Hacker News Reader

I agree that some legitimate use cases will survive, but I think the ratio is _much_ worse than 90/10.

+1 on the ratio comment, i am yet to see a legitimate use for nfts, not just a something to speculate on

Uniswap V3 uses NFTs to represent liquidity provider positions.

> https://uniswap.org/blog/launch-uniswap-v3

> some legitimate use cases will survive

More likely - some legitimate use cases will emerge, as I am yet to see anything to date that would fit into that category, but there is still room for the solution that is crypto to find itself a problem to fix.

ENS alone should be more than 10% of the market. Using NFTs for decentralized identity and authn is big. Unlock Protocol's is going for authz.

There is a strong selection bias for those that report on crypto for clicks or those that want to create a narrative that we can not live without some big central authority controlling our lives.

> Using NFTs for decentralized identity and authn is big.

Tell me more? What problem does this solve that you can't do with centralized auth?

Have you ever thought about closing your Google Account and got discouraged when you realized that there are so many other services that depend on it? Worse, have you ever had your Google/Facebook/Apple/Outlook/Twitter account closed without knowing why?

Centralized systems are amazing, until they aren't.

Have you ever had your credentials to a decentralized service stolen by a keylogger and realized that you will never, ever, under any circumstances regain control and there's no one you can talk to and nothing you can do about it?

Decentralized systems are amazing, until they aren't

(Even if you wanted to have a decentralized account recovery like saying you can have 3 friends band together and help you recover your account if you lose access, what happens when those 3 friends decide that don't like you as much as they like the idea of banding together to take over your identity and all your money?...)

You know what annoys me the most about these discussions about crypto and systems in general? It's the fact that people can only argue in the extremes. Decentralization is a spectrum. (https://twitter.com/rlullis/status/1307420668372430848)

> Decentralized systems are amazing, until they aren't

No, they are not. They are expensive, they require responsibility. The UX is complicated. Most people shouldn't use it and will be better off delegating all this to someone else.

Thing is, it's not because something is good enough for most people that everyone should stick to it.

> what happens when those 3 friends decide that don't like you as much as they like the idea of banding together to take over your identity and all your money?

This argument is stupid. With decentralization, there is no reason for your identity to be something singular. There is even less reason for people to think that one wallet should hold "all your money".

A keylogger can’t steal your key if you use even the most basic security that this space advises.

If you don’t have any friends you trust (which is probably a pretty common thing), then you can choose any other people/entities you do trust. If you want to rely on the government or financial institutions, you can request that they be part of your social recovery wallet process.

This isn’t common yet, but you can also build your wallet so it’s very difficult to steal funds even if someone recovers your private key. Building challenge periods into your transactions is trivial and lets you know if an attacker has compromised your key. You can then transfer all of your assets out with your recovery key.

What exactly are the valid use cases that are not already better served with centralized systems?

Example: Wikileaks being funded using Bitcoin when PayPal, Visa and other payment companies blocked transactions

That was because, whether you agree with it or not, the US government deemed their behaviour to be illegal.

And so the issue you have is not with Paypal, Visa etc unless you think that those payment companies should tolerate illegal parties transacting money. Because that is a very slippery slope especially given how much wealth in the world comes from the despair of the very poor and helpless.

> That was because, whether you agree with it or not, the US government deemed their behaviour to be illegal.

There are, and should be real-world limits on the ability of the US government to stop things from happening by deeming them illegal.

In the case of Wikileaks, one such limitation is the relatively decentralized nature of the internet. The US government was able to pressure Amazon to refuse to host it, but was unsuccessful in pressuring OVH, so Wikileaks remains online. There is no Great Firewall of America, so it remains accessible within the US.

Another limitation is that while the US government can and did pressure Paypal to refuse service to Wikileaks, there's no equivalent for preventing transfers of cryptocurrencies.

> There are, and should be real-world limits on the ability of the US government to stop things from happening by deeming them illegal.

It already exists: the legal system.

> there's no equivalent for preventing transfers of cryptocurrencies

Money laundering, child trafficking, drug profiteering, terrorism etc. they all come with costs.

And doing nothing to stop them is not good for anyone.

I'm not American and neither is Wikileaks. My country is not an enemy of America but neither is our support unconditional. I think it's great that Wikileaks drops American dirt. I think it's not great that America tries to cutoff donations to cover up its dirt. I think it's great that alternative payment systems circumvent that.

Let me ask a better question.

What exactly are the valid use cases that are not already better served with centralized systems THAT DOES NOT involve illegal activity?

Another use case would be protection from inflation - if you're in a country which prints money carelessly or for political reasons.

Of course you could say that Bitcoin is worthless and not proved as store of value, but that's not for me or you to decide, it's what's decided by the market.

Here's a good answer:

So having your own blockchain domain and even using it as a method of login is illegal and centralised now? [0] ENS is a good existing example and concept 'so-far' of a valid use case, even when I disagree with it being implemented on Ethereum.

As for payments, cryptocurrencies that have blockchains like Bitcoin should be dismissed in the long term. Regulated stablecoins seem better for that purpose these days.

[0] https://www.skiff.org/

Notice a major keyword you used there - “Bitcoin”. Which we all know has a real world use case (several countries have made it their national currency for crying out loud), just as the example you gave with Wikileaks. Nobody could stop people sending it, period.

