Jump to content
IGNORED

NFTs and the Blockchain - What the hell is all this?


squirtle
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

 

Right. Can anyone tell me what this means? 


Which part don't you understand? NFT's are fucking over the planet while offering nothing of intrinsic value. Also, monkey.jpeg is nowhere near as cool as katana-wielding hackers.

If you want a really long version:
https://antsstyle.medium.com/why-nfts-are-bad-the-long-version-2c16dae145e2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll come back to the thread later today. I now have around eight hours of work to fit into two, and it has to look good.

 

I'm just openly theorising alternatives to the ultra-capitalist systems we have currently in place. I only believe we need to cut out the amount of money/energy that goes to otherwise useless middlemen (publishers, marketing budgets, sales platforms, banks, logistics, etc.) while in turn reversing/offsetting the toll on the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vemsie said:

NFT's are fucking over the planet

 

Not all of them. For NFT trading to become more profitable it has to move to carbon-negative proof of stake, in an optimal situation.

 

To get to work would you rather drive a car that costs €100 fuel each day, or something which is solar-powered? It all boils down to profitability being the driving force here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Man, that article makes my head hurt and I'm even more confused by the whole thing now than before.

The whole notion is bizarre to me - I don't write it off as someone uneducated about it but I'll say NFTs are something for normal people to tut at and be perplexed about. I'm happy to just do that and post pictures of monkeys making fun of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fallows said:

 

Not all of them. For NFT trading to become more profitable it has to move to carbon-negative proof of stake, in an optimal situation.

 

To get to work would you rather drive a car that costs €100 fuel each day, or something which is solar-powered? It all boils down to profitability being the driving force here.


Not all of them, but the vast majority is. It's doing a lot of damage for no reason at all and it will get worse before it gets better. If it ever gets better in the first place. The article I've posted goes into greater depth on this.

Also, I work from home and don't drive a car. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vemsie said:

Not all of them, but the vast majority is. It's doing a lot of damage for no reason at all and it will get worse before it gets better. If it ever gets better in the first place. The article I've posted goes into greater depth on this.

 

It has to get better to become more profitable. If it gets worse it becomes less profitable.

And yeah, I'm supposed to be working from home, too. But you get my example. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Benny said:

Making copies of digital media artificially scarce is the most laughably stupid idea I've ever heard. Of course Nintendo are ahead of the pack on this with Mario 3D All Stars already, and nobody liked that either.


I’ve addressed this before, and again this is a fundamental misunderstanding. An NFT is no more artificially scarce than a mp3 is artificially scarce because you’ve paid for it. 

 

In both cases, the ‘thing’ is effortlessly open to duplication, and as equally enjoyable in original or duplicated form, but the process of ‘official’ ownership confers benefits to both the author and the owner - at the simplest level, these are getting paid and the pleasure of ownership.

 

There are lots of reasons you can be critical about NFTs, the technologies behind them and the speculation they attract, but it’s unhelpful to invent reasons that don’t reflect the actuality.


Incidentally, a lot of the yucks people get from dunking on NFT bros on Twitter seems to come from the fact many of these people purchasing NFTs don’t really understand the above either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZOK you're responding to me as though I have misunderstood NFTs - I was responding to the possible use case idea mentioned previously, which was talking about using them to intentionally make things artificially scarce.

 

Which is, of course, shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Fallows said:

 

Not all of them. For NFT trading to become more profitable it has to move to carbon-negative proof of stake, in an optimal situation.

 

To get to work would you rather drive a car that costs €100 fuel each day, or something which is solar-powered? It all boils down to profitability being the driving force here.

That’s all hypothetical, and too “invisible hand of the market” for my liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Benny said:

You're responding to me as though I have misunderstood NFTs - I was responding to the possible use case idea mentioned previously, which was talking about making things artificially scarce.


Oh sorry, I didn’t get that. Yes, making anything artificially scarce is stupid, but that’s capitalism, of course. It’s fundamentally stupid. When Nintendo (or anyone) sells you a digital game, it’s also artificially scarce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Fallows said:

I'm just openly theorising alternatives to the ultra-capitalist systems we have currently in place. I only believe we need to cut out the amount of money/energy that goes to otherwise useless middlemen (publishers, marketing budgets, sales platforms, banks, logistics, etc.) while in turn reversing/offsetting the toll on the environment

 

But you haven't theorised any alternatives, beyond saying "you could use NFTs for this!"

 

I'm not sure how NFTs could replace the benefits conferred by a good publisher or marketing strategy, either. Minting one for each copy of my game I wish to sell doesn't get eyes on it, it doesn't get the game onto consoles, it doesn't give me QA and localisation support and it doesn't give me a platform to handle the hosting and distribution so I don't have to do that myself. 

