(untitled)

Thoughts on NFTs? are they any good or worth it?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, This is terrible opening post, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

They stole his monkey jpegs OP. The jepgs that he bought, it's not like you can just rightclick and copy them.

I used to be pretty excited with the future of Crypto currencies and the token market, in regards to decentralization and the concept of "digital cash", but more and more I realize that any technological advancement in the field is either deliberately a pump and dump scheme for rich assholes, or has good intentions but will only ever be used as a pump and dump scheme by rich assholes. NFTs are a decent idea - in regards to digital receipts to physical assets. They're terrible for the art market. The only benefit is that rich assholes have realized how profitable NFTs are and thats keeping the actual, physical art market easier to navigate then ever.

>>53509 >>53510 These two. Just crypto assholes scamming tech-illiterate people, nothing more. A good way to make big money as long as NFTs are a hot meme, but I don't think they have a future. Crypto generally became a parody of what it was meant to be in the past.

well, I made an NFT but realized earlier that I was using NFTs wrong, like everyone else, putting more value in the picture (which can be copied multiple times and that's all people want is the picture)than the metadata, which has me asking now, how can the metadata be used especially with NFTs and I'm not sure why but I see potential for a #D printer market with NFTs or something similar. btw you can have my NFT if you want, no one was buying it anyway.

Are any of those legit use cases NFT is supposed to have currenctly functioning? Not much to add on the "art" side other than from what I gather most artists don't really care about royalties, but about getting commisions and opportunities to work. That's a cultural change, not something that whatever tech disruption can fix

The only real cryptocurrency is Bitcoin. All of this NFT nonsense is for preying on idiots who don't understand cryptocurrency, and still think they can jump on board; it's nothing more than parting money from fools.

>>53538 I have no idea, I think it can be used to buy a car or a deed to a house but after realizing people can steal the picture that just seems really stupid.

>>53507 NFTs are fuarrrking stupid. I'm saying this as a guy who is really into the software behind obscure cryptographic currencies like peercoin and faircoin, monero and even dogecoin. But NFTs are either a godamn scam or, if they're actually serious, a really dumb idea. I should make a few NFTs and sell them to morons like the ones on Twitter.

>>53545 I know, I really do but I had a thought, if I embed gcode for a 3D into an image and turn that image into an NFT will the Gcode still be there or will it be something different? like you're selling the metadata within the picture and not the picture it's self, I'm sure there is some way to use that.

>>53546 *for a 3D printer into and image

>>53546 You are fundamentally misunderstanding what a NFT is. The image or the gcode file is not what the NFT is. You can turn an image into a NFT. This is like saying a deed to a house can be turned into a house. That doesn't make sense. A deed is a little bit of paper stored in a closet somewhere that says Joe Smith owns that house. A NFT is a little Token somewhere that nobody looks at that says Joe Smith owns this one .jpg file.

>>53548 so it's basically just free copyrights for content creators.....

>>53545 >NFTs are fuarrrking stupid this

So let me get this straight, people are selling random images on the internet as NFTs? Are you telling me that I could just make edits of memes all day and get rich now? Dumbass twitter and reddit retards will buy them up like candy instead of just saving the image? No watermarks, no embedded features or values? I really don't understand how this is even a concept. Just doesn't make sense to me in the least bit. This seems a million times worse than CD based items with no copyright protection. And even with copyright protection that didn't stop billions of copies of PlayStation or other game ISOs/ROMs to make their way online. I feel like my brain is short circuiting every second more I waste thinking about it.

>>53557 I'm not sure how these people get rich off of it but I haven't gotten one sold yet

>>53557 A friend told me about this, it broke my mind too, i couldnt believe it. But it just goes to show what sort of messed up economy and society we live in. Why cant people just trade drugs or some soykaf instead.

>>53510 Digital (not crypto-) currency can be good, but ultimately if nothing guarantees its value, then it doesn't have any. Given that it's cryptographically possible to have a payment system with IRL currency, anonymous buyers, and non-anonymous sellers (which solves the money laundering problem), there's no need for this sort of stuff. Cryptocurrency is just a "greater fool" thing. I don't understand the psychology behind NFTs. It's an entry in a database connected with the hash of an image, right?

>>53507 The technology itself, I could see some potenial use cases for, where proof of ownership could become an important factor. It's the mouth-breathing room temperature IQ whales who don't understand they got fleeced for a useless cryptographic string that have ruined it. Useless since people do not give a flying fuarrrk that they have the legit copy of an 'art' because the 'art' that came with it has no value, making the use of the token void.

>retarded admin leaves this thread open. of all things please do not come to nanochan

>>53558 >>53564 Where and how would you even go about finding someone to dupe into wasting their money on such idiocracy? Are they actually doing this over Discord? I also noticed that MetaMask was mentioned in that post towards the beginning of the thread. >>53564 >Why cant people just trade drugs or some soykaf instead Yeah, or at the very least just pay someone for their services in making a shoop or edit. That would make a hell of a lot more sense than this soykaf. Don't even get me started with the waves of women selling their own soykaf, piss, and period blood. At this point I should mail people grass from my yard for small sums of crypto and bags of rocks for silver dimes.

>>53507 Do NFTs always apply to a single original? Like, I want to sell the same monkey six times. Also, are they proof of work, or more like a cryptographic signature?

>>53654 Also, how does the buyer know I'm the real owner and can sell it? Like, the guy with the monkey selfie who fought wikipedia in court. How would NFT know if the owner is the man or the monkey when there was a court case over it?

>>53655 NFTs =/= copyright The guy taking wiki to court is either dumb or just want to make a publicity stunt. Stay away from NFTs except if you want to launder money or scam cryptobros.

>>53557 >Are you telling me that I could just make edits of memes all day and get rich now? No only the auction houses & rating agencies make all the money,they artificially pump up the prices by buying their own inventory and the duped retards who invest in them, then loose all their money once everyone realises the scam . Some of the examples are comic books,coins,videogame cartriges ,fine art ,tulips etc You just have to look at who is buying (NFT) artwork for $69,346,250...... it's Metakovan, the founder and financer of Metapurse the largest NFT fund in the world.What are the odds that they have made some insider deal with the auction house and the whole transaction is PR for NFT's and to pump up prices so that the Investors dups think meme JPEGs are valuable. Just look at this https://www.ebay.com/itm/184313884445 US $2,000,000 for an 1990 NINTENDO Game This video explains why : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLFEh7V18A Exposing FRAUD And DECEPTION In The Retro Video Game Market

>>53507 The technology behind them is interesting but NFTs in and of themselves are retarded pyramid schemes for tech-illiterate people, young and old.

>>53575 Having visited, there's nothing of value there anyway.

>>53509 but they had OC AAA logos how could they be scammers????

I'm conflicted about them. The monkeys are retarded imo, but I could see advantages when it comes to selling the rights for using a music/art/anything in a decentralized way. One thing that really triggers me tho: >dumb artist on twitter says they can't stand NFTs >"me and my copyrights" 10 minutes later >>53567 >Digital (not crypto-) currency can be good that's retarded. It's like saying "http is better than https". You should look up what crypto means.

>>53875 NFTs aren't legally accepted as copyrights. So you I don't know how you see them as an "advantage" when it comes to selling the rights of your art. Oh and nothing is stopping scammers from selling copyrighted art from someone else and sell it as their own. Look around Opensea or other NFT platforms, you can find a few of them, using screenshot from disney movies etc..

