Part of the point of digital assets are that they can be copied. If you don’t want to copy them, you can validate with the issuing authority (which is virtually all NFTs as it is).
This is so obvious to me that it is tough to stop myself from believing that everyone knows this and is just ignoring it in an attempt to make a quick buck. There are much better arguments for cryptocurrency. I happen to think they are generally overvalued and overhyped, but there is also real utility at the heart of it that people can believe in and project forward. NFTs seem to be stupid all the way down.
In a decentralized world, a digital yet scarce item can be created, distributed, and reused. A game can go under, and a new game can pop up and respect the accumulated wealth of the community. A game can fork, where half of the community plays one teams version, and half plays a different one, with nobody losing their assets. A rogue developer can entice people to play by inviting people to reuse tools they acquired from a rivals game. A counterfeiting blacksmith can forge their own weapons, and a dark side community can vote to allow them in game, while a light side community can vote to only allow official weapons. What it will all come down to is consensus, the developers (and players voicing through where they spend their attention) of the game deciding which items should be allowed to be imported and which shouldnt. IMHO, there is something cool about the player stats of an RPG being isolated and separated from the game itself, and always owned by the player not the game company.
From an investment perspective, I can see why it looks as dumb as anything in the physical speculative art world. But as a game mechanic, it does seem to offer a useful utility that previously depended on some server staying up forever or trust in a closed system. This is a brink or cusp, where theres a good idea out there somewhere, and maybe someone has or hasnt executed on it yet, but if it has been made into something truly useful, it still isnt popular enough to be well know by us plebs yet.
They also, more simply, act as a membership card or vip pass. You can spend money to join a club, and then you get the corresponding experience that comes with it. Take for example the Matrix NFT. I fully expect there to be some somewhat cool experiences that real people get to really experience by consenting and paying to join that social experiment. Sure it could work roughly as well as a database entry at a central authority, but decentralization is one way to allow easy transfer of your membership to someone new when youre done, without the game developer having to care or keep track of who is who. It turns into Willy Wonka, whoever holds a golden ticket is allowed in, copying tickets isnt possible.
This is a problem created to fit the solution. Why in the name of God would anyone want to re-introduce scarcity into a post-scarcity space? Such a person is so narcissistic, so greedy, so sociopathic that they would deny others something they could have for nothing in order to enrich themselves. It is sickening.
> A game can go under, and a new game can pop up and respect the accumulated wealth of the community.
People keep saying this and it makes no goddamned sense. They didn't accumulate any wealth, they accumulated some entries in a database somewhere. A developer could even more easily just make a game that uses those assets without all the artificial scarcity.
Besides, I'm not saying we shouldn't compensate creators. Unfortunately even though the digital world is post scarcity the one where our bodies reside is not and creators need to eat. However, I don't believe that shoving scarcity into a post-scarcity space is the way to go about that.
Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it.
exactly the same with NFTs.
My Digital art can be copied even though I sell it as an NFT.
NFTs don’t enforce scarcity at all, not of the artwork itself.
Yes, and one that is fundamentally flawed, and never should have been attempted in the first place in my opinion, but I think you'll agree that an NFT is not quite the same thing as DRM.
> Your words - my software can be copied even though I sell it. exactly the same with NFTs.
Ok, there's a semblance of an argument here I don't actually think is complete bullshit: If one can sell software without DRM, which can be copied by anyone, what exactly is being sold? To which I am forced to reply with things many NFT promoters say: supporting the developer, the concept of legitimacy, etc.
But, if that's all that an NFT is, then it is effectively just a donation. The problem is that NFTs claim to be much more than that, they claim to be a groundbreaking new technology that enables people to do things they never could do before[0], but that's obvious bullshit since people have been selling software in the same way I have sold software for 50 years.
If you're going to claim something like an NFT proving ownership, the only reason for that to have any value is if ownership confers some right or privilege that is otherwise lacking. For software, let's say it gives you access to direct support from the developer.
