Benefit of the hindsight
-
It's a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments' enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It's good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it's the parties with the majority of the "proof of XYZ" creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there's the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn't invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it's incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
Sounds to me like you never read the Bitcoin whitepaper.
-
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.
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla
Seems like a resurgence now, plus I’m seeing a lot more misleading videos.
This time it’s worse: all scam and manipulation.
Before there were a lot of true believers and the bubble went on too long to be just a scam
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There were enough layers in that pyramid and enough years in construction to have room for more people to make a buck.
What’s the difference between a scam and a bubble, and is the bubble more legitimate or just a bigger, longer scam?
- NFTs were a misuse of blockchain giving no real value. Plus it was very short term and really only rewarded scammers and manipulators. A true scam.
- Crypto is better thought out and actually could serve as a currency. It has a bit more staying power and even enriched a few non-scammers. Does that make it a “bubble” ?
-
This post did not contain any content.
NFTs are great, the stupid fucking pictures that everyone calls NFTs are not
-
Don't forget Funko pops
I really hate these things and can’t believe I wasted money on some my kids wanted.
But you do buy something. It’s not imaginary
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
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
-
Or you could travel at any speed.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Well not 299,792,458 meters per second. The time travel effect becomes more effective the slower you are from that
-
It's a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments' enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It's good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it's the parties with the majority of the "proof of XYZ" creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there's the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn't invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it's incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
it’s the parties with the majority of the “proof of XYZ” creation hardware. Which are not normal people.
Originally the idea was that it WOULD be normal people using their own CPU cycle time to secure the chain and mint new blocks. Even then, as long as no one party holds the majority of hash power, the incentive is to support the security of the coin rather than subvert it. The moment that changes is the moment that Bitcoin dies, because no one will be able to trust it any more - which also means there is an incentive to make sure there are enough competing BTC farms.
there’s the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits.
The blockchain is upheld by the combination of the developers and the miners. If the developers aren't acting in good faith and the miners don't like it, they don't move to the new chain. Sure, you get a split, but odds are one of them is going to die.
-
NFTs are great, the stupid fucking pictures that everyone calls NFTs are not
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.
-
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.
at the same rate of time change
Not true! The faster you're moving through space, the slower you're moving through time.
-
There's not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry
except that the government run land registry can deal with disputes in a flexible and fair manner. A blockchain with smart contracts cannot.
-
except that the government run land registry can deal with disputes in a flexible and fair manner. A blockchain with smart contracts cannot.
Enforcement of ownership must be off chain. You can still have a disputes procedure using blockchain.
What a smart contract registry allows is efficient notarisation of non-disputed ownership, which is 95% of the work.
-
The amount of ignorance regarding crypto is too damn high. I agree that NFT's are stupid, always felt that way, but when people just say a "all crypto is a scam" really don't understand what they are saying. There's a plenty of legit crypto products out there, but yes, the vast majority are just garbage. Invest in the blue chips, the REAL industry of crypto, not memes or things no ones ever heard of before. (Bitcoin, Solana, Ethereum, etc..)
Solana and Ethereum are both centralized scams that have been going down vs Bitcoin for the last year, despite the bull market.
-
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
Bitcoin is currently at all time highs
-
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