>>53507 NFTs are great but many people don't understand it because of how they understand a value of things. For many people value is an absolute intrinsic property of a thing and a person should passively accept values of things and values things how they should be valued based on proper theory: labor theory, religion dogmas, etc. A way to understand value as more liquid subjective concept where a person can determine value by their own will is not accessible for many minds. For me NFTs are the further step into cybernetization, where more things can be done in the "virtual reality" which can only be done in the "physical reality" before. And distinction between physical and virtual is pure delusional just saying. And NFTs make sense for cryptocurrencies. Now we have our own crypto-native market of goods and also the financial system of DeFi. So less and less usefulness of crypto depends on existing of the market of physical goods.

theyre not even worth downloading for free from "thenftbay"

>>53654 No. NFTs can be minted in series. ERC-1155 is especially designed for it as well as for game items. > Also, are they proof of work, or more like a cryptographic signature? No Proof-of-Work is required for minting NFTs and it's more like the owner pubkey associated with the token, and to change it owner must sign with their own signature. >>53655 Have you tried to ask how to proof that someone is an author, creator or legal digital rights owner? Actually it is not usually possible by an NFT itself. Author should say that they minted the NFT somewhere, on a social media for example.

It might just be me, but I kinda think NFTs are like a technology that came out already obsolete. Like, it's a great idea, but when you look back at the history of the internet NFTs feel like they would have had more use cases if they were presented earlier. We already have technology or frameworks that do what NFTs do, but NFTs are just a different way of getting to the same goal. Once the art market crashes(and it will), we might see some long standing use cases of it. Maybe newer companies will integrate it based on ease of use and ability to set up a paying system relatively easily without having to deal with regulations and whatnot. NFTs are a solution to a problem no one had. I see the metaverse the same way. Or maybe that's just society at this point. We have very few problems which are very hard to solve so we're creating these easier fake issues, like accessorizing a virtual avatar, or getting offended when someone doesn't know you use they/them.

>>53961 It's not obsolete. NFT went viral just after the US and EU passed new art market regulations. Those regulations are super bad for people in the market for laundering money. You need more proof to buy and sell Art now (you need to justify the source of your money, your bank account (at least the one directly buying) should be in your name and not registered with another company, etc etc) My guess is, some "players" in the Art market game went to NFT to resume their money laundering operation while spamming the soykaf out of social medias to attract randoms to hide their hustle. At least it's the most possible explanation for me. I can't believe all those people are dumbasses buying monkeys for the price of a house lulz

>>53961 >NFTs are a solution to a problem no one had Yeah that's a great summary Even on those cases when they think NFTs cut unnecessary middlemen they are seeing things too narrowly. Value needs confidence, and NFTs won't provide that unless actively used by the traditional institutions first I guess that's why they haven't moved past stupid cases like collecting crap for bragging rights, consooming nonsense or as a retarded way to sponsor artists >>53958 Yeah that's clearly the aim. I don't see how that's an improvement at all though Web 3.0 wants to basically monetize the internet, and the gig of free money for doing simple stuff will end when the bubble stabilizes and is time for all those companies to properly profit to pay back the investment. I don't see how what they want to do with games for example is any better than the soykaf fortnite is serving.

>>53958 > NFTs are the further step into cybernetization, where more things can be done in the "virtual reality" which can only be done in the "physical reality" before. Yeah, because real world has scarcity. So instead of going further in trying to eliminate scarcity in the real world, let's instead use all of our mental energy to make sure digital "goods", which most can be copied without limit within the click of a button, become scarce too. I find this close to satire. It's self imposed poverty. And honestly, the whole idea of wanting to cybertize everything is low key dystopic. Because it won't be some paradise on earth. What it would actually mean is big tech taking over our minds, controlling us and exploiting us for wealth in both our work hours and free time, which they do now anyways. Even when some socker mom writes a posts on facebook that enriches the company even though they aren't workers in it. At best I think what that could mean is that they make some brain helmet that shoots you up on dopamine, so basically everyone would be a cyber meth junkie. Which is not a life worth living to me. We have people like that today, we call them addicts and most regret their live even though they felt more dopamine than any of us will ever feel. Because they become slaves to food, drugs, alcohol and what not.

>>53972 > because real world has scarcity "real world" has a lot of things which are not scarce. And people don't focus attention on this things and completely ignore them. Because a human's attention is scarce. And people won't spend their "mental energy" on dirt under their feet. With idea of digital content we turn people's work into the same thing as dirt. It happened because of idea that the content is value and not the context. And if you want to spend your "mental energy" on liberating the content what is scarce is your activity and not the product. For example, in free software people donate money for developers for work because the developer resources are scarce. With that the only sustainable monetization is to turn a project into permanent development process where a software is not completed and often barely working but need developers to make it better and maybe full-functional somewhere in the distant future.

>>53875 Usage rights only matter to the extent that they are enforced. If I own some land and you come on it, I can have you forcibly removed. The cops that show up don't give a soykaf about some cryptographically secure signature that can prove ownership, they care who the relevant local authority says owns the land. If the register of deeds uses a system of handwritten post-it notes, then whoever's name is on the post-it note is all that matters. It isn't at all clear what rights if any are conferred by holding the key associated with an NFT. You'd have to get lawyers involved, draw up a contract and get that into the blockchain somehow. And then you'd have to get some authority to take it seriously, which they probably won't because it's not something they can control.

>>53972 >Because it won't be some paradise on earth No, it is not about a paradise or solutions for problems or some crazy idea of end goal. It is about how to smash the false distinction between "real" and "virtual" which was mistakenly created as a concept in the past because some form of interaction with a "physical world" was too new and sophisticated.

>>53977 >false distinction This isn't anime. In the past when things were good and the virtual world was an escape from reality and the misery of normal "real" life, you mean? You may not remember that time. The more that garbage corporations and autists inject the networked world into our reality the more things suck. We're not headed for that cool blade runner-esque reality. We're headed for locked down, califailia misery where you won't even be able to escape into the simple pleasure of a country drive after the effeminate federal autocracy says it's too dangerous for humans to do anything on their own and forces you into a self-driving electric homomobile.

>>53981 It is not about escaping the "real" world. It is about escaping the old dominating ruleset and status quo. If someone claims that their favorite ruleset is the only true reality it is because of their good position in that system: social hierarchy, habits, skills, etc. And they would like to keep as many people in that ruleset as possible because they gets profit form the network effect. And definitely social changes for them are dystopian, but it will not be dystopian for people with nothing to lose, especially for new generations.

>>53507 https://thenftbay.org >are they worth it? nah

>>53507 NFTs are just the buy art to launder money and dodge tax hussle for the internet nonce era mashed up with a get rich quick scheme

>>53977 You can't eat pixels. Your way of thinking only works so long as you can externalize the costs of your physical existence. Once you run out of food you'll forget about your fortnite skins pretty quick.

Can you imagine presenting one of these at a grocery store checkout.

>>53509 >it's not like you can just rightclick and copy them. You can also make a photocopy of the mona lisa. The reason people buy original art is not just to support the artist but to have public proof that you supported the artist and the various social credit that comes with that. Spending large amounts of money on things that are objectively useless is called conspicuous consumption. It is basically "look at me, I'm so successful I can waste money on this crap and not care, seeth more poorfаgs". The only condition for this to work is that there most be some kind of public and difficult/impossible to fake proof that you burned the money on this "art". NFTs fit that requirement.