Again, the problem is that people already do that, and it doesn't require anything near as complicated as the entire NFT system! It's just a bog standard entry in a bog standard database that so and so owns a license. The decentralization buys nothing because if I stop supporting it no one will care that you have that license anyway. You could say that it allows someone to resell that license, but again we already do that today, and I could just as easily refuse to recognize a resold NFT as I could anyone's resold license because there's a history of ownership.
It really just looks like a giant scheme to try and convince people they're paying for something they're not.
[0] presumably not just having a new way to rip off rubes.
But yeah I think of NFTs as a novel way to support digital art. Not much else, just pay the artist. Same as buying a painting really, except you don’t really own the painting anymore.
The idea that buying art is anything BUT supporting an artist is pretty funny. It’s as if we’ve normalised art as either an investment or a museum that we can’t touch. Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!
Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff. It was absolutely painful, full of gate keeping and bullshit I (and many others) hated. Now you just mint (hopefully on a low carbon chain) and off you go, you tweet about it, get some attention, make some money. It’s simple. The fact that there’s a secondary market for it, well there always was one for art.
It certainly attracted a bunch of rubes who buy ape JPEGs but there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now. Look into FXhash on tezos, I’ve lost count of the amount of generative art on that market and it’s really really mind blowing. People are coding amazing stuff on there and selling it, something which used to be virtually impossible without a gallery and a rep and a bunch of nonsense.
I think an NFT is a form of DRM that doesn’t enforce scarcity - ie you own A license to that artwork but that doesn’t give you the right to it. That license can be bought and sold, maybe eventually that will have value (my personal favourite is that NFTs should allow you to remix the artwork into your own art, but who knows).
Traditionally people bought art to possess it, look at it, and display it for others.
> Buying art was always meant to just let the artist do his thing!
No, that's kinda what patronage was all about. We have crowd sourced versions of that.
> Selling digital art before NFTs was a complete pain! Before them you had to go with an agency or gallery, they took a cut, they had to like your stuff.
That wasn't necessary though, you could sell art all sorts of ways. You could even just set up your own online store if you wanted. All NFTs seem to have done is take advantage of the hype-chasing and speculation crowds.
> there is an honest revolution in digital art happening right now
You've lost me here. Literally nothing about what you're describing requires NFTs other than convincing people to pay money for the NFTs by tangentially tying them to art. It is enabling artists to hack human psychology for money, not enabling brand new kinds of art.
Your premise rests on this question. My counter is what is the value in creating scarcity beyond just trying to make money? Your examples are about people investing in money and not losing those assets. Your experience example is not really digital scarcity if I understand your hypothetical correctly. It is about a real physical scarcity, the number of people who will be let into the experience, being represented in a digital world. There is no new innovation there.
To me the idea of creating scarcity out of something that is not scarce is done for one and only one reason, for a financial benefit.
Gameplay balancing.
We've crossed a very blurred line of gaming, role play, and real life. Whos to say which is which anymore.
I dont think profitability and production of gaming are mutually exclusive. Why cant game creators also make money for their work?
A game company can disappear, and the players can pick right up where they left off, with a new game, remake, or a reverse engineered copy of the server.
Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
If there is demand, this can and will happen anyway. There are countless examples of fans continuing to mod and/or host games after they were abandoned by the original creators. The only difference is that you want to import your assets from one game to another. The only thing being preserved here are the assets from the old game. The only added value from NFTs is preserving an investment in the old game.
>Why cant financial gain be a PART of the whole? People can both collect pokemon cards, and play with them. It's not mutually exclusive that you have to declare youre one or the other. Although NFTs probably should include a "you opened the wrapper" function, to create additional scarcity as people destroy the value of their items by making them less digitally pristine.
No one is saying that you can't have fun with your Pokemon cards. But Pokemon cards and decentralized digital scarcity are not interchangeable concepts. Decentralized digital scarcity appears to only be motivated by money.
