Don’t forget about nfts there the future man they can’t be replicated man where can you spend 100k and by the end of the week your investment is worh $3.50
The JPEG isn’t even on the blockchain for the majority of NFTs. It’s just a URL to a JPEG on a server someone else owns. If they take down the server, sell it, it gets hacked, the url scheme changes, etc someone is now the proud owner of a broken link lol
Its not a jpeg man its an nft it uses blockchain man it can’t be replicated its totally the future
It’s funny you say this because in the near future once blockchain usage becomes more mainstream, you’re going to see NFT tech used for things like concert tickets, sporting events, movie tickets etc… because they can’t be counterfeited and produced at a fraction of the cost of traditional tickets. As long as the NFT sits in your crypto wallet, you’re granted access to the event.
People tend to forget how much the original web was plagued with scams and such, or maybe some are too young to even know much about it… Crypto is new and will take some time before it matures. But I believe decentralization is the future and is one of the reasons I’m on Lemmy.
First of all, crypto doesn’t protect you from scams, just look around you.
If you get ‘one true crypto’, you get locked in by its architecture, and there’s always someone who controls said architecture. The chain is decentralized, but the core is not.
Also, tickets are controlled almost exclusively by a central authority, which owns the venues, so there is no way in hell they will let you keep a ledger of every purchase of every ticket. It’s better for them to keep it concealed.
There is so much bullshit in the crypto hype, it’s almost funny.
If you want to put crypto anywhere, do the stock market first, and then get back to me.
I never claimed made a claim that it protected you from scams. I said it can’t be counterfeited.
I really don’t want a “one true crypto”. I think different blockchains can serve different purposes.
And as far as ticketing goes, yes the centralized authority (let’s say Disney for example) would set a max amount of tickets (nfts) to be sold/minted and they would be distributed to wallets as they are sold. Nobody else would have a way to alter or counterfeit fake tickets.
I can totally understand all the hate for crypto though. I mean… I’m a gamer and bought my graphics card during the peak of crypto mining. Was I happy? Hell no. I had a deep hate for crypto at the time… But I decided to dig deeper into what the rage was about. Using actual crypto wallets and interacting with Dapps was quite eye opening to what the future web could be like.
But I’m also with you that crypto needs some form of regulation, but imo crypto and stocks are not the same. If anything NFTs would be more like stocks/shares.
One of the biggest hurdles, like you’ve mentioned, is that a good portion of the space is full of ponzis/scams. But there are a handful out there who truly care and are trying to pave the way and build up a new way to interact with others. I assure you there’s more to it than just scams and jpeg trading. It can be pretty neat when you see what’s possible.
Sorry to take up so much of your time with my second ramble but you raised some good points. Cheers
Never said it was a problem… Just saying its a better solution. That’s okay though… Saving this comment and will tag you during the next crypto bull run when the hype is back 😘
You need to teach people how to verify that their purchase for not counterfeited. Since the bar is not techological, and never will be.
We had way back when a ‘web of trust’, that actually solved a lot more problems than crypto ever did. But people never understood it, so it never got mainstream adoption.
If you don’t know a thing about stock market then it makes sense you could suggest NFTs for it, but you can actually divide shares into fractions.
I merely use nfts as an example because they are closer to what a stock would be than a coin itself. They are not the same though. I was not making that claim.
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital identifier that is recorded on a blockchain, and is used to certify ownership and authenticity. It cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided.
So just… no.
You mentioned elsewhere that people attack you instead of approaching you in a discussion.
And it’s very hard when you seem to misunderstand very basic facts. Which is why people might not be interested in what you might have to say.
Totally fair. I just see at as one of the many uses that are possible. Let’s day you couldn’t make it to an event and wanted to sell your ticket. It would be pretty easy to get the other users wallet address and make the exchange. Also, not all blockchains have high transaction fees. On the Solana network, for example, you can make the exchange for a fraction of a cent. It would cost you roughly. $0.0021 to make the trade.