>>54008 you sure can photocopy the moaning lisa, but you can make a perfect replica of an NFT. the only way to enforce their originality is through extremely draconian measures. as this is lainchan... kinda thinking people wouldn't like that... oh, but that's ok, you prolly one of those "help, i'm oppressed because somebody right-clicked on my already-stolen-and-resold art". go pay an artist for an original piece, it'll cost a lot less and be worth a lot more.

>>54010 > the only way to enforce their originality is through extremely draconian measures There is no need for enforcement. NFT uniqueness can be achive at "navigation layer" in the app ecosystem around them. People probably don't understand what they try to copy. To save a pic from an NFTs is like to save an asset from a video game item or a number representing a cryptocurrency balance from someone's else address. No, there is no need in enforcement.

>>54010 >you can make a perfect replica of an NFT. the only way to enforce their originality is through extremely draconian measures. It sounds like you don't understand how public key cryptography works. Only the person who controls the private key can prove ownership of the NFT. >oh, but that's ok, you prolly one of those... Don't strawman. >go pay an artist for an original piece, it'll cost a lot less and be worth a lot more. Completely missing the point for a second time. The "value" is in the social credit for burning the money, not the item itself.

>>54012 imagine thinking that being the ass of every joke is "social credit" lol.

>>54013 >imagine thinking that being the ass of every joke is "social credit" lol. Imagine that your opinion is not the one that counts.

>>54015 don't need to, that's just where we're headed. you're all the laughing stocks of the internet.

ITT autistic /tech/ geeks struggle to understand money, hierarchies and human nature. >>54016 "Laughing" at people who waste money on things you can't afford is just a coping mechanism.

NFTs are pretty much a corruption of what cryptocurrency was supposed to be (fungible and untraceable). Apparently the actual art itself isn't even stored on the blockchain. But, the art trade has always been value inflation and scamming. Has it not?

>>54025 >fungible and untraceable Neither is bitcoin.

>>54024 >"Laughing" at people who waste money on things you can't afford is just a coping mechanism. Not him, but people buying things just because they are expensive or rare is ridiculous. Even if I had billions to spare, I wouldn't really live that differently. Sure, like everyone I would get some luxuries, but by committing to that mentally of showing off your wealth you are pathetic and I think those people even know that themselves. They fully know that the only reason they don't disappear to obscurity or people even notice them is because of money. Not because of some internal quality they posses and their live turns into a quite lonely and hellish existence. Also a stressful one because how can you even trust anyone in such a scenario?

>>54029 >people who do things I wouldn't do are stupid Is that really your argument?

>>54030 Well, I wouldn't use the world stupid since that has a meaning that kinda goes beyond what I said. I would say they even act quite rational maybe up to a point. But in the long term I feel like they are shooting themselves in the foot and I explained why. The fact that they show off is a proof of that like I said. Confident people don't need to show off, because they are confident. Pretty easy to understand. If they are trying hard to show they are confident though, they might fool others that they are, but sooner or later the mask will slip. The same thing can be said here.

>>54031 >there is a limit after which it becomes counter productive Have you considered that different social groups will have different limits? i.e. you and your life experience is not actually the baseline for the whole world

>>54027 >bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency

>>54025 NFTs are actually more like democratization of cryptocurrency minting. Before only miners, project founders, token creators could mint tokens. Everyone can mint NFTs and they all will be valued independently by the market. And what is about traceability. Yes, you can get it on top of NFTs. There are systems of private transactions where NFT transfers are not traceable on-chain and all NFTs are indistinguishable on-chain. For example, ZKOPRU works similarly to Zcash private transactions but for ERC-20 and ERC-721. Another way is to mint a stablecoin baked by NFTs in CDP. Simirarly to what Maker DAO does with FTs.

>>54032 For a niglet in Africa it is "ridiculous" that you spend $100 on sneakers. And for you it is "ridiculous" that someone spends $100K on a car. And for that guy it is "ridiculous" that someone spends $100M on a yacht. It's all relative. You are not the center of the universe. >>54034 >bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency Bitcoin was the first to be fully decentralized and solve the double spend problem. So I don't understand how >>54025 thinks "cryptocurrency was supposed to be" something that bitcoin actually isn't.

>>54027 > Neither is bitcoin. Privacy and untraceability are transaction system tech and not a property of a currency.

>>54034 >bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency Jesus is the only God.

Half way in this thread, and got bored. Yall silly One way NFTs are kinda cool is when the receipt provides ownership rights to let's say a specific sector of a digital land in a game. Basically picture Second Life digital land ownership. There was that one other game which does the thing I mentioned. NFT ugly monkeys, or Pixelpunks are hype shovelware.

>>54062 > NFT ugly monkeys, or Pixelpunks are hype shovelware. Precisely. Although let's not forget Earth 2 and all the other virtual crypto ownership nonsense before this whole entire debacle either. Any project likely to flex that idea would not beyond a hackjob Unity project. But as for the rest, it's actually just embarrassing seeing them flexing pictures they (think they) own that looks straight from some random art generator, or shouting and screaming about the next big JPEG collection that's being minted right now for everybody to invest. I hopped on Reddit expecting to find maybe one project that would justify the use of the blockchain tech but nope, just hype beasts and hobos. It's all a Ponzi scheme.

>>54064 >expecting to find maybe one project that would justify the use of the blockchain tech but nope How about domain names? Currently they are gatekept by registries and registrars, but ENS lets anyone buy a .eth domain just by paying a regular fee and doesn't let anyone take it away. Another use would be to register usernames for a P2P social media or chat system. Session already does this.

>>53975 People do value and give attention to non-scarce things, you know. Like sunlight on your face, grass under your feet, and wind in your hair.

nft/web3/metaverse all just capitalistic appropriations of cyberpunk/internet culture. it be pushed in our faces for the next 10-15 years but ultimately fail as no corpo workers could produce the same sort of quality product as one (1) furry with a dream, particularly Frooxius and the way he's just about singlehandedly built NeosVR. not trying to wage slave, soykafs just fuarrrking wild to be honest and has amazing potential. it's unfortunately funded by crypto venture capital but i feel like they're going about it fine. before corpos started to use metaverse, that's what i'd call it because that's honestly what it is.

>>53538 The main use that I can think of is "proof-of-ownership". Current NFTs are stupid because they're tying digital content that can be duplicated to it as if attaching those to an NFT would magically make that digital content scarce. When you buy an NFT you're buying the proof that own that NFT. So it's useful for deeds and titles, for example you may have an NFT instead of a bunch of legalese to prove that you own your car or your house. This makes ownership a matter of mathematical and cryptographic functions rather than the malleable and often error-prone social functions of government. Think of anything document that are currently used to establish proof-of-ownership and most probably NFTs can replace that.