 

So why would I want to do away with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mogster said:

Full fat DRM is always circumvented in time for pirated games, and I'm sure "DRM lite" would be in no time too. Some existing DRM also requires server checks, just not to a blockchain, and people already kick off about offline games requiring a network connection.

 

Yep, and in fact a lot of the smart people would be even more keen to break these ones.

 

19 hours ago, K said:

NFTs aren’t inherently bad, and there are some potentially useful applications. Like, I can see how they could be used for making it easier to manage usage and administering payments for the use of an image or similar - so if you’re a digital artist or a photographer, then that could be useful.

 

How? All the receipts in the world don't make the actual image any less copyable, shop websites are now trivially simple and in person card payments even more so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't really have a clue about NFTs and Blockchain before this and whilst I'm still not sure I fully understand what's going on, there's been some really useful links posed on here which I've been working through. So thanks for that. 

 

Luddite question, I guess, but do you think that people are investing in NFTs thinking that they now own the digital copyright for that image in perpetuity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ZOK said:


Because these are exercises in automated speculation - they have almost nothing to do with ‘genuine’ art at all, beyond an arguably solid conceptual relationship.

 

Arguably, the exercise in automated speculation - the fools and their money - is the artwork, rather than any of the mechanics or pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Stopharage said:

I didn't really have a clue about NFTs and Blockchain before this and whilst I'm still not sure I fully understand what's going on, there's been some really useful links posed on here which I've been working through. So thanks for that. 

 

Luddite question, I guess, but do you think that people are investing in NFTs thinking that they now own the digital copyright for that image in perpetuity? 

I hope not, it's another reason why using it in place of traditional selling methods of digital art doesn't actually make anything simpler or easier. Buying digital art, whether commissioned or not, involves agreement on who has copyright, fair usage etc. Buying an NFT doesn't. It's essentially buying an art print, but without the right to actually print it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Dudley said:

How? All the receipts in the world don't make the actual image any less copyable, shop websites are now trivially simple and in person card payments even more so.

 

As I said above, traditional payment systems don't work as well with very small payments. So a NFT / DLT / crypto solution might make it easier to manage tiny payments arising from use of an image or something similar, in that it might actually make it viable. And by "manage usage" I meant legitimate usage. I don't think it'll stop anyone copying things, but it might make it easier to record who wants to use an image and who has, and could automate things like getting permission to use it, and receiving payment for usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Stopharage said:

Luddite question, I guess, but do you think that people are investing in NFTs thinking that they now own the digital copyright for that image in perpetuity? 

 

Certainly some people are not working very hard to dissuade them otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Protocol Penguin said:

That’s all hypothetical, and too “invisible hand of the market” for my liking.

 

Do you think large industries switching over to renewables is to help lessen their numerous burdens on the environment? They don't give a fuck about the environment, everybody knows that, they're doing it because it's cheaper. Of course, it also makes them look good at the same time as appeasing shareholder sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, K said:

 

As I said above, traditional payment systems don't work as well with very small payments. So a NFT / DLT / crypto solution might make it easier to manage tiny payments arising from use of an image or something similar, in that it might actually make it viable. And by "manage usage" I meant legitimate usage. I don't think it'll stop anyone copying things, but it might make it easier to record who wants to use an image and who has, and could automate things like getting permission to use it, and receiving payment for usage.

How so more than a regular database? Every NFT needs to be minted which costs more than the pennies you're suggesting need to be charged, plus each individual NFT would need to be hosted somewhere (as people are only buying a token saying they own whatever is at the url). I can host something once and let people download it for 1p right now. I can also include licensing information in that.

 

It honestly feels like the word 'might' is doing all the lifting in your post. You may as well post that in the future NFTs and crypto might make it possible for everyone to have a carbon negative house in whichever country they want. Unless there's a reason for recording a transaction on an immutable ledger there's no reason for it to be an NFT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking about this NFT/digital game scenario where publisher sells direct to customer then publisher gets a cut of resale and it actually sounds like a utopian vision for some publishers or at least to do it with some sort of ultimate/special edition version of the game (which doesn't even have to have any different about in the game - just call it special NFT edition with a different digital cover of whatever.

 

Announce Special NFT edition of Call of War 6 that is limited to x thousand copies - sell them to a mix of consumers who love special editions and then speculators and then if publisher is lucky the price of these special editions rockets because they are rare and the publisher get a cut of every resale. If there is no real demand for them being resold then it doesn't really matter to the publisher as they've already sold them once already.

 

In theory there is nothing stopping them having loads and loads of different special editions with varying degrees of rarity. Have one limited to only ten copies and sell it for some stupidly high initial price and hope  few resell for a ridiculous price.

 

Its a horrifying scenario, but FIFA 23 NFT Ronaldo with a blue hat and eyepatch edition may be coming soon?