In the same way that the market will refuse to believe I printed an authentic pokemon card, the game players decide which printers/minters are valid game token producers. If the community decides to respect a certain game production team, that becomes reality. A game company being in charge only lasts as long as the players believing in them. It's the polar express basically.
As someone still fairly new to this industry still enamored with all the naïve big-picture stuff I was under the impression that the ease and immediacy of copying digital information was nearly the ENTIRE point. Or at least the biggest characteristic that distinguishes digital information technology from other human innovations historically. That and hash tables maybe.
As a former art school hippie I regularly start to get creeping FOMO regarding the NFT train, and feel like Im fighting the future or being stubborn.
Then I remember NFT / Crypto advocates are the ones fighting the future with this sad attempt to impose clunky energy consuming systems of false scarcity on digital systems that undermine that kind of old-world scarcity on a foundational level.
Again, I don't know what I'm talking about but Im enjoying learning more from these threads / posts.
But I am intrigued by the use case of allowing a large number of individuals to patron a given artist (and give them recurring income on subsequent resale of their work). All else being equal, I would prefer to live in a society where artists and other makers have time to follow their passion and create instead of spending their time on some job just to pay the bills.
So to the extent that NFTs can enable that, I'm tentatively onboard.
And what extent is that? There are plenty of ways to send money to an artist, both with crypto and without. What value do NFTs add, as far as patronizing artists?
As far as I know, that's a pretty novel offering.
EDIT: for grammar
There's nothing that makes this capability unique to NFTs or crypto - you could sell a license to an artwork that has similar terms.
Yeah, you're probably right here.
This is a slight pivot in discussion but - you're right, the proper license agreement (if enforced) would give a similar effect. And there's a strong argument that NFTs, DAOs for gathering capital, etc are just serving functions similar to Patreon or Kickstarter.
But there are a lot of projects popping up and getting varying degrees of attraction in the crypto space.
Maybe crypto isn't making many new things possible - but it might be making lots of things a little easier?
People don’t understand what artists used to have to do to make a living. They complain about carbon usage yet I know many talented artists who had to work for BP, Shell and ICE car companies so they could pay their rent. On Tezos the chain is low carbon usage anyway.
Artificial scarcity--having something others can't.
https://www.businessofbusiness.com/articles/nfts-turning-art...
You still need a centralised entity to enforce ownership, making the blockchain redundant.
A future attempt might be better, maybe.
Interesting NFTs are those that: prove identity, serve as a key to a private community, yield tokens with utility, prove ownership of an asset that generates royalties, augment a gaming experience, etc.
What's unique about how NFTs solve existing problems is fundamental to crypto - the data layer is open source, so everything is composable. Maybe the folks here working for large cap tech firms in effort to monetize proprietary data are offended by that.
1. Royalties paid to the band
2. Allow you to check they're authentic tickets
3. Allow you to sell them online to people in a trusted away (atomic transactions for money, so no you send it then I pay/you pay then I sent it)
In the next two weeks, I'll have my PGP keys discoverable, on blockchain, two clicks away from anyone with (unrestricted) internet access. Just find me at joshjames.eth and boom, you can virtually guarantee a secure communication channel with me. Outside of a physical abduction or hardware compromise of my private keys, this pattern no longer requires a middleman to host my pubkey.
If those things want to be taken seriously they need to divorce themselves from the term "NFT", demonstrate that blockchain is necessary, and use the best tech (e.g. privacy-preserving zero-knowledge protocols for anything involving identity/authentication/authorization).
I'm only in my mid-30s but I'm deathly afraid to stick around to see what the mid-40s or 50s will be like.
Mark your comment down and revisit it in a few years, having an opinion on the sidelines is just fine. Now let the downvotes commence.
NFTs open a new World of opportunity for me. Not only can other humans easily collect, and compensate me for my work, I also have a whole new stream for consuming royalties. Now think further about the ecosystem potential and all the third parties that consume my unsplash content for free today, NFTs can change that.