>>54080 >gets metamask jacked >loses house

>>53894 >NFTs aren't legally accepted as copyrights I don't care about the law, especially the united states law. What matters is if I, as the artist, consider it legitimate. >>53976 like I said above, it's not about what's legal and what's not, it's about what I as the artist consider okay or not. Of course it doesn't prevent others from using my soykaf for commercial use, but it draws the line where *I* consider it legitimate or not Overall copyright is soykaf no matter what, and the US can really shove it up their asses

>>53507 They way I see it NFT are a great and easy way for the lower classes to get into the scam that is the "fine art" >be me poor >buy drawing tab >make weird abstract ape with pop culture reference >pay popular people on twitter to "shout out" the "investment" not legal advice.png >"sell" my funny monkey on a botnet for fake internet money >effectively trade my chuck e cheese tokens for actually money >profit Real talk tho anyone who buys this stuff deserves to lose there money to the scam

is there a single nft market/exchange site that does not ping google fonts/syndication or otherwise run a ton of javascript? free as in libre/clean? doesn't link to fb/goog/twitter/m$github/whateverelse so anonymous trades are possible? i'd do it but this is my concern

I love the idea of decentralized proof-of-ownership system based on cryptography, and the technology behind it is great. But soykafty, heavily monetized NFTs like Cryptopunks or "collectible" cards, I have no respect for.

>>54096 you actually figured it out but the catch is these "soykafty paintings" have a face value, which can rise or dip depending on whatever crypto fuarrrkery they have (but it only has value if someone's stupid enough to buy soykafty NFTs and at this point it's possible to hand it over to another stupid) but the thing is it's just a random "art" piece that no one would even re-buy aside from those morons who feel and fear being left out like a pyramid scheme with a little bit of permanent sunk cost while at the same time it burns actual crypto currencies. the fun part is the ownership is not even the file itself but just a DL link which wouldn't be around in a few years so somoene stupid enough to buy them deserve the scam they're getting into. there can be legitimate way to implement NFTs but at this point it's too early, and it's become a legal fraud. back then people had to forge or duplicate paintings by hand with masters that had bested the old masters which counts as art fraud but on this case they give some soykafty scribbles a huge starting value and sell the DL links but its current implementation is way too dumb. the house always wins.

>>53545 You could not be closer to the truth

>>53567 Digital Money is Cryptocurrency, you cannot make a digital currency without crypto because it's gonne be like printing dollars using toilet paper

>>54094 >I don't care about the law, especially the united states law. What matters is if I, as the artist, consider it legitimate. You are just doing it for the money aren't you

>>54121 Even worse, it's like printing money with toilet paper that you can just infinitely copy.

>>54121 You can implement an anonymous digital currency with anything as backing as long as people are willing to put a minimal level of trust into an auditable third party. Proof-of-work based coins are one possible backing currency to such a digital system, but for obvious reasons it is more convenient not to use the blockchain itself for transactions as it is slow and not anonymous. https://taler.net/en/

>>54122 no, but the only interesting way to use NFTs I see as an artist is indeed money transaction

FB emplyee here. We get $1000 from phizer for every phizer critic we ban. We also get 1% of their income for their next 6 years.

>>54143 What. In any currency whatsoever you don't want to trust someone else to maintain the integrity of that currency for you. That never ends well. The blockchain IS the currency, I don't understand why there seems to be a disconnect between the "proof-of-work coins" and the "blockchain". It is one and the same. It is slow by design and there are techniques to anonymize yourself. Heck, there are even currencies that are specifically designed to make you anonymous like monero. And honestly, even bitcoin can be anonymous if we just get rid of that stupid KYC requirements. To keep traditional currencies alive in the digital space will necessitate trusting someone else to maintain that currency's integrity for you. That's a design flaw of the currency that you are using. It means that someone else will have the authority over that currency, they can, as an example, expropriate it from you or inflate it until you're a zillionaire and you can't do anything about it. Cryptocurrencies, atleast the ones that matter, are self-propagating systems that can exist without the intervention of a third-party and it can maintain its own integrity over time.

>>54159 >In any currency whatsoever you don't want to trust someone else to maintain the integrity of that currency for you. Literally every currency ever issued by any government ever was considered valuable because there was a central government ensuring the currency wasn't debased. In the case of bitcoin, you are trusting that the set of miners (which is, for the most part, a tiny and very materially wealthy fraction of the population) doesn't choose to debase the currency. It's not very different from a government, except that you can't show up at their houses with pitchforks if soykaf goes south. >The blockchain IS the currency, I don't understand why there seems to be a disconnect between the "proof-of-work coins" and the "blockchain". It is one and the same. "blockchain" refers to a particular byzantine consensus algorithm using proof of work. There are other byzantine consensus algorithms, some using proof of work and some not. A blockchain is neither in itself a currency nor synonymous with proof of work. >It is slow by design That is a serious flaw in the design. >And honestly, even bitcoin can be anonymous if we just get rid of that stupid KYC requirements. It would be "anonymity" in the sense that it would only be very easy to track bitcoin users instead of trivially easy. >Cryptocurrencies, atleast the ones that matter, are self-propagating systems that can exist without the intervention of a third-party and it can maintain its own integrity over time. They can't be "self-propagating" if they require human input. In any case, a 51% attack is definitely feasible, and there's no reason to expect that 51% is a tight lower bound if someone also exploits properties of the network architecture.

Are people seriously still confused about how money works? Read the first several chapters of this and disabuse yourself of ignorance and mis-education once and for all.

>>54172 >I don't understand anything well enough to make an argument >but this book convinced me so maybe it will convince you too I don't think so buddy.

>>54170 >Literally every currency ever issued by any government ever was considered valuable because there was a central government ensuring the currency wasn't debased. That's not correct, all states have debased their currency all the way back to the Romans. The US dollar has lost 95% of its value in 100 years. Nobody every made any promises that it won't be debased. The reason people use government money is because you need it to pay taxes (and sometimes other things like oil in the case of the petrodollar). >In the case of bitcoin, you are trusting that the set of miners doesn't choose to debase the currency. Anyone can debase bitcoin, just change the source code. Nobody will accept your fake coins though. There are some tricks someone can play if they get 51% of the hash power on the network but inflating the supply is not one of them. They will just end up with their own version of bitcoin that the rest of the network will automatically reject. >A blockchain is neither in itself a currency nor synonymous with proof of work. The blockchain is an unforgable timeline of transactions. That's what the bitcoin network is. > there's no reason to expect that 51% is a tight lower bound if someone also exploits properties of the network architecture. Considering that you've demonstrated zero knowledge of how bitcoin works in this post there is every reason to expect you are full of soykaf.

>>54175 >That's not correct, all states have debased their currency all the way back to the Romans. Eventually, yes. But people thought gold dubloons were valuable because they contained a reliable amount of actual gold, and that holds true to this day. Same with guineas. I didn't say the trust wasn't misplaced, but the slew of currencies that have been abandoned over the millenia because the government couldn't resist betraying that trust shows that there are consequences for doing so. With modern currency that doesn't really have intrinsic value the term "debasement" doesn't really make sense though. Neither does it with bitcoin, since bitcoins have no intrinsic value. >The US dollar has lost 95% of its value in 100 years. You seem to be under the impression that debasement is the same as inflation. It's not. Inflation happens naturally when the currency supply becomes too large -- see the famous inflation of gold in Egypt when Mansa Musa took his Hajj. Supposedly none of that gold was any less pure than it claimed to be, there was just too much of it so the value of gold went down. >Nobody every made any promises that it won't be debased. Often, they literally do. It used to be punishable by death in Britain, I'm pretty sure. >The reason people use government money is because you need it to pay taxes (and sometimes other things like oil in the case of the petrodollar). If there were multiple currencies in circulation the government would just tax you with those. They're working on it for Bitcoin, I'm sure. If you didn't have any currency they would take away your assets. They want to extract value from you, a unified currency is just a convenient and "fair" way to do it, but they'll do it however they can. >Anyone can debase bitcoin, just change the source code. Nobody will accept your fake coins though. Anyone can "debase" the USD this way as well, but nobody's gonna take your dollar bill drawn with crayon on some cardboard. >There are some tricks someone can play if they get 51% of the hash power on the network but inflating the supply is not one of them. They will just end up with their own version of bitcoin that the rest of the network will automatically reject. Yes, obviously they would double-spend the coins. It doesn't have to inflate the currency to make it seriously untrustworthy as a store of value. Remember how the GBP's value plummeted immediately after the brexit vote? That was because currency speculators no longer thought it would be a reliable store of value. >The blockchain is an unforgable timeline of transactions. That's what the bitcoin network is. I am aware.