Everything else (and yes I’m even referring to ETH) is crap. It’s not truly decentralized, doesn’t have a REAL world use case (get real and be honest please), and don’t have anyone (or entity) “in charge” of it. Those are the major (among other) things that a real crypto is supposed to have by very definition.

Everything else is worthless (a “get rich scam”), and we all know it. And shame on those creating that crap, along with those gullible enough to buy them. Seriously, wake up. It’s just the hard cold truth, and we all know it.

Sorry to break it to most people, but apparently most don’t understand this “common sense” concept that is stupidly obvious in my opinion.

Even in the case of ETH (the undoubted #2 crypto), what would happen if Putin decided to go after Vitalik with all his might and the supper of the entire Russian government? You really think he’d stand a chance (and that’s assuming he’s a saint as well)? Again, wake up everyone. There’s a very good reason BTC has no “admins” or “chair board”, because nobody can corrupt it. Even the creator(s) of BTC were smart enough to not use their real names and lock themselves out of the system, and then disappear. They know what was coming. And now so should you. It’s really not complicated. There’s so many extremely powerful , rich, and ruthless people out there that stand to lose everything if this succeeds. You really Think they aren’t going to put up a fight?!? Get real. But that’s only if they know who to go after….

How much Bitcoin do you own? Why should I listen to a user who was created 26 minutes ago, with this as their only post, telling me about how amazing Bitcoin in particular is?

That’s the best part - YOU DON’T! Makes no difference to me bud. Seriously. I’m not asking you to trust “me”, I’m asking you to look at the cold hard facts, that’s all. And if you don’t want to, that’s cool too. I’ll still be fine, just FYI.

Oh and by the way, I’m a publisher for 2600 magazine. I’ve written articles about Bitcoin (among others). The big feature Bitcoin article was in the past “Winter” edition. Don’t believe me? Send an email to the email address in the article…

Yeah, I agree with you about the Ethereum part.

Putin? Doesn't Vitalik live in Canada?

> what would happen if Putin decided to go after Vitalik with all his might and the supper of the entire Russian government?

What happens if Putin decides to go after ASIC producers and some of the biggest mining operators?

Not much, as ilustrated by recent China ban. The hashrate moved to various places, now it's more distributed than ever.

China banned mining, it did not go after the miners as GP asked.

Are there any valid use-cases? For any suggestion I've heard, it always seems that a relational database or PKI would be better.

What else is there to the narrative? This stuff is predominately solutions in search of problems and they are not innovative except for trying to financialize and/or securitize every conceivable digital artifact imaginable. It sucks comprehensively like at the ideological origin points.

> Not sure why this article presents this as a great surprise or a new discovery.

Because even if the circles you move in are all very well aware that NFTs are a massive scam, very obviously many people haven't yet realized that—after all, it's still working.

Doesn’t Stephen Diehl CTO for a private blockchain startup?

https://twitter.com/dystopiabreaker/status/14701269278180679...

> All thanks to and started by Ethereum.

I think the scam goes all the way back to electricity and Edison!

Its a little bit disingenuous to blame etherium for NFT, its like blaming email for nigerian prince spam.

it is though. an NFT is just a crypto currency with a total supply of 1. and ethereum contracts allow the creation

> it is though.

What is this? A game of 'it is', 'it isn't'?

NFT is not a crypto with total supply of 1, its not even a crypto, its at best a by-product of crypto transaction.

Totally bro! Edison and Tesla were SO concerned about “scamming” money out of you (over a 100 years ago). That makes total sense….lol. Mind you they were rich AF too. That’s absolutely hilarious, I’m sorry.

But you’re right about NFT’s not being ETH’s fault by the way, on that I agree with you. But it still happened. By the way, why (like in all reality if being brutally honest) did we need to have NFT’s to begin with? The answer is we didn’t. People saw a “get rich quick opportunity” (even though very wrong), and went after it. That does not make it right or give it a real world use case, sorry, it really doesn’t.

Yet, on the flip side, I pay my rent, most of my utility bills, and basically all purchases (Amazon, eBay, Uber/Uber Eats, Airbnb, American Airlines, and about ten others that compromise about 90% of all them) with Bitcoin (BTC). And that takes me about 5 minutes. Is that not real world? If not, please enlighten me, what is then?

I am not defending NFTs, just saying that you cannot blame technology for what it was used for.

Nuclear fission was the idea/tech, it was used to create A-bombs, and clean nuclear energy. Nuclear fission like smart contract is an idea, how its used it up to people.

> Its a little bit disingenuous to blame etherium for NFT, its like blaming email for nigerian prince spam.

Except that the law and regulations are always behind once the early technology has been introduced, with early adopters getting themselves burned, sued or encountering significant losses - Hence the DAO hack of 2016. That is the reason why ICOs are now regulated.

Did you really think that the SEC would do nothing and sit there and let the 2017 carnage continue? NFTs are no different and that technology (like tokens) will be subject to regulations. The same with email and electricity but by other regulatory standards.

> Except that the law and regulations are always behind once the early technology has been introduced, with early adopters getting themselves burned, sued or encountering significant losses - Hence the DAO hack of 2016. That is the reason why ICOs are now regulated.

How does this has anything to do with how technology was implemented?

I am not defending NFTs nor fighting regulation. I am saying that you cannot blame ether's smart contracts for creation of NFT.