I’m curious about this use case. It actually sounds pretty convenient, but it also sounds like a wet dream for scalpers since it makes it so easy to buy a bunch and resell for insane prices. On one hand, the price someone is willing to pay is the true value, so you could argue that the original seller wasn’t charging enough. But on the other hand, if scalpers buy up all the supply then they’re artificially increasing the price. I don’t really know anything about economics, I’m just guessing.
In the traditional world of tickets, you could hypothetically prevent reselling by tying a ticket to a person’s id (not that anybody does this, but you could). But in the nft world you described where you can resell your ticket, is there any solution to prevent scalping?
Honestly, right now it’s like the wild west. The markets need a form of regulation. For that reason, I’d never recommend anyone get into nft trading without some serious research put into it. But as the space evolves, there will likely be thing put in place to solve this issue.
Also wanted to say I also very much appreciate your response. Most here have decided to attack me instead of actually holding an intellectual conversation. Hope you have a great day!
The truly decentralized portions of the market can’t be directly regulated. A feature not a bug as the point of decentralization is a trustless environment with no overlords, middlemen or gatekeepers.
The places regulation can touch are endpoints: fiat on/off ramps, legal entities (companies, orgs) operating in the space, people’s freedoms in regards to the ability to interact with crypto etc. Regulating those endpoints in an attempt to manage the decentralized interior requires a level of nuance and respect for people’s privacy and liberty that first-world governments have so far yet to demonstrate.
In lieu of sweeping regulations (which can have many downsides), the “web3” industry would be well served to get it’s act together internally with tech solutions to problems like rug pulls, scam tokens, wash trading and such. The example of fiat markets shows such problems can’t be completely eliminated but if tech solutions can eliminate just some or most of them that’d make the playing field safer by orders of magnitude.
Note to any unware: “Trustless” in this sense means the ability to transact without having to “trust” any outside authority to regulate, allow or manage the transaction for you. Everything programmatically handled and equally open to inspection and validation by all involved.
Crypto isn’t new. Bitcoin’s initial release was in 2009. Two versions of MS Windows have been released and EOL’d since then. Five Star Wars films have been written, filmed and released since then. Intel released all 13 generations of their Core i# processors since then.
Allow me to clarify… Crypto itself isn’t new… But the way in which we interact with it is new. All sorts of platforms, metaverses, etc… are still being developed through the bear market. These things take time to develop. Also, crypto usage is not exactly used by everyone right now, so I respectfully disagree with you.
NFTs weren’t created to be the proof of ownership of digital art, they just happen to be associated with that because that’s what the majority of them were created for.
The NFT isn’t the art that can be copy-pasted to any computer, it’s the proof of ownership. Criticizing them by saying “I can just download a copy of the picture!” is like saying copyrights are useless because you can use tools to rip movies from streaming services, sure you “own a copy”, it doesn’t make you a rightful owner of it from the perspective of the law.
NFT’s also don’t implicitly make you the rightfull owner. The basketball NFT’s content still explicitly belongs to the seller. The only true way for NFT’s to work for digital content is to have a contract that specifically states that the NFT proves ownership, but you might as well write it directly in the contract at that point.
I fail to understand your point. What extra step? You either get ownership or you don’t based on the asset you’ve acquired. NFTs don’t have alto be a once size fits all kind of thing. You are just oversimplifying it. The same can work for physical objects that you purchase. Vehicle manufacturers make it to where you can’t service your own vehicle sometimes because of special tools needed… So do you really own it? Hmmmm
I buy a picture from you, I get a receipt proving I bought it.
I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it.
What value does an NFT provide in this case? I guess it provides a better proof of the purchase but that hardly seems worth the effort of setting up a wallet and acquiring crypto (for the average person at least). Not to mention the seller also needs to do these things, and I fail to see how he will benefit in this case.
Maybe in a hypothetical world where everyone uses crypto this will make more sense.
I’ll just use a small example… Let’s say you have an NFT for a online casino project. Simply holding the nft in your wallet will give you a weekly payout (certain percentage of profits for that week/month)
I use this example because nfts can have many different uses. Another would be gated communities/gated access to online services. Hope that helps it make sense a little
All the examples you give are things that can be done (and are done in practice) without NFTs, and you don’t really explain why using NFTs would be better.