>>54174 The good arguments have already been made. I'm simply providing a source to cleanse yourself of ignorance. Your fantastical ideas about how money functions stem from an ideological set of assumptions that aren't supported by real world evidence. You can choose to wallow in your own ignorance or learn how the world really works, it's up to you lainon.

>>54176 >people trust government not to debase currency >modern currencies have no "intrinsic value" therefor it's not debasement Talk about moving the goal posts. >You seem to be under the impression that debasement is the same as inflation. Inflation is a subset. >It used to be punishable by death in Britain Citizens clipping coins was punishable by death. What was your point again though? >If there were multiple currencies in circulation the government would just tax you with those. No, the government demands payment in a currency they control, so people have no choice but to use a currency they control. Even the gay lefty book that >>54172 is shlling included this point. >Anyone can "debase" the USD this way as well Cheating a human cashier and cheating math are not on the same level. >Remember how the GBP's value plummeted immediately after the brexit vote? That was because currency speculators no longer thought it would be a reliable store of value. Fiat has never been a reliable store of value. That's why the French sent a warship to New York when Nixon suspended dollar to gold conversions. What speculators were predicting after Brexit was a decrease in future demand for GBP i.e. fewer people (esp Europeans) who want to buy GBP to do business with British companies.

Oh! Cute! You're all collecting Beanie babies!

>>54184 HEY! I still have mine.

>>54182 >Talk about moving the goal posts. it's the definition of the word. >No, the government demands payment in a currency they control, again, this is not always true. Many empires levied taxes via forced labor. Others levied taxes in the form of a certain amount of farm output. >>Anyone can "debase" the USD this way as well >Cheating a human cashier and cheating math are not on the same level. "cheating math" doesn't even make sense, so yes, they're "on a different level". But you claimed that simply changing bitcoin source code was enough to make fake bitcoins. Not only do people actually do that, and get others to use their not-really-bitcoin bitcoins, but also that's basically equivalent to forging a fake dollar bill.

>>54194 I guess I did say "literally every currency" but I should have specified "hard currency".

>>54170 We are splitting hairs here. >Literally every currency ever issued by any government >ever was considered valuable because there was a >central government ensuring the currency wasn't >debased. That's not how value works. Value works if people find one thing to be of value. That happens when a group of people finds something that can't be easily forged. That's why shells can be a currency in mountain communities and metals in shoreline communities. That doesn't need government. This notion that this thing is only valuable because my government said so is a modern statism. We can even argue that this centralized model where a group of people controls the distribution of value is inherently flawed and compromised compared to what we had. >That is a serious flaw in the design. Regardless. To me, it being slow is preferable over an easily inflatable currency such as the dollar. It doesn't matter if the "transactions clear fast" when you can't hold value on it in the long term. >It would be "anonymity" in the sense that it would only >be very easy to track bitcoin users instead of trivially >easy. You don't seem to distinguish between privacy and anonymity. I don't think it would be easy to de-anonymize someone if everyone in the network don't have KYC tagged coins. It would be easy to track, of course, but that's because the ledger is a public document. You know where the coins go to but if you don't know who's involved in which transactions then what you have is just a useless list of cash flow. Despite that, there are now systems in place that aid in further making the the transactions in the bitcoin network to be anonymous and private. So this is already a moot point. >They can't be "self-propagating" if they require human >input. In any case, a 51% attack is definitely feasible, >and there's no reason to expect that 51% is a tight lower >bound if someone also exploits properties of the >network architecture. Oh man, we are really splitting hairs here. I mention self-propagating systems in the sense that such a system rewards behavior that further propagates itself. Culture is a self-propagating system, for example. Culture can't exist without humans but it propagates itself in humans. The bitcoin network is such a system. The severity of a 51% attack has been debunked again and again. Yes, it is technically possible to tamper with the CURRENT transactions if you control 51% of the mining nodes in the current network but you have to sustain that level of control for an extended period of time to be able to do some damage. This would work only if the collective computing power of the network is equivalent to a peanut. The bitcoin network has already sailed, it would be hard to tamper that system now with a 51% attack.

>>54198 >That's not how value works. Value works if people find one thing to be of value. That happens when a group of people finds something that can't be easily forged. That's why shells can be a currency in mountain communities and metals in shoreline communities. That doesn't need government. This notion that this thing is only valuable because my government said so is a modern statism. We can even argue that this centralized model where a group of people controls the distribution of value is inherently flawed and compromised compared to what we had. Ideological and purely hypothetical drivel unsupported by historical and anthropological evidence. I challenge you to cite some real communities (past or present) where currency has functioned like this.

>>54204 Wtf are you talking about. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-017-0593-3 https://www.academia.edu/5313256/A_recognized_currency_in_beads_Glass_Beads_as_Money_in_Nineteenth_century_East_Africa_the_Central_Caravan_Road https://www.academia.edu/38700017/Ancient_Money_in_Southeast_Asia_Part_2 https://web.archive.org/web/20110927230430/http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2004/0201.pdf Chagnon, Napoleon A. 1970. Ecological and Adaptive Aspects of California Shell Money. Annual Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 12:1–25. University of California at Los Angeles. Mauss, Marcel. 1950. The Gift. English translation in 1990 by W.W. North. Trubitt, M.B.D. 2003. "The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods." Journal of Archaeological Research 11:243–277. And that's just me casually looking for it. There's a literal subdiscipline about it in anthropology (Economic Anthropology).

This is a tally stick. The notches basically represent measures of indebtedness from one party to another. Tally sticks were a currency in parts of medieval Europe for several centuries. Tally sticks are trivial to reproduce, they are simply wood with notches carved into them. In England they became a currency around 1100 when Henry I decided he would only accept taxation in the form of tally sticks. Because that is fundamentally what gives a currency stability and utility: the ability of a party with a monopoly on force to make others use it. Anything else is just a commodity to be speculated upon.

>>54206 And how did that turn out? Did it last for hundreds or thousands of years like the shells did?

>>54207 It's not even clear what you're asserting here. What is the "it" that you claim "lasted"? Do you think shells always functioned as currency? Simply exchanging a thing for a thing doesn't make it money. Your sources also don't support your claim of scarcity driving usage (and they generally don't, if you actually study economic anthropology). Pacific northwest tribes in the mountains traded for shells not because they were "rare" but because the more powerful coastal tribes used them for exchange.

