Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hunterb123 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hunterb123

Tipping site owners, BAT token.

Incentivizing IPFS content pinning, Filecoin.

Allowing censorship-resistant / chargeback free donations, most coins.

Enabling private transactions, Monero.

Most "dapps" empower decentralization, distributed exchanges, trading, DNS, ownership contracts (DOAs), etc.

NFT's for art as silly as it is, more importantly for Handshake domain names and other cases where ownership proof comes into play.

Please feel free to go and attack all of those ideas and projects, but don't think for a second you can really gaslight people into believing they aren't worth of pursuit.

View on HN

You can tip people with normal money.

Paying for hosting with extremely volatile and environmental harmful tokens that only a part of population pretends has a real value, that you want to hoard rather than spend, and that might go to 0 at some point? To have basically torrents?

Sending deflationary ponzi scheme tokens to people is not helping them. Also, fees are high.

Private transactions are great if you are a criminal, I'll give you that.

Tell me one "dapp" (or "extremely wasteful programs that run on a CPU that is orders and orders of magnitude slower than an actual one) that is doing something useful. I haven't found one yet and I've been searching for some years now.

With NFTs you don't own anything, unless there's an actual contract that comes with it. Also you buy a hyperlink that points to central storage. Also money laundering and wash trading are rampant.

> You can tip people with normal money.

If the powers at be allow you to (PayPal, banks, credit card companies)

If Mastercard doesn't like you or your wares (porn or dissent) good luck!

> Private transactions are great if you are a criminal, I'll give you that.

Tired old trope. You don't have to be a criminal to enjoy privacy.

> Tell me one "dapp" (or "extremely wasteful programs that run on a CPU that is orders and orders of magnitude slower than an actual one) that is doing something useful. I haven't found one yet and I've been searching for some years now.

I have, read above. Decentralizing. Exchanges, payment processors, distributed DNS, distributed CDN, distributed royalties.

>With NFTs you don't own anything, unless there's an actual contract that comes with it. Also you buy a hyperlink that points to central storage. Also money laundering and wash trading are rampant.

Tired old trope. It's simply a non-fungible token that can represent your ownership of an asset. You can own a Handshake domain using NFTs. There are other uses other than a hyperlink pointing to artwork. Yes others can access your domain and artwork, but you own it and you can sell it. In regards to your domain that's how you prove you own it and can admin it.

There is a reason tired old tropes become tired old tropes.

> Please feel free to go and attack all of those ideas and projects, but don't think for a second you can really gaslight people into believing they aren't worth of pursuit.

This hostility is completely unnecessary.

But if you want I can add one more to the list: funding the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/north-korean-hackers-stole-a-r...

Also, let Iran burn a fair bit of its oil to mine ฿S.

I'm confused. Are you being facetious about crypto having adverse uses too, or are you saying we should ban rocketry (another technology with good & bad uses), or something else entirely?

They're being semi-facetious about crypto having adverse uses. ("Too"?)

That's subjective, I think the tone was warranted given your dismissive response to GP.

It's annoying to see the constant crypto bashing with tired talking points regurgitated.

Anyways, did my list meet your expectations of valid projects, is that why you started going on about NK, lol?

> chargeback free donations

Are chargebacks on donations are major issue for any legitimate non-profit organization?

Virtual game currencies, controversial politics, porn, gambling etc.

Basically anything Stripe / PayPal locks your account for and considers you high risk or CC companies block.

They are targets for testing stolen numbers: https://blog.sift.com/2016/card-testing-chargebacks-and-nonp...

I can also imagine political orgs having foes.

Yup, and crypto nips that in the bud. If you get a confirmed transaction, it's not going to be reversed by some unfair arbitration, you can trust it.

It sucks trying to run a game losing $20+ per chargeback and risking getting funds frozen entirely.

It sucks to be delisted by PayPal over political bullshit.

It sucks Mastercard and other CC companies can decide porn is essentially illegal.

- edit @ notahacker -

The point is you're at the whim of PayPal, Stripe, and credit card company policies for traditional fiat currency.

Have fun trying to sell guns (FFL be damned), porn subs (legal like you mentioned), virtual currency (legal ofc), or anything like that with traditional processors.

Crypto is the only option for those industries and a few others if you want to accept payment online.

Doesn't matter how many billions the industry is worth if you can't accept a credit card on your site for the service.

If all majors processors ban it, it's essentially blocked.

Porn isn't "essentially illegal", it's an industry worth billions of dollars, virtually none of which involves blockchains.

That's interesting, but I don't see how it's related to OP's point. (Which was ostensibly about legitimate donations to legitimate non-profits, but was apparently actually about gambling, porn, and politics...)

Using fraud detection technology and/or swallowing the chargeback fees would probably be cheaper than the overhead of using a crpytocurrency+exchange.

Setting a minimum donation so that you're not a good target for card testing probably has a lower barrier to entry than requiring use of a crpytocurrency.

>>> ...chargeback free donations...

>> Are chargebacks on donations are major issue for any legitimate non-profit organization?

> Virtual game currencies, controversial politics, porn, gambling etc.

Paying for porn is not a donation.

Paying for in-game currency is not a donation.

Gambling is not a donation.

Giving money to someone for "controversial politics" is almost never an issue, especially if you're actually donating (which is only possible if you are, e.g., giving money to a registered candidate, a PAC, or an org that files a Form 8872). I make a lot of political donations and have never had an issue.

If you're:

1. giving money to someone for political reasons, who

2. explicitly opts out of tax-advantaged status so that they don't have to use that money in a way that's congruent with donor's intent, and

3. has a huge issue with charge-backs on unrestricted non-tax-advantaged gifts...

IDK. I'd tend to consider that a massive red flag. But I guess funding scam artists who get tons of money from identity thieves and prey on controversial politics is indeed a use-case for crypto.

A cool example of NFT innovation is programmable royalty fees. Those fees can be directed back to the creator, the community, a DAO treasury.

Configurations are infinite.

If I'm understanding what you're referring to, this is one of the worst part of NFTs. How is it any different than me having to pay Ford a royalty when I sell my used car on Craigslist? It's such a toxic feature for consumers. Sure, when used correctly it could be cool to help creators or whatever. It will absolutely be abused. It already is being abused by scammers who create NFTs that can't be sold.

It can be abused, but it allows the creator or developer to align incentives in different ways.

eg if the royalty goes toward a DAO, maybe that DAO’s charter is to grow awareness for the NFT project. Or the rewards could accrue toward a staked project token that all community members hold, or fees could go back to the creator to fund development for next gen.

I don’t know the best use, but my point is because someone programmed royalties, there’s now another dimension of configuration for NFT projects.

That's not example of something NFTs can do, is it? Royalty fees are not programmable. How does the NFT know whether someone has to pay royalties? And how on earth is an NFT going to make people pay royalties? An NFT can't use coercive force.

It’s marketplace-specific right now but the standards are evolving to support it natively: https://www.gemini.com/blog/exploring-the-nft-royalty-standa...

The linked article talks about implementing a tax on re-sales of NFTs. It says nothing about royalty fees.

We might not be aligned on the definitions.

“EIP-2981 is a standard that focuses on signalling to market participants the royalty payment information for a given NFT or set of NFTs.”

I don't know what this means. Let's say I own the copyright of a musical composition, and I sell a license to a film producer. How does this standard help me collect royalty fees?

You make money upon the sale and transfer of the NFT.

I can see that. How would that help with collecting royalty fees in a typical scenario like the one I described?

I don’t fully understand the point of disagreement here.

It's a simple question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com