Do you confer a license to the photo that I can use elsewhere? Can I use it in an ad? Can I sell copies of it?
> Not only can other humans easily collect, and compensate me for my work
They could have done it before, what makes you think this technical change will make people want to fund artists more, beyond a momentary financial mania?
2. Just my opinion - I believe that over time people will increasingly value digital assets, I don't think we're even close to understanding their utility. NFT collectors are a growing segment for artists and things like virtual galleries will represent new places to showcase and share those collections.
Edit - I think people should make an effort to distinguish between visual and "technical or attributable" ownership. Too often these threads on NFTs are, "how do you own something if I can copy it" (the picture). That's missing the point. I don't care if you replicate my NFT and its visual identity, I will always be the owner of the underlying attribute and the evolution of that attribute.
To get in the right mindset, you should stop thinking of NFT's as pictures. That's not the primary use case. It's a stupid game that became popular. NFT's are just tokens on the open blockchain that you can exclusively control.
Generally not.
> NFT's are just tokens on the open blockchain that you can exclusively control.
Exactly this, and nothing more.
Nfts may or may not be the blockchain's killer app (I think they are), but the average person's track record identifying a technology's killer app is a tad less than perfect
My hunch is that crypto is focusing on the wrong things. I suspect we’ll never have land registers in blockchain (dumb idea anyway).
In NFTs crypto kind of stumbled upon something important, because digital art didn’t have a way to be authenticated by artists themselves, they had to use galleries, it was a mess. Now a digital artist can just drop his stuff onto the world and authenticate it. This was a Real Problem, if you make physical art you can just go to the local arts and crafts or Etsy and charge money for it. But digital art was really hard to monetise. So crypto came in a bit sideways and solved a Real Problem People Had.
Curiously they seem to really focus on “real world” problems, like banks or land registry or whatever, when I’m starting to think this is the entirely wrong way to see crypto. I think it needs to focus on problems that exist in the digital arena Only IE data ownership, data portability.
But the obsessions of the original conceptions around crypto are hard to kill, and I feel like right now there’s a lot of resistance to leaving the Nick Szabo idea of “smart contracts will replace lawyers”, same as it was before with a lot of Nakamoto’s ideas. But I think the “crypto will replace lawyers” and “crypto will replace banks” folks will be sorely disappointed. I see a very low percent chance crypto will change that much about banking just due to the security issues.
Is it though? Honest question since I'm not an artist. But looking from the outside: For ongoing support, Patreon/Flattr/etc. are a common solution. For specific work, you can commission a piece and pay for it through whatever channel, even with cash.
I also know the average income I saw being generated from Patreon was low. Not high enough to quit your day job, more of a second job type thing. NFT income is incomparable, I know of cases of people who are now millionaires.
NFTs are essentially just a way to sell digital art in a way that approximates physical art auctions, and in that regard they are an overwhelming sucess.
How is a bit of data on a blockchain pointing to a URI a breakthrough? It's utterly ineffective at proving ownership of anything, since the data at the uri can be changed, or more likely - the entire server will disappear at some point in time. And then what about uris on the blockchain pointing to illegal material (things that are actually copyrighted by someone through the legal system, CP, etc)?
Obviously storing actual data on-chain is too costly as well (both financially on the large chains, and practically/environmentally on any of them).
Everyone I know who's into NFTs and crypto was a con artist before blockchain and they'll be con artists after. Wait until I tell you about the drug addict scammers I know that started a crypto coin of their own and got a friend who knows literally nothing about crypto to write their whitepaper.
If you dig in my own comments on this website you can probably find discussions from 2017 or even earlier where I ask when people think that cryptocurrency tech is going to finally deliver something useful. It's always "one or two years from now". It's always "we're early". Remember ICOs? Remember how it was going to revolutionize IoT? Remember dapps? Remember lightning? It's been around the corner for years now.
Can you think of a single other technical innovation that required so much faith and patience before it delivered? Maybe self-driving cars, but even then I'd argue that it made immense progress compared to blockchain technology.