>>54209 That pointing a gun in someone's head and saying that "this has value" is not really a good strategy for keeping an object's value in the long run. Look, I'm not even going to begin to make the claim that shells were traded from coastal communities to mountain communities because of some power struggle between the two communities. We can hypothesize why mountain communities traded for shells but I would bet it's because there's no sea shells in the mountains and thus it can be a prestige good for some wealthy person in the mountain community. Not because the coastline community somehow has power over the mountain community. Notice how you shifted the conversation from value to usage, as well. But that's alright. Who knows what made those people use that particular shell or whatnot as a means of exchange during that time. What I do know though is that commodities that are hard to acquire is, generally, valued more. A government or some power structure need not to dictate that. A currency is just a commodity that is used to acquire other commodities, it's a transitory commodity. Perhaps a power structure can dictate what is traded between a group of people or a group of communities but that doesn't distract from the fact that value can only be retained if that object is hard to acquire. Why do you think our money today has so much crap in it to prevent other people from copying and duplicating it. Surely if political will and power is the only thing dictating value then people wouldn't see the need to duplicate their currency. Okay, just to bring down a little bit. When I was growing up, all the kids in our community had this small pieces of cardboard with printed comic book characters on it. I lived in a somewhat remote community so goods are not as readily available as in the cities and that includes our small pieces of cardboard. So over time, what happened was that these pieces of cardboard became a currency between the kids where some kids gamble it away in games or use it to coax other kids to buy stuff for them. We can argue that "that small piece of cardboard" virtually worthless to other people suddenly contained value to this small community of kids. No government dictated that, or even a single mafioso of kids that bullied everyone to use that. Perhaps some kid thought that he can get away by coaxing this one kid to buy him something in exchange for his "small pieces of cardboard" and he got away with it so other kids starting doing it as well and voila, a small economy emerged.

>>54210 >That pointing a gun in someone's head and saying that "this has value" is not really a good strategy for keeping an object's value in the long run. Sorry to say but that's how the history of currency has actually worked. In the end, force has repeated trumped any detached hypothetical notion of the supremacy of voluntary market exchange. When someone points a gun to your head and says you have to pay your taxes in the form of their currency or you'll be punished, you start to trade in that currency in order to accumulate enough to pay taxes. Madagascar had no currency or interest in wage labor until the French conquered the island and started demanding taxes in the form of francs.

>>54212 As I said, centralized currency is a form of modern statism. When you have the state which has a monopoly on violence, it will inevitably monopolize on every aspect of human life. That includes what is considered a medium of exchange.

sounds like something only underage b& and normal users would be into to be honest >use torrent/inspect tool to download nft'ed soykaf >there goes your property

>>54194 >it's the definition of the word. If you're playing word games you've lost the main argument. > this is not always true. Many empires levied taxes via forced labor. Do you acknowledge the point that people don't use dollars because they "trust" the US to not debase it. People use it despite the government debasing it every year. People use dollars because it is the only way for them to pay taxes or to purchase certain goods like oil from US allies like Saudi Arabia. This is by design. >you claimed that simply changing bitcoin source code was enough to make fake bitcoins This is just a continuation of your retarded "debasement" word games. The original statement was this >In the case of bitcoin, you are trusting that the set of miners doesn't choose to debase the currency. Which is true except that by the time you've gained more hashing power than all other miners in the world combined (51%), then you have more incentive to keep bitcoin's value intact than to destroy the whole network. It's not like nobody will notice the debasement. >>54198 >This notion that this thing is only valuable because my government said so is a modern statism Nobody who actually understands economics believes that. It's almost a strawman. >Value works if people find one thing to be of value. That happens when a group of people finds something that can't be easily forged. That's why shells can be a currency in mountain communities and metals in shoreline communities. For something to be a good currency you want it to be difficult (hard) to add more to the market. So in your example these communities are depending on a high cost for transporting seashells to the mountains and metals to the sea. >>54206 >that is fundamentally what gives a currency stability and utility: the ability of a party with a monopoly on force to make others use it. There is nothing stable about our current fiat system that suffers major crashes every ~10 years. The fact that nation states and central banks right up to the present have always used gold between themselves, despite the fact that there is no global monopoly on force making them use gold, further disproves your point. In short money existed before governments and still exists between governments so your assertion that money requires a monopoly on force is wrong. >>54212 >Sorry to say but that's how the history of currency has actually worked. What he said was that is not a good strategy for keeping an object's value in the long run. And he is not wrong. Compare what 30 ounces of gold bought you in 1970 vs what it buys you today.

>>54008 A physical copy of the Mona Lisa, even if fake is still more easily appreciated than a digital copy.

>>54235 >The fact that nation states and central banks right up to the present have always used gold between themselves, despite the fact that there is no global monopoly on force making them use gold, further disproves your point. In fact that's not a fact and you should learn your history better. States have moved on and off metallic standards throughout history. Mercantalism was only a small phase in the history of money. Your delusions about the inherent worth of precious metals aren't supported by reality.

>>54235 >Do you acknowledge the point that people don't use dollars because they "trust" the US to not debase it. Again, US dollars can't be "debased", they can be inflated or "stagflated" or any of the other myriad problems that fiat currency causes. They just can't be debased. But I personally use US dollars because I can use them to pay for goods and services and I have a reasonable expectation that I will be able to continue to do so in the future. If I didn't have that reasonable expectation I would not use US Dollars. The rest of your post isn't really worth responding to IMO. Good day.

normal people once again are 30 years late to the crypto game. public/private key crypto has been around since the 90s, you can have ownership of any digital asset by having the private key, no block chain or any of this bullshit needed. how do you know i wrote the message? i can sign it with my private key, you verify it with the public key. but no, fuarrrking normal people couldnt grasp this simple concept, instead they let themselves get scammed. if you think nfts have any values then youre a fuarrrking braindead joke just learning about technology that has existed and been used for decades. cryptography has many uses, cryptocurrencies and nfts dont. "but muh transactions", i give you a fiat, you give me something in return, no intermediary or any blockchain bullshit needed. imagine doing a simple transaction and telling the person "sorry but this transaction cant go through until some chinese gpu miner somewhere processes it, or i can just give you the euros and be done without now", ffor fuarrrking sake

>>54253 I am no fan of NFTs but I really don't see how you can accomplish what they do by using only public key cryptography as you say. The way you describe it you are only verifying that the encrypted digital asset was encrypted by using your private key, nothing stops other from taking the same asset and encrypting it with their private key. There is no way then to verify who's the original owner of that asset, which is kinda the point of NFTs

>>54255 >really don't see how you can accomplish what they do by using only public key cryptography simple, the parties that will respect your ownership of the asset will have your public key and verify your ownership with the public key. if other parties dont respect your claim to your asset via your ownership of the private key, then nfts wont be a solution either since they dont have to respect the nft owernship. how does an nft stop anyone else from making a new nft on the same asset and claiming theirs is the true valid nft? ownership has always been enforced by others respecting ownership principles, regardless of crypto. nfts just add a new layer with no value added on top of basic public/private keypair plus agreement with others

Crypto trash is why CPUs are going up in price.

>>54258 > Crypto trash is why CPUs are going up in price. Oh no, you cant afford a CPU/GPU to play fortnite? cry kid How else are blockchains supposed to be maintained smh

>>54258 >panicked governments shutting down half the world economy for 2 years over a virus with %99.98 survival rate had nothing to do with it

>>54246 >States have moved on and off metallic standards throughout history. For citizens. I clearly said states and central banks between themselves still settle in gold. >In fact that's not a fact and you should learn your history better. In your desperation to score points in the discussion you misread the post. Try again. >>54247 >I personally use US dollars because I can use them to pay for goods and services Because the providers of those goods and services need to pay their own taxes in dollars. >>54255 >There is no way then to verify who's the original owner of that asset You are forgetting about the blockchain.