 

Edit: I guess it would be similar to Ticketmaster owning ticket resale sites and taking a decent cut of the resale. They don't care if people are buying up tickets for concerts in order to tout them to someone else at a premium if they get a cut of that premium as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, footle said:

 

Arguably, the exercise in automated speculation - the fools and their money - is the artwork, rather than any of the mechanics or pixels.


That’s probably how a situationist would look at it, yes. The whole thing works perfectly as situationist art.

 

Of course, the chance these things are being perpetrated by artists rather than crooks and cryptochancers is sadly very slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, therearerules said:

How so more than a regular database? Every NFT needs to be minted which costs more than the pennies you're suggesting need to be charged, plus each individual NFT would need to be hosted somewhere (as people are only buying a token saying they own whatever is at the url). I can host something once and let people download it for 1p right now. I can also include licensing information in that.

 

It honestly feels like the word 'might' is doing all the lifting in your post. You may as well post that in the future NFTs and crypto might make it possible for everyone to have a carbon negative house in whichever country they want. Unless there's a reason for recording a transaction on an immutable ledger there's no reason for it to be an NFT.

 

Maybe you can do all this stuff now in the particular use case you're talking about, which I confess I don't know anything about. You may not need an alternative, but other people might. Generally speaking, processing low-value payments isn't very attractive, because the overheads and fees are very high (relatively speaking). If you accept a payment of 1p, then someone else is presumably providing all the underlying plumbing for you in return for a fee (which someone somewhere in this chain is paying, even if it isn't you) - someone's transmitting the payment instructions from the consumer to the merchant to the payment processor to the card issuer, etc etc. There is the potential to create an alternative to a lot of this middle layer through using cryptoassets / NFTS / etc.

 

The word "might" is doing a lot of work, because I'm not arguing that any of this will definitely happen, or really advocating for NFTs. I have no idea whether any of this will happen, NFTs could go the way of ICOs or any of the other crypto also-rans. I just think there are some interesting ideas in there, and that (like crypto in general) the speculative fervour is concealing the fact that the underlying technology is potentially useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ork1927 said:

I'm thinking about this NFT/digital game scenario where publisher sells direct to customer then publisher gets a cut of resale and it actually sounds like a utopian vision for some publishers or at least to do it with some sort of ultimate/special edition version of the game (which doesn't even have to have any different about in the game - just call it special NFT edition with a different digital cover of whatever.

 

Announce Special NFT edition of Call of War 6 that is limited to x thousand copies - sell them to a mix of consumers who love special editions and then speculators and then if publisher is lucky the price of these special editions rockets because they are rare and the publisher get a cut of every resale. If there is no real demand for them being resold then it doesn't really matter to the publisher as they've already sold them once already.

 

In theory there is nothing stopping them having loads and loads of different special editions with varying degrees of rarity. Have one limited to only ten copies and sell it for some stupidly high initial price and hope  few resell for a ridiculous price.

 

Its a horrifying scenario, but FIFA 23 NFT Ronaldo with a blue hat and eyepatch edition may be coming soon?

 

Edit: I guess it would be similar to Ticketmaster owning ticket resale sites and taking a decent cut of the resale. They don't care if people are buying up tickets for concerts in order to tout them to someone else at a premium if they get a cut of that premium as well.

 

 

In this case, the NFT aspect would do little* other than marketing, as you can accomplish all of that without the blockchain. All you need is a means of verifying ownership - such as the various storefronts the major publishers already have - and allow second hand sales of that specific product, exclusively on that marketplace.

 

* I say little, but indeed it'd be the entire point, because without the NFT bubble, nobody would actually want to own any of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, K said:

Maybe you can do all this stuff now in the particular use case you're talking about, which I confess I don't know anything about. You may not need an alternative, but other people might. Generally speaking, processing low-value payments isn't very attractive, because the overheads and fees are very high (relatively speaking). If you accept a payment of 1p, then someone else is presumably providing all the underlying plumbing for you in return for a fee (which someone somewhere in this chain is paying, even if it isn't you) - someone's transmitting the payment instructions from the consumer to the merchant to the payment processor to the card issuer, etc etc. There is the potential to create an alternative to a lot of this middle layer through using cryptoassets / NFTS / etc.

 

 

https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/the-enduring-value-of-nfts-on-algorand

 

Quote

Algorand is the premiere platform to create, launch, and manage your NFTs.  The cost of NFT creation on Algorand is roughly ten cents, as opposed to other blockchains where prices can be equivalent to $50-$800 plus another $150 to transfer it.   This means Algorand makes high volume NFT creation actually feasible, allows markets for value priced NFTs to exist, and improves margins on all NFTs.  In addition, creation can be as simple as sending a single transaction to the network, thanks to our layer 1 primitives, but can also support as much customization as desired for your bespoke or artisan NFT needs.  The cost benefits do not end with creation as transferring NFTs on Algorand is as cheap as a simple pay transaction - roughly a tenth of a penny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.