finance of the XXI century makes me.
The whole spirit in pretty much the entire domain of Tech back in the 90s was completely different from this neverending bottomless swamp of crap we have in the supposedly innovative parts of Tech.
Ever since the sleazy slimeballs who saw from the first Tech bubble that there were massive opportunities to use Tech-mumbu-jumbo to extract money from suckers started (immediatly after the Crash) trying to pump the Net bubble back up (they even called it Web 2.0) that the old spirit of innovation for the sake of improving things of the old days in Tech was crushed and replaced by the most scammy, fraudulent, naked greed imaginable.
After my time in Finance (which, curiously, also involved a Crash in the Industry I was working in) I started describing Tech Startups as "The Even Wilder Wild West of Speculative Finance".
Fuck. Yup. I was working in industrial automation in the late 90s, and then transitioned to network engineering at a global scale. Around 2000, the entire vibe seemed to shift. I walked out just before 9/11 and am so glad to be in an entirely different industry now.
-
Did we make fun of bitcoin? It was a cool currency for buying drugs on the black market at first.
I made fun of it immediately, despite also recognizing and using its ability to facilitate online purchases of contraband.
-
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that's very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I've searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn't look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn't be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
That's security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there's nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
-
And why do I need a Blockchain for that?
I could host my own ticket shop where tickets are only possible to check in if you have a passport and trading is impossible since it is bound to the person who bought it.
And trading can be made possible with the same platform that sells the tickets
Sure you can, but then we basically create the same situation as with Ticketmasters, all tickets will then eventually flow through your company and you can change policies again and we will end up with the same problems. With a blockchain solution (doesn't have to be blockchain for NFT's though) this platform can be decentralized and self managed, the rules are baked into the protocol, it can only be changed with the majority of voting rights. It basically enables the infrastructure for artists to control ticket sales (and reading at the gate) themselves, without having to use an agency. In your scenario, they would still need an agency.
-
That's security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there's nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It's a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
You're falling for the classic paradox of security: it has to work for someone. OF COURSE if you get all of the keys and every detail of the process you can crack it. That's true of ALL CRYPTOGRAPHY. If someone knows everything including the keys, it's too late for any 'secure' device.
-
The blockchain is distributed.
For example, you might use it as a trademark registry or to certify a chain of legal evidence. You can validate a presented copy matches the original and what the chain of ownership was. And you can do this without the single point of failure of a nationwide database
Who holds and validates the original you're comparing to?
-
No, it is not security through obscurity. It's a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
You're falling for the classic paradox of security: it has to work for someone. OF COURSE if you get all of the keys and every detail of the process you can crack it. That's true of ALL CRYPTOGRAPHY. If someone knows everything including the keys, it's too late for any 'secure' device.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
Yes it is. The scheme is that when you take a picture, the camera signs said picture. The key is stored somewhere in the camera. Hence the secrecy of the key hinges on the the attacker not knowing how the camera accesses the key. Once the attacker knows that, they can get the key from the camera. Therefore, security hinges on the secrecy of the camera design/protocol used by the camera to access the key, in addition to the secrecy of the key. Therefore, it is security by obscurity.
-
Who holds and validates the original you're comparing to?
That’s the point, a use case where no one has to. It’s only the record of ownership.
And clearly you’d still need to make arrangements to prevent multiple chains of ownership for a copied artifact
NFTs make the mistake of assuming that somehow makes it unique, forgetting you can just copy the original. However these use cases work from the opposite direction: given an accused infringement, does that match?
Consider the current use case for trademark. Someone creates a trademark and registers with an authority. At some point they may renew modify, or sell. After some time, that authority has a database containing the original and a chain of ownership. Blockchain could serve this identically, with the potential advantage of the chain being self contained and distributable