>>54269 >states and central banks between themselves still settle in gold. Got a source to back this wishful thinking up?

>>54271 >Got a source to back this https://stacker.com/stories/2615/history-gold-and-which-countries-have-most >Though the gold standard is a thing of the past, governments around the world still hold on to gold reserves. Think of it as a backup should monetary systems fail. Some countries also liquidate their gold to pay off debts. I don't understand what is to doubt here, the argument has been laid out for you very clearly in this thread. Governments have a monopoly on force over a geographic area so they can force the people under them to use their made up paper money. But there is no world wide monopoly on force to make governments transact in one kind of made up paper money or another between each other. So when it comes to permanently settling debts between nations they still use hard resources such as gold. >wishful thinking You're just acting in bad faith now.

>>54274 Your source doesn't appear to support your claim of "settling in gold". It's one thing for central banks to hold on to a reserve of gold, it's quite another to actually trade the gold for anything. You haven't demonstrated that to be happening. And you're wrong about force once again again, the American empire very much commands enough force in the world to make most countries trade in US dollars, particularly for oil. As for debts, you need look no further than the fact that China has settled its debts for decades in the form of US treasury bonds. Not gold. I'll continue to wait on a source to back up your wishful thinking. Happy to be proven wrong when you find the evidence, but you don't appear to have any on your side.

>>54257 I think you can check which NTF was forged first though, that one is the original. Of course this idea goes out of the window if someone manages to forge the NFT before the original owner of the asset creates it...

>>54269 >Because the providers of those goods and services need to pay their own taxes in dollars. Not always. Lots of places actually prefer cash because they can avoid paying taxes on it if they just don't write down the transaction.

You're still talking about your cute digital Beanie babies? Something, something, something, Tulip bulbs...

>>54303 >I think you can check which NTF was forged first though, that one is the original. the order in which they are forged doesn't matter, look at ethereum classic versus current ethereum. classic is the prefork but has much less value than current ethereum, despite being the original coin. if the original mattered, then why is current ethereum worth more than the true original? all that matters is if people form consensus on which NFT they want to regard as the one having the true ownership claim. if you have the original, and I have a copy, but everyone agrees mine is the true ownership claim, then nobody will give a fuarrrk about your nft even if it is forged first. nfts dont solve this at all and literally cannot solve this. instead they provide shaky claims that can easily be invalidated by consensus, that provide a false sense of ownership, that can be confusing and cumbersome to understand since you can make trillions of nfts on the same asset, that cost more effort and time to make than simple public/private keypairs, and that youll have be to constantly wasting your life away convincing people that your copy of the assets and nft have value. face the facts, nfts are fuarrrking scam and add no value whatsoever. you can keep telling yourself they do to make yourself feel better that you bought a fuarrrking heavy bag, but if everyone can make an infinite number of copies, no amount of saying "but look mine has a soykaf token that says mine is better than yours" will make your soykaf nft have value.

>>54304 >here is a pedantic tangent that completely misses the point of what the person is trying to say You are not adding anything to the discussion.

>>54314 >all that matters is if people form consensus on which NFT they want to regard as the one having the true ownership claim This is exactly the problem that cryptocurrencies already solve though. Once a transaction is added to the blockchain you can't change it without also changing everything that came after and forking the whole network. It's not just a matter of 51% of miners just switching out the blockchain from under everyone else. >if you have the original, and I have a copy, but everyone agrees mine is the true ownership claim What are you arguing here? Someone can take an NFT into a time machine and then register the transaction on the blockchain before the original author? >nfts are fuarrrking scam and add no value whatsoever Value is subjective. Just because you don't value something doesn't mean it's valueless. >if everyone can make an infinite number of copies, no amount of saying "but look mine has a soykaf token that says mine is better than yours" will make your soykaf nft have value. What if the part that can be copied is not the thing people are paying for.

>>54297 >Happy to be proven wrong when you find the evidence

>>53960 >No Proof-of-Work is required for minting NFTs Etherium uses Proof-of-Work, where did you get this from?

>>53851 I don't understand what's so special about the technology? Blockchain is interesting but isn't NFT just a hash saved on blockchain?

>>54350 they're sort of right, minting only consumes a transaction iirc, which isn't directly tied to mining. The block would be mined anyway, and the existence of the transaction doesn't change that.

>>54350 PoW in not requiered for minting NFTs. Ethereum uses PoW in the network consensus part for security and currently in the process of switching to PoS. And almost all other major NFTs platforms are on PoS chains already. In the near future there will be only few major PoW chains mostly Bitcoin (about 90% of all energy consumption) and simple cryptocurrencies like Litecoin and Monero which are not very suitable for NFTs.

NFT owners are people that for some reason looked at the world of worthless physical veblen goodsand decided to get into intangible giffen goods instead

I keep hearing people claim that NFTs are the digital equivalent of status symbols like lambos or fine art. But we already have the equivalent of those things - fortnite skins, tf2 hats, eve online ships and so on. Do the people meant to see these things and be impressed really care if it's "provably unique" or is that just crypto nerd fantasy? I think if fortnite says "this skin is super rare" it will be much more impactful than if you can spend five minutes verifying signatures and comparing hashes (which nobody is going to do anyway)

pointless w*gger t*echnology but this is the cost of true decentralization: trillions of dollars burned on memes until in 2040 or so, actual good decentralized tech will be made

>>54555 Why I can't burn my money on NFTs and the medium level decentralization? I don't see any really good decentralization projects now to invest or donate. And good basic building blocks (PLONKs/STARKs) for decentralization come from scalability narrative and win from any on-chain activity including NFTs.

>>54499 >I keep hearing people claim that NFTs are the digital equivalent of status symbols like lambos or fine art. Same. They really think it is (or is going to be) some sort of source of prestige. Not that fine-art dealers already have a reputation of being nothing beyond rich people money-laundering but even if that was not the case, their point doesn't stand. Few days ago I just straight up made a crossover with my gamedev endeavor copying the style of an NFT 'game' which had extremely similar themes. It was presented with an ironic, soykafposty tone about me turning my game to a P2W, lootbox-filled NFT. The people didn't know about the real one and were in on the joke and even complimented my art. When I revealed it was based on a real NFT (which mind you was lootbox-filled, P2W, and has still no 'game' yet, just like I said) the responses were either confusion and concern or shock and rage. NFTs don't increase your reputation in the eyes of the wider public (and even friends), they decrease it. >Do the people meant to see these things and be impressed really care if it's "provably unique" or is that just crypto nerd fantasy? All of it is literally just copium.. Notice how every time a cryptobro gets conforted over his stupid decision he will always starts rambling in future tense. >Oh It's going to go to the moon >Oh I'm gonna retire early with fuarrrk you money >Oh they're going to make laws that land those right-clickers in jail soon >Oh It's the future of technology Not one of them spend the money on these goddamn things for something they like about it NOW.

>>54499 >I keep hearing people claim that NFTs are the digital equivalent of status symbols like lambos or fine art A lambo is fun to drive around and fine art is something nice to look at in your home, paying huge money for a bunch of pixels that a random number generator could spit out for free is degeneracy and idiocy of the highest order. I heard from an art curator once that a rotten banana nailed to a piece of wood self for about 80k, atleast that you can hang on your wall for novelty value, what the soykaf could you possibly do with a bunch of pixels?