Stock ownership also gives you a payout. And yes you can use NFT’s for authorization, but you really don’t need to. That was already possible back in 2005 with some PHP. Although those systems were and still are often centralized and rely on the integrity of the infrastructure and the intentions of the people running it, you can’t host a service on the blockchain. Smart contracts can’t host a site. There still needs to be something in between the blockchain and the client.
I see the potential of a public ledger but most blockchain projects seem to simply use it as a marketing gimmick.
I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it. What value does an NFT provide in this case?
In this case, assuming you’re a trader in this example, you’d be banking on whatever art you purchased to gain further value so you can then sell your certificate of ownership and make a profit. This is no different than art sales/trades IRL. Here’s an art gallery owner discussing using NFTs as certificates of ownership for real world art sales and the added benefits over traditional COOs.
I guess if there is an issue with verifying authenticity of art and using NFTs solves that issue this makes sense. Selling digital art using NFTs is still dumb IMO, as there is no real concept of owning or displaying an “original digital painting” like you can do with normal paintings; in that case you only get a fairly abstract proof of ownership (NFT avatars on various sites and NFT items in games could change this if implemented widely I guess).
Other than a few similar use cases they still don’t seem very useful, and it I think in most cases they solve issues that already have good solutions.
The intrinsic value of any art is what someone is willing to pay for it.
For example the world’s most expensive NFT, The Merge by Pak, sold for $91.8 million. Its price was higher than the sale of Jeff Koon’s Rabbit, the most expensive artwork by a living artist at auction. It’s all about personal tastes and how deep folks wanna dig in their pockets with this stuff.
Don’t forget about nfts there the future man they can’t be replicated man where can you spend 100k and by the end of the week your investment is worh $3.50
Where you spend 100k for a JPEG
The JPEG isn’t even on the blockchain for the majority of NFTs. It’s just a URL to a JPEG on a server someone else owns. If they take down the server, sell it, it gets hacked, the url scheme changes, etc someone is now the proud owner of a broken link lol
If that’s the case it makes it even more surprising anyone would see any value in that.
Its not a jpeg man its an nft it uses blockchain man it can’t be replicated its totally the future now let me plug in 50 gpus I got to start mining
It’s funny you say this because in the near future once blockchain usage becomes more mainstream, you’re going to see NFT tech used for things like concert tickets, sporting events, movie tickets etc… because they can’t be counterfeited and produced at a fraction of the cost of traditional tickets. As long as the NFT sits in your crypto wallet, you’re granted access to the event.
People tend to forget how much the original web was plagued with scams and such, or maybe some are too young to even know much about it… Crypto is new and will take some time before it matures. But I believe decentralization is the future and is one of the reasons I’m on Lemmy.
I dislike this take to much.
First of all, crypto doesn’t protect you from scams, just look around you.
If you get ‘one true crypto’, you get locked in by its architecture, and there’s always someone who controls said architecture. The chain is decentralized, but the core is not.
Also, tickets are controlled almost exclusively by a central authority, which owns the venues, so there is no way in hell they will let you keep a ledger of every purchase of every ticket. It’s better for them to keep it concealed.
There is so much bullshit in the crypto hype, it’s almost funny.
If you want to put crypto anywhere, do the stock market first, and then get back to me.
I never claimed made a claim that it protected you from scams. I said it can’t be counterfeited.
I really don’t want a “one true crypto”. I think different blockchains can serve different purposes.
And as far as ticketing goes, yes the centralized authority (let’s say Disney for example) would set a max amount of tickets (nfts) to be sold/minted and they would be distributed to wallets as they are sold. Nobody else would have a way to alter or counterfeit fake tickets.
I can totally understand all the hate for crypto though. I mean… I’m a gamer and bought my graphics card during the peak of crypto mining. Was I happy? Hell no. I had a deep hate for crypto at the time… But I decided to dig deeper into what the rage was about. Using actual crypto wallets and interacting with Dapps was quite eye opening to what the future web could be like.
But I’m also with you that crypto needs some form of regulation, but imo crypto and stocks are not the same. If anything NFTs would be more like stocks/shares.