In the end you can hype it as much as you want, it's still fundamentally just a crappy, slow, extremely inefficient append-only database that's only relevant because it's super good at supporting pyramid schemes.
Before 2020, I was interested in crypto as an academic exercise. In 2021, it became an urgant need. I don't think i'm alone, to me crypto is an exit from the large tech monopolies that dominate our world today.
"We're early" in the internet had the dotcom bubble, the development of mobile 3G infrastructure and devices, the advent of smartphones, the VC-fueled app craze, and then eventually, now. The innovation mostly occurred in certain geographical areas, under the control of a relatively small population, with global impact.
The progression of blockchain technology - and dare I say culture - is speedrunning the history of human communication, including currency. Mainstream attention is high, but not adoption of paramount fundamental tech like ENS for identity and reputation. I'm guessing critical mass sometime in the next 18-36 months.
I also worry you may be subject to observation bias and ensuing feedback loops; if you primarily encounter negative headlines around crypto, it reinforces your opinion. But there are treasure troves of data, assembled by tens of thousands of exceptionally talented engineers, researchers and philosophers, that are also available for your observation. I wonder, if you spent some time there, perhaps your opinions would be more plastic.
And I say in 2025 I'll be having the same discussion I had in 2017 and I'm having right now as somebody will reply to a comment I make on HN telling me that whatever cryptofad of the day is 18-36months away from mainstream adoption.
With enough spin you can make everything sound revolutionary. Smart contracts are effectively like stored procedures, just ridiculously wasteful.
People rant and rave about how this is a huge when for digital artists while ignoring the darker side. I see more and more small artists venting their frustrations in fighting with the NFT markets to get their stolen art taken down. Also in dealing with crypto bros cyberbullying them for refusing to participate in this whole crypto shit show.
Outside of that, 99% of the artist I know are super happy NFTs exist and they can make money out of them.
Indeed you haven’t even told us how many digital artists you know. Only that you are one.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/11/22325054/beeple-christies...
But when they come in here and try to tell us all how this incredible new technology is going to revolutionize the world, that's obvious bullshit.
It’s nice that you can say you “own” your very own star as stipulated by the star rights granting corporation, but in reality it means nothing other than you can say so… but I can claim a million other stars without needing a corporation and no one can take them away from me but also anyone else can make a claim on the same stars.
That’s all NFTs are right now - a novel way to invest in artists. And that’s remarkable, and good enough for me.
Maybe Wikipedia can sell NFYs to “articles” and avoid the donation button?
Now that you have a market for it, people use it. Something something human nature.
To understand the space, you need to come to terms with the fact that asking "is this a legitimate human need" isn't a useful or relevant question. Instead, you need to ask, "for people who are already demonstrating that they have this human need, does this technology enable that need to be met more efficiently."
You might think the human need isn't legitimate, and it might not be legitimate, but if you think that way you're going to miss what's happening.
It's the same as the lesson from the Paul Graham and Fred Wilson AirBnB exchange, where just because you personally don't have the need doesn't mean that the need doesn't exist.
2. Investing in the imaginary shouldn’t be peddled by charlatans.
3. Comparing to Airbnb is inaccurate and intentionally misleading.
4. Sentences 1-2 are circular.
I think the original comment isn’t arguing that “this isn’t a legitimate human need.” I think it’s arguing that neither the tech is innovative nor the offered solution is unique.
Airbnb is a useful example, though; consider its context of hotels, VRBO, couchsurfing. These are proven human needs with associated economics that starkly contrast with the precedent for NFTs - Tumblr likes and retweets.
When Kellog's is making NFTs, it devalues the entire platform.
Trading cards aren't a fitting analogy, because only a few companies were/are in that business, and they each ran specific product lines. They're more similar to old lego sets in that sense.
NFTs are pogs.
The irony is that being digital, bits not atoms, make it easy to make copies.
Oh you invented digital scarcity?
Now you have 1000 copies of the "digital scarcity" business.
