pouët.net

I was reacting to the header of web3isgoinggreat.com with the focus on the planet, which feels like the wrong focus to me.
I get your point though.

Liberated apes:

lmao, they;re so ugly, gonna make an ape demo!

Conspiracy of the week: Eminem was given the bored ape for free to inflate the price of the other apes which he could get a profit share of.

I wanna send this sentence back to 1999.

NFTS? Thanks, but i prefer ext3

NFTs are the proof we're in the thrall of the Great Retardation Era.

Just because NFT’s are used as, yet another, speculative asset, that doesn’t mean the whole concept is flawed. As I understand it, it can be used to sell the license for any digital content, wheter it’s software, books, art etc. Potentially you could exchange your software for someone elses, or even borrow it. Which is something you can’t really do at the moment.

Good luck finding a way to make something that's limited yet also impossible to speculate on.

Plus you can already borrow digital stuff. Many US libraries do ebook lending. Some software comes with single "seat" multi-computer licenses allowing more than one person to use it, just not concurrently.

Realistically though, what incentive do companies have to allow borrowing? They want you to give them money! They want to sell another copy or, even better, get you to pay a subscription for the same thing they were previously happy to sell as a "boxed" (downloadable) copy. Even those aforementioned ebooks might only be allowed to be lent to one person at a time for a fixed number of days, and sometimes only for a fixed number of maximum lends with licensing fees galore.

If you need further proof, when the Internet Archive tried to make their trove available during the pandemic with less restrictions on borrowing they got sued and called pirates.

Sorry, but the blockchain won't cause change unless it makes money for someone. If you want actual change, send some of your buttcoins to your "friendly" neighborhood lobbyist(s) and get them to sponsor a bill.

You can speculate on anything, limited or not. My point is that people get distracted by dumb monkeys selling for large amounts of money, or even worse, fooled into believing that it's a good idea to invest money into them. But I think we agree on this?



Sure, but I can't borrow between friends for example. You can't borrow my video editing software for a month, for example.

And of course the big tech giants would never allow it, but that's a different discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I think cryptocurrencies are mostly a ponzi scheme, but that doesn't mean the technology behind it is completely useless.

But that's exactly the point. It's not possible because they don't want you to, not because there is no good technical solution for it. This doesn't require a new technical solution, it requires a legislative solution so that companies are finally required to allow for this. Then they can use whatever plain old database they prefer to record such ownership changes.

The idea behind a NFT is that you can swap ownership without any middleman (so no old databases etc.), or at least that's how I understand it. I am not saying this is better or worse than the current system, but it is worth exploring at least.

Also, they can shove it as far as I'm concerned. If you want change it's up to you. If you are going to wait for legislative "solutions" you will be waiting for a very long time. And since the big tech giants have the resources to hire an army of lawyers and lobbyists, the legislation will always favour them, not us.

Depends on how you define useless. The best quote I heard about it is "Cryptocurrency solves no problems that it didn't first create, and most of those it doesn't solve." /Maciej Ceglowski/

That would be a nice idea but in the current state:
- "you": Wrong. It doesn't actually mean "you" but "whoever has your private keys". There's no connection between a blockchain id and a natural person, and no possible protection or arbitration in case of theft because lol trustless.
- "ownership": Wrong. There's neither a guarantee that the "owner" actually owns anything, nor that the thing the NFT points to a) exists, or b) is actually what was the NFT originally about. Also there's copyright which, for all its failings, luckily doesn't give the slightest crap about a digital receipt that essentially says "$(ID1) hereby transfers the ownership of $(LINK) to $(ID2)", however public or tamper proof. Again: Lol trustless. Nothing means anything.
- "without any middleman": Wrong. _Everyone_ is the middleman now, everything you ever did is public forever, can never be deleted, and every update to any of your data costs money (so much about "you own your data in the blockchain", lol). Plus you can't either know or control who will validate your oh so middleman less transaction. Extra fun with PoS chains where the people with the most money get the most control - what could possibly go wrong.

And here's the point: None of these issues can be addressed with a technical solution. That's the curse of a trustless system - if it's designed in a way neither party needs to be trusted, this by extension means that no information in there has any actual meaning. It can never be more than a stupid game.

@Gargaj

Great quote, thanks I will read up on Maciej Ceglowski.

@kb_

Those are valid points, and again I am not a fan of Cryptocurrencies or NFT's but it's still interesting to compare them to our current, equally flawed but different system. Maybe we can learn from it and think of something better instead.

You say the system is trustless, but people put their trust in the system right? They have to put their trust somewhere, otherwise it would indeed be useless. Which is precisely why I think Cryptocurrencies are a Ponzi scheme, it's based on a false sense of trust and mostly on belief. The belief that what you put in now will have equal or more value in the future (no different than Fiat money or Gold and Silver).

That being said, how is our current system based on trust? Through contracts and EULA agreements? That's not really trust either is it. That's like me saying "I trust my wife because I signed a contract with her."

The difference with a legal contract is that it has a meaning in the eyes of the law, because there is legislation specifically related to contracts. There is plenty of legal precedent and the concept of a legally-binding contract has been active and tested for a long time. I guess NFTs are in a legal grey area because they're new and so currently they fly under the radar of taxation and business law, which is typical of tech-driven get-rich-quick schemes really.

Of course, the actual trust is based on the assumption that a violation of the trust (a breach of contract) can result in a backing of the enforcement of the law in a court. This is a mutual benefit.

I try not to think them at all

I'm personally not into it, but IMHO it's not about ownership so much,as those assets are usually publicly available anyway, but rather allocating your coins into an asset signature (NFT) as an investment of sort, so you can trade/sell it later.
Unfortunately AFAIU 'double tokenization' is not completely solved. For example, the same NFT might be on different blockchains multiple times.
I also don't know enough about NFT hash but I would guess with very minor/almost invisible changes to the artwork, you could even put indistinguishable "copy" on the same Blockchain. But pls don't quote me on that :P

it's just a URL, isnt it? so there is no NFT hash

Isn't like IPFS link derived from the data itself ?