One of the biggest hurdles, like you’ve mentioned, is that a good portion of the space is full of ponzis/scams. But there are a handful out there who truly care and are trying to pave the way and build up a new way to interact with others. I assure you there’s more to it than just scams and jpeg trading. It can be pretty neat when you see what’s possible.
Sorry to take up so much of your time with my second ramble but you raised some good points. Cheers
Lmao how big a problem are counterfeit tickets? Because Ticketek seems pretty happy with what they are currently doing.
Sorry to burst your bubble but crypto & NFTs are never going mainstream. They are already past the peak, and failed spectacularly.
Never said it was a problem… Just saying its a better solution. That’s okay though… Saving this comment and will tag you during the next crypto bull run when the hype is back 😘
Lmao yeh I wouldn’t be surprised if it had another run at the ATH high, backed by shady organizations lkke Binance and imaginary Tether dollars lol
You need to teach people how to verify that their purchase for not counterfeited. Since the bar is not techological, and never will be.
We had way back when a ‘web of trust’, that actually solved a lot more problems than crypto ever did. But people never understood it, so it never got mainstream adoption.
If you don’t know a thing about stock market then it makes sense you could suggest NFTs for it, but you can actually divide shares into fractions.
I merely use nfts as an example because they are closer to what a stock would be than a coin itself. They are not the same though. I was not making that claim.
So just… no.
You mentioned elsewhere that people attack you instead of approaching you in a discussion.
And it’s very hard when you seem to misunderstand very basic facts. Which is why people might not be interested in what you might have to say.
Possible but I really don’t see how nfts are any better than the current digital tickets system
Totally fair. I just see at as one of the many uses that are possible. Let’s day you couldn’t make it to an event and wanted to sell your ticket. It would be pretty easy to get the other users wallet address and make the exchange. Also, not all blockchains have high transaction fees. On the Solana network, for example, you can make the exchange for a fraction of a cent. It would cost you roughly. $0.0021 to make the trade.
I’m curious about this use case. It actually sounds pretty convenient, but it also sounds like a wet dream for scalpers since it makes it so easy to buy a bunch and resell for insane prices. On one hand, the price someone is willing to pay is the true value, so you could argue that the original seller wasn’t charging enough. But on the other hand, if scalpers buy up all the supply then they’re artificially increasing the price. I don’t really know anything about economics, I’m just guessing.
In the traditional world of tickets, you could hypothetically prevent reselling by tying a ticket to a person’s id (not that anybody does this, but you could). But in the nft world you described where you can resell your ticket, is there any solution to prevent scalping?
Honestly, right now it’s like the wild west. The markets need a form of regulation. For that reason, I’d never recommend anyone get into nft trading without some serious research put into it. But as the space evolves, there will likely be thing put in place to solve this issue.
Also wanted to say I also very much appreciate your response. Most here have decided to attack me instead of actually holding an intellectual conversation. Hope you have a great day!
The truly decentralized portions of the market can’t be directly regulated. A feature not a bug as the point of decentralization is a trustless environment with no overlords, middlemen or gatekeepers.
The places regulation can touch are endpoints: fiat on/off ramps, legal entities (companies, orgs) operating in the space, people’s freedoms in regards to the ability to interact with crypto etc. Regulating those endpoints in an attempt to manage the decentralized interior requires a level of nuance and respect for people’s privacy and liberty that first-world governments have so far yet to demonstrate.
In lieu of sweeping regulations (which can have many downsides), the “web3” industry would be well served to get it’s act together internally with tech solutions to problems like rug pulls, scam tokens, wash trading and such. The example of fiat markets shows such problems can’t be completely eliminated but if tech solutions can eliminate just some or most of them that’d make the playing field safer by orders of magnitude.
Note to any unware: “Trustless” in this sense means the ability to transact without having to “trust” any outside authority to regulate, allow or manage the transaction for you. Everything programmatically handled and equally open to inspection and validation by all involved.
Built-in price ceiling and verifiability. Resales could be limited or completely forbidden as well.
Crypto isn’t new. Bitcoin’s initial release was in 2009. Two versions of MS Windows have been released and EOL’d since then. Five Star Wars films have been written, filmed and released since then. Intel released all 13 generations of their Core i# processors since then.