They're receipts showing that you "own" the card on display in the public square. And more than one receipt can be minted for that card. The most you can hope for is the earliest timestamp on the receipt.
For example, it wouldn't be hard for an artist to publish a video saying "Hey folks, this is my public key, and these are the NFTs for these pieces of art", and then publish that video in multiple forums like Twitter, YouTube, etc. Then if someone tried to come up with different NFTs for the same pieces of art, the NFT holder could just point to the video (and, as you say, if the artist was malicious and tried to dupe his own NFTs, the earlier one would win).
This kind of "identity validation" is all over the cryptography space already - that's basically how Keybase proofs work. Heck, lots of HN commenters put their proofs in their HN account signatures.
Not just "an artist", anyone can. And they do. Many artists' works are being exploited in this way without their consent or even knowledge.
So then how do we know that artist actually created that art? For all we know, that artist took someone else's work and was just the first to mint NFTs for it on that particular chain. Maybe the legitimate artist minted NFTs on a different chain later so nobody will ever believe they created it because of the timestamp.
As I understand it, this sort of 'theft' is happening all the time right now.
You mean like Beanie Babies? "limited" collectible physical objects that went up and up in value.
Never heard of them? Yeah, that's because they stopped going up in value. Then stopped having value at all. It was about 20 years ago, who remembers that?
FYI, the down arrow is not an indication of agreement, it is an indication of quality. If you disagree with me, at least have the common courtesy to comment.
*/
It's a shame the acronym NFT has become synonymous with digital images. As a concept it's a huge idea with so much potential. The issue is people now hear NFT, and their mind shuts down thinking it's some stupid monkey picture thing.
Everything you can do with an NFT, you COULD do with a centralized database. The problem is then you have to trust that database. You have to trust the person running it, you have to trust they will still be in business, you have to trust the person running it will allow other people to connect to it (or get stuck in their walled garden).
We're pretty far into this Web 2.0 experiment with centralized services. The experiment is over, the results are in. We can't trust them.
Does decentralization solve all problems? No absolutely not. Does it have a whole new set of problems? yes, but hopefully we can work through most of them. To me, the trade off of a more open ecosystem is worth it. If email was created in Web 2.0 it probably would have been stored in a database, and there would be little accessibility outside whoever created it. It would look like whatsapp.
What NFT's give us, is the ability to own a unique digital assets in an open system and not have to rely on ad driven business models. It's a digital asset which can be ANYTHING.
Kinks need to be worked out, sure, but in ten to fifteen years artists will not be beholden to corporations. That is something to work towards and be very proud of.
If you move this to NFTs you have a few advantages. The workflow would look like this: Band creates NFTs (maybe via a website?) and they now exist in the bands wallet. Band puts them up for sale with a smart contract. Fans buy the tickets. Fans can attend the gig by showing the ticket is in their wallet to enter. Fans can resell the tickets if they're allowed to via another smart contract with the a small royalty going back to the band. Don't want the ticket to be resellable? Add a boolean flag to the NFT in its metadata. Want to check the ticket is authentic? Check it's tx history back to the bands minting (or check the NFT address exists in the list of valid tickets on the bands sale site or something). There are some UX issues here but they should all be solvable. Use a chain like Avalanche and the tx fees are $0.02 at the moment.
Essentially the whole man-in-the-middle central company that manages the creation, sales, resales, etc, becomes an open-source peer-to-peer infrastructure. This same thing could be true for game licenses or really any truly digital item. These assets become programmable and new business models are becoming viable while old business models are in theory obsolete - obviously this has some huge caveats: the UX on web3 sucks, we need to migrate from proof-of-work so it's not environmentally awful, and we need to disassociate ourselves with the scammy $1m NFTs. Also some edge cases need to be solved like how customer service will work if something goes wrong.
