Benefit of the hindsight
-
At least beanie babies were a toy a child could play with.
Noooo! They'd lose value! (they'd go from 2 to 1.5 dollars)
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Had thoughts like that before, someone pointed that it already exists and is called C2PA - no blockchain necessary. It's not yet widespread, though.
As for NFT, when it came out I had thoughts that it could be used for completely transparent and automated businesses. Something like an AirBnB with a digital lock on the front door and you could buy an NFT for a daily stay that you could use to unlock said lock. But then if there's only one company that accepts said NFT's then there's zero reason for it to be on blockchain, they can just send you the code, and if they scam you there's no use for either NFT or the code. There could be real estate ownership certificates, but then again, there would always be only one authority issuing them - zero reason for blockchain. There could be like crowdfunding NFT, but then again, there could only one party managing the funds. There were tons of ideas for practical usage of NFT's, but all of them hinge on there being some party linking the zero-trust crypto and the real world, and if there's only a single trusted party then it always makes more sense for that party to deploy a normal database in place of blockchain and just provide an API endpoint to verify ownership.
EDIT: Fixed wrong link
-
For real cash ofc.
Gonna need a bank loan, naturally.
-
Trusted, cryptographic timestamps exist, and have for some time. NFTs don't add anything new.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Okay good. I thought it would, just didn't know any specifically. I wasn't trying to suggest a public blockchain would be the only solution or even the best of multiple solutions, only that they needed to consider more angles beyond just making a hash.
-
"Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place."
Aaaaand now I have that flute part stuck in my head again
-
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
Beanie babies were beanie babies for millennials. I still have some.
-
Don't forget Funko pops
A plague upon humanity.
-
Noooo! They'd lose value! (they'd go from 2 to 1.5 dollars)
Well, that's why you get the tag protectors!
-
If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it
This is such a funny thing to say since NFTs were all about "owning" stuff on the blockchain.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Indeed. The blockchain provides no media hosting, no enforcement, I guess. It can mark something as owned (and require their private key to decrypt or whatever), but ultimately that ownership is as beholden to reality (read: arbitrary purseholders) as any other system. It’s just a record.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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. -
"Bruh", your problem is exactly that in your mind it's all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you "rights" that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It's like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It's the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such "certificates" is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those "certificates" to.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say shit about "rights" and "respect". The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You're bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I "read on a website" about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a
tokenshort string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that's it. All of these ideas of "ownership" and "rights" and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation. -
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.
I had an idea sort of like that - media for your camera or cell-camera that was write once, could not be erased or changed, did not forget (you know ssd's and thumb drives forget as the stranded charge leaks away) - Each picture cryptographically signed with GPS and date and time and author/photographer.
-
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.
The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.
If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they'd sign it and say "yes it's authentic".
Now maybe you can say "Canon genuine" to say it's not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.
Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it's of limited use.
Traditional signing is enough to say "If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed", no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.
-
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say shit about "rights" and "respect". The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You're bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I "read on a website" about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a
tokenshort string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that's it. All of these ideas of "ownership" and "rights" and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.As per another poster higher up this thread:
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.
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very "curious" cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated "bullshit".
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to "contribute to the artist" no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn't support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
Seriously, what is your endgame here?
-
This is correct.
This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.
The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.
If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.
You don't have to stage a scene, you can use modern displays, optics, and sensors to inject 'digital' strategies into the 'analog' approach.
-
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
Uh oh, you've offended the people who are prone to falling for scams and grifts. Across multiple generations.
-
This post did not contain any content.
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.
Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: "selling their book" as they say in Finance.
People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the "investment" assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.
Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers' talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, "the grifters grift" - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.
-
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.can you hold the tiger’s tail just long enough
The answer to this is also usually "no" because the people who set up the scamcoin usually don't like to leave things to chance and have a plan for when to time their rug-pull.
Trying to get in on these grifts is like spotting a bank-robbery in-progress and trying to join the crew and get paid. Sure it can happen, but you're not exactly playing with the best odds of success.
-
When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded
wrote on last edited by [email protected]My one regret is that I will never be able to find all the really stubborn, dimwitted assholes on reddit who were screaming bloody death-threats at me for warning people that NFT's were a scam, and be able to just verbally ream them out, fucking rub their faces in their own shit.
I bet some of them are out there, reading this maybe, maybe they even recognize me.
If so... hi. How you doin?
-
This post did not contain any content.
You know, I feel bad for the people who were conned by the Super Bowl commercials. Celebs added legitimacy to the con. Everyone else who actually got into it because of whatever other reason, I don't give a fuck about. And SBF? Fuck that guy. I'm glad he's in prison. (I know he was selling a crypto-currency, not NFTs. Don't correct me.)
Oh, and the late night guy and the celeb blond lady who had an awkward conversation about it (was it the hotel sex tape lady?) can also fuck right off. Someone paid them to shill and they went for it. Assholes.
But, all that being said, I'll sell you a jpeg for $1000. Or two for $1999.
Edit: Paris Hilton, don't @ me.
Edit: missing "the"