Allow me to clarify… Crypto itself isn’t new… But the way in which we interact with it is new. All sorts of platforms, metaverses, etc… are still being developed through the bear market. These things take time to develop. Also, crypto usage is not exactly used by everyone right now, so I respectfully disagree with you.
NFTs weren’t created to be the proof of ownership of digital art, they just happen to be associated with that because that’s what the majority of them were created for.
The NFT isn’t the art that can be copy-pasted to any computer, it’s the proof of ownership. Criticizing them by saying “I can just download a copy of the picture!” is like saying copyrights are useless because you can use tools to rip movies from streaming services, sure you “own a copy”, it doesn’t make you a rightful owner of it from the perspective of the law.
NFT’s also don’t implicitly make you the rightfull owner. The basketball NFT’s content still explicitly belongs to the seller. The only true way for NFT’s to work for digital content is to have a contract that specifically states that the NFT proves ownership, but you might as well write it directly in the contract at that point.
This specifically depends on the project producing the NFTs. Some grant full ownership while some do not.
That’s his point - NFTs don’t actually solve any problem here, they just add an extra step.
I fail to understand your point. What extra step? You either get ownership or you don’t based on the asset you’ve acquired. NFTs don’t have alto be a once size fits all kind of thing. You are just oversimplifying it. The same can work for physical objects that you purchase. Vehicle manufacturers make it to where you can’t service your own vehicle sometimes because of special tools needed… So do you really own it? Hmmmm
I buy a picture from you, I get a receipt proving I bought it.
I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it.
What value does an NFT provide in this case? I guess it provides a better proof of the purchase but that hardly seems worth the effort of setting up a wallet and acquiring crypto (for the average person at least). Not to mention the seller also needs to do these things, and I fail to see how he will benefit in this case.
Maybe in a hypothetical world where everyone uses crypto this will make more sense.
I’ll just use a small example… Let’s say you have an NFT for a online casino project. Simply holding the nft in your wallet will give you a weekly payout (certain percentage of profits for that week/month)
I use this example because nfts can have many different uses. Another would be gated communities/gated access to online services. Hope that helps it make sense a little
All the examples you give are things that can be done (and are done in practice) without NFTs, and you don’t really explain why using NFTs would be better.
Stock ownership also gives you a payout. And yes you can use NFT’s for authorization, but you really don’t need to. That was already possible back in 2005 with some PHP. Although those systems were and still are often centralized and rely on the integrity of the infrastructure and the intentions of the people running it, you can’t host a service on the blockchain. Smart contracts can’t host a site. There still needs to be something in between the blockchain and the client.
I see the potential of a public ledger but most blockchain projects seem to simply use it as a marketing gimmick.
In this case, assuming you’re a trader in this example, you’d be banking on whatever art you purchased to gain further value so you can then sell your certificate of ownership and make a profit. This is no different than art sales/trades IRL. Here’s an art gallery owner discussing using NFTs as certificates of ownership for real world art sales and the added benefits over traditional COOs.
I guess if there is an issue with verifying authenticity of art and using NFTs solves that issue this makes sense. Selling digital art using NFTs is still dumb IMO, as there is no real concept of owning or displaying an “original digital painting” like you can do with normal paintings; in that case you only get a fairly abstract proof of ownership (NFT avatars on various sites and NFT items in games could change this if implemented widely I guess).
Other than a few similar use cases they still don’t seem very useful, and it I think in most cases they solve issues that already have good solutions.
But there worthless because digital art is intrinsically less valuable than real art
Real art = analog art? I need to tell all of my electronic musician buddies.
How? Please elaborate.
A real piece of art will always be more valuable than some electronic picture
No, I asked that you elaborate, not that you repeat the same thing using different words.
The intrinsic value of any art is what someone is willing to pay for it.
For example the world’s most expensive NFT, The Merge by Pak, sold for $91.8 million. Its price was higher than the sale of Jeff Koon’s Rabbit, the most expensive artwork by a living artist at auction. It’s all about personal tastes and how deep folks wanna dig in their pockets with this stuff.
Thats insane stupid people with more money than brains