I mean the most fundamental thing about the blockchain and NFTs still blows my mind from time to time - these transactions are atomic and stop double-spend attacks. I can set up a transaction with you where you pay USDC and I send an NFT for a bands ticket, and we know for certain that at the end of the tx you're going to have that ticket and I'm going to have that money. No "you send it first, I don't trust you" or escrow service needed. The fact we can stick a Turing-complete program in the middle of that and add things like verification the ticket is from the set of authentic tickets, or that it's only valid if the USD is worth 1.25-1.30 Euros to avoid slippage, is just awesome (to me).
Any kind of argument here would have to start with an explanation of why it wouldn’t be possible or practical to just start a new ticket company that does this all for free/very cheap.
No, it isn't. How would you buy a ticket from me online when you don't know me? The only real option is to use stubhub which requires us to both create accounts, put our credit cards in, verify ourselves, you put the ticket up, me to buy it, and for me to not know the ticket is A. not been purchased by someone else B. authentic.
A decentralised app that runs this requires a smart contract to mint tickets and a smart contract to wrap reselling them, plus a web UI to tie it all together. An open source developer could build this and charge $1 per tx to maintain it.
What's the centralised alternative?
This is all technologically possible. The reason platforms usually do not let you do this is due to business requirements. Why would the business switch to a platform that strips their ability to control resale if it isn't something they want to begin with? If they do want resale, its trivially possible with existing boring tech.
Up until now it’s been difficult to do this because the prohibitive cost of centralized services - with Web3 you have all these building blocks available without a high cost central party managing databases, cloud costs, staffing, etc…
Edit: To clarify I’ve seen end users and bands want resale, it’s just not very profitable and hard to control fraud.
To summarize I’m saying that I think and hope that Web3 will have these businesses purpose as features of the infrastructure :)
Crypto posts always take every problem as a technical problem without understanding that there are very few technical problems but intentional business restrictions. Those businesses have no incentives to move to a platform which takes this power out of their hands.
There is nothing stopping ticket sellers from allowing refunds on tickets which put the tickets back in to the available pool to buy again.
That's just it. I do trust the bank. The bank has stood for several human lifetimes (might have changed names, but the same bank). They have overwhelmingly served people reliably. The deposits are insured by the government that has stood for several human lifetimes. They are accountable legally and practically. Bad transactions can be reversed thanks to the trusted processors, banks, and government.
> We're pretty far into this Web 2.0 experiment with centralized services. The experiment is over, the results are in. We can't trust them.
What on earth are you talking about? I've never had money taken from my bank account without my permission. Those few cases of fraud I've experienced have been detected and resolved swiftly, with little activity required from me.
Meanwhile with a blockchain you have to trust the majority of unknown actors. People I don't know, from states where theft of my money might go unprosecuted, if the actor can even be detected. Bad transactions cannot be reversed. Fraud? I'm SOL. And then there's the fact that crypto enables ransomware. And the environmental costs. Absurd.
> What NFT's give us, is the ability to own a unique digital assets in an open system and not have to rely on ad driven business models. It's a digital asset which can be ANYTHING.
We already have this in the US and other nations, it's called copyright, and the courts will enforce it as well as they can. NFTs do not provide an enforcement mechanism, they still rely on the legal system, and a pointer to a uri does not prove what object was originally at that uri.
FXhash has created a generative art market like it’s never existed before, it’s created an amazing art scene without precedent I’ve ever seen. It also allows for generative art to interact with the blockchain to make every art piece unique.
IE if you mint on FXhash, each generative art piece is slightly different due to a randomising function in the art pieces. This means each and every NFT is unique since they all went through a slightly different values for some of their features. I highly recommend anyone criticising NFTs to think about this since it’s an absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before. The artists scene around FXhash is just incredible.
To call this an “absolutely groundbreaking achievement in digital art that just wasn’t possible before.” is comically absurd.
If your argument boils down to “show me how people made lots of money on it”, then that is just confirming what I already believe. No substance, just profiting on hype.
Just all these darn artists making money! How many artists salaries have you paid off this month with your salary Gigachad?