>>53507 Cryptocurrency was supposed to be a secure way to send & receive money. Now it's used to trade jpegs on websites that won't exist in 3 years.

Funko Pops but somehow more wasteful and soulless. >There is a Bob Ross funko pop NFT exactly how an environmentalist would want to be honoured The current state of crypto is a fuarrrking joke, it turns a huge amount of electricity and compute time into waste heat, ugly jpgs, a token for buying drugs and child porn and acts as a useful vehicle for pump and dumps and does almost nothing productive the entire time

NFT's are worse than you think. The people who are pushing for nft's want to create the next web where to see a jpg or do anything you need the nft for it. its gonna be our soykaf copyright system cranked to 100.

>>55663 >to see a jpg or do anything you need the nft for it. its gonna be our soykaf copyright system cranked to 100. >nftbay doesn't already exist >meshnets don't already exist >clearweb is only web Ummmm...really?

>>55676 If you look at the web3, that they're pushing it's trying to push blockchain as a viable, programmable, alt to copyright. obviously, that's going to be difficult, but it's easy to see if it gets massive publicity that it's going to become a pay to play internet if it gets mass adoption. I'm pretty anti NFT. But, to ignore what nft bro's actually want (a awful copyright, where you have to pay for everything like metaverse) versus what you usually see, dumbo twitter user loses money from jpg "investment". don't lose sight of the forest for the trees lain.

>>53557 people are idiot, just look that dude who became rich selling rocks as mascots

>>53507 It'd be better to dig out some old art or photos made by one's grandparents and sell it than to rely on NFTs.

>>53507 i personally enjoy the concept of them and how abstract it is. with that said, i would never pay the amounts some of these sell for. thankfully i managed to acquire one $40 NFT for free so it's pretty nice to have. i hope this technology can have more use in the future and cost less. unfortunately the community around them right now is cancerous, you can feel the greed of these people through the text, and most of the art looks sovless too.

>>57180 >unfortunately the community around them right now is cancerous Anti-crypto propaganda comes from the central banks who don't want to lose their monopoly control over the world money supply.

>>57246 A large part of NFTs is reintroducing a scarcity that need not and should not exist online. That was the original intent of the creators. The current money laundering shenanigans are only incidental and ultimately don't matter, because the entire concept was problematic from the very start due to its goals.

>>57253 Scarcity is what you need for an effective currency. Central banks (and billionaires with close ties to them) enjoy being able to create more dollars, euros, yens, whenever they feel like it. And like I said, anybody with a passionate irrational hatred of crypto has probably just been propagandized by those same billionaires who own controlling stakes in popular news and discussion websites.

>>57257 Scarcity is sorta good for fungible currencies, NFTs are not fungible and there is no way at all you could use them as a currency. Using them to pay for something would be more like bartering. And even in buttcoin, deflation isn't necessarily a good thing as it incentivizes hoarding and rent-seeking rather than economic participation.

>>57259 >even in bitcoin, deflation isn't necessarily a good thing as it incentivizes hoarding and rent-seeking rather than economic participation. That's nonsense because people still buy things even when prices drop. e.g. basically every consumer good in existence. Even though a computer that is twice as fast and slightly cheaper will come out next year, people still buy computers now. This is one of those fake arguments put forward by billionaires who are heavily invested in the current financial system and repeated by people who don't know better. >hoarding Also nonsense. If someone is doing work for money and then doesn't spend the money then they have effectively worked for free. The only person who loses out is themselves and the billionaires who need an excuse to continue printing fake money

>>57261 >That's nonsense because people still buy things even when prices drop. e.g. basically every consumer good in existence. Sure, people buy stuff regardless of how much it costs. But will they be willing to dip into their savings for a major purchase? Anyway, suppose you're a company and you have a bunch of money. If you believe the value of the money you have will go up without you doing a damn thing, there is no reason to produce anything any more. There's *definitely* no reason to upgrade your equipment or improve your product. If you're really sure your coins will be worth more in the future, you might as well fire everyone and sit on the cash. The worst part about this is that it snowballs. If you see other people hodling then you have reason to hodl as well -- taking coins out of circulation increases the value of the coins still in circulation, since they're so limited. > If someone is doing work for money and then doesn't spend the money then they have effectively worked for free. or they're just waiting for the money to be more valuable. I don't know how you could possibly deny the existence of hodlers.

>>57263 >in theory falling prices means the economy stops etc. But in reality it doesn't. And we partially already live that reality. Time is the ultimate scare resource. You will not hodl your appreciating coins forever because sooner or later you will die and you probably want to buy something nice before that happens. Simple. >The worst part about this is that it snowballs. If you see other people hodling then you have reason to hodl as well -- taking coins out of circulation increases the value of the coins still in circulation, since they're so limited. This is another popular myth. The quantity of money available doesn't matter. As long as you can break it down into smaller units. Again, you need to believe this so you will think that we need to continue printing fiat money to "keep the economy going".

>>57264 Indeed, as long as the deflation is not absurdly high and persistent the effect I have gone over -- which I would like to point out is very real and measurable in bitcoin -- will not dominate. This is why it is good to have small amounts of deflation in a controlled way. Ideally a currency has the same value forever. Most cryptocurrencies are designed with this in mind, its really unfortunate that bitcoin is king because in many ways it is really poorly designed. >The quantity of money available doesn't matter. As long as you can break it down into smaller units. But at a certain point it becomes impractical to do so. Exchanging a few molecules of unobtanium for a sandwich isn't even worth the effort of counting the molecules. For bitcoin, its already at the point where the transaction cost for buying a sandwich would be more than the sandwich is worth. And at a certain point if bitcoin keeps delfating it would become impossible to cleanly divide up small amounts of bitcoin due to numerical instability. Also, as stated before NFTs can't actually be split this way. So even calling them a "currency" is a bit absurd.

>>57265 oh, I checked and I guess the fees have gone way down since I last checked. Replace "sandwich" with "stick of gum" and the same argument holds.

>>57265 >as long as the deflation is not absurdly high and persistent And it never will be because humans are not immortal and someone will always be tempted to sell 0.00000001 bitcoin for a ferrari every now and then. >But at a certain point it becomes impractical to do so. Exchanging a few molecules of unobtanium for a sandwich isn't even worth the effort of counting the molecules. The answer then is to add another hard currency that maps onto the first (like silver to gold). The answer is not to let a cabal of elites issue an unlimited number of unobtanium tokens to inflate the money supply for their own personal gain. >Also, as stated before NFTs can't actually be split this way. So even calling them a "currency" is a bit absurd. Yeah I didn't really want to talk about NFTs anyway.

>>57269 >And it never will be because humans are not immortal and someone will always be tempted to sell 0.00000001 bitcoin for a ferrari every now and then. even so, deflation puts a pretty big damper on the amount of money people are willing to spend. >The answer then is to add another hard currency that maps onto the first (like silver to gold). Silver and gold have never "mapped", their value has always fluctuated relative to each other. > The answer is not to let a cabal of elites issue an unlimited number of unobtanium tokens to inflate the money supply for their own personal gain. The answer is to just do away with money altogether, big pain in the ass anyway. >Yeah I didn't really want to talk about NFTs anyway. in the NFT thread?

>>53507 can't help but notice how similar your pic is to the MG logo. (they made cool cars)