We all need a little more of this in our lives. NFT Market Collapses Just As Square Enix Sells Tomb Raider To Bet Big On Blockchain

Joust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
5,725
I'm gut-checking myself. I "hate NFTs", but in a way, I don't really. The implementation just seems awkward to me. Also the horrific monetization angle where it doesn't belong.

Is buying signed CDs from the artist any different, really? Is buying a print with a signed certificate from an artist who works only in digital media different?

Just ruminating:
I think to me, and yes - I'm old, it seems different. I don't care if a digitally-transferred song came with a string of data which indicated it was provably unique. I do care about some tangible connection to the author - they physically wrote their name on the CD sleeve. That - sane or not - feels different.
Maybe just a difference in perception of artificial scarcity.

Willing to accept this is me being insane and/or dated.

I have thought about it, considerably. I think there is a significant (to me) difference between an authenticated or licensed print of an existing and published work, or the rights to the same, than a newly fabricated imagine that has ZERO associated value, other than the hustle for the rights.

For example, there is a piece of art that was made digitally that I've been jonesing for for a while. It's not excessively expensive - I think a licensed print is $350 or so. It has value to me to have...let's say 1 of 250 prints of a published work.

Contrary-wise, a Bored Ape is...nothing. it's not Donkey Kong. Or King Kong. Or even Curious Geroge. It's just a pointless, valueless, culturally insignificant picture with an associated ownership right whose only value comes from hype.

Now, if people are able to make some money...I don't begrudge anyone an opportunity if there are willing market participants. Who am I to get in the way? That said, there are precious few KNOWLEDGEABLE market participants. But, if folks want to pay their money and take their chances...that's personal agency, I suppose.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,885
Just to play devil's advocate the NFT concept is not unique. Take the art world. Only one person can own Van Gogh's The Starry Night but hundreds of people can own high quality reproductions and thousands can own prints but the original will still retain its value.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,412
Just to play devil's advocate the NFT concept is not unique. Take the art world. Only one person can own Van Gogh's The Starry Night but hundreds of people can own high quality reproductions and thousands can own prints but the original will still retain its value.
Yeah, but you don't actually own anything with an NFT, you own a non-tangible, non-permanent link to a thing that anyone else can reproduce with 100% accuracy with CTRL-C/CTRL-V.

Using your example, it would be like if someone owned a certificate saying they owned Starry Night, but they don't own the actual rights to the original copy, and anyone can just replicate it exactly in some sort of Star Trek replicator for free.
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
335
Crypto bros are an insufferable lot, just like the anti-crypto bros are.
Left side: UAAAUAA WE GETZ MONAYS!! Right side: Imma hate on this even though my understanding is at best rudimentary!!
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,327
Crypto bros are an insufferable lot, just like the anti-crypto bros are.
Left side: UAAAUAA WE GETZ MONAYS!! Right side: Imma hate on this even though my understanding is at best rudimentary!!
I think you can very easily flip part of that right side to the left "my understanding is at best rudimentary, but I run the program and WE GETZ MONAYS!!!"
 

zehoo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
452
Square Enix Plans on Acquiring New Studios

Square's acquisition plans are just one part of this larger outline for hitting its projected financial targets during the current fiscal year. Other plans listed include appointing a chief publishing officer to help "speed up decision-making" to strengthen Square's "publishing structure." It also plans to continue promoting blockchain entertainment and NFT efforts by its newly-established Blockchain Entertainment Business Division.

I get the feeling the NFT thing will get pushed onto the backburner, or be placed in the basement with 1 person running it.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,319
The MMO in question here was based on an AI simulation where the enemy mobs each had their own AI's and what they were doing was every week when they would do their maintenance they would take the logs of how everything was killed and they would re-train the mobs based on that data, so bosses would adapt each week to the strategies and such that were used before. But it ultimately leads to the monsters and such creating their own mini-dungeons and blah blah blah safety in numbers, or they would attack the players in their cities and safe spaces going on the offensive it was a pretty neat simulation. But think less NFTs and more just raw blockchain so any newly named mob of a type would be based on the ones that lead up to it, as it would then be part of the base that builds any that come after it. Like an evolution of the LOTR Nemesis system. The studio they were working for was later purchased by Amazon and they don't work there any more but they are pretty sure the idea died on the drawing board but every now in Discord they think about it, and it leads to the same rant about how that would have been a cool game.
This doesn't make MMO's more enticing by randomly generating a monster with random AI to fight you differently. This is the problem with MMO's in that they direct you to location to mindlessly kill mobs. You wanna know the difference between good game design and sending a player to a kill zone to mindlessly kill monsters until a task is compete? Like imagine a quest that sends you out to retrieve a box that sank in a lake, which is a pretty standard fetch quest. But you find a ring that has some unique writing on it. Nothing special about it and it doesn't start a quest until you start talking to villagers and they asking about the ring you're wearing. Which can take you to an epic quest that gives you the option to resolve it with a high amount of charisma or intelligence. As opposed to most MMO's where they send you kill a bunch of enemies until they drop something and you do it daily each day. The only difference your NFT AI bullshit does it make the situation worse and the player will just find smarter AI to be resistance to the goal.

There's a reason why so much of the game industry is flipping out right now over Eldin Ring, because it totally deviates from the crap copy and paste design they employ. Souls games put enemies in specific places for specific reasons. It's not random, it's carefully constructed level design. The fact that they sold over 14 million copies shows that this is what the customers want. No more random generated crap.

The notion that there will never, ever be a reason for exclusive digital art just seems too absolutist to me. If the metaverse ever takes off (yeah, it's a buzzword, but a virtual connected world is a possibility), you'd want pieces that were truly unique.
No I don't because that's just VRCHAT with money involved. You aren't giving people a good reason to get involved into something that is so obviously gimmicky. Might as well make a theme park and call it the future of doing business because that's what the metaverse is.
And there are ways to reduce the energy impact of the blockchain, both through NFT minting methods and through the blockchains themselves... but I will definitely agree that NFTs still tend to drain a lot of electricity, and it's a problem that industry needs to face if it wants a hope of survival.
The best thing to happen is to destroy the blockchain and leave it behind as the forgotten past. You're burning electricity either way for something that a TI84 calculate could do. The blockchain just adds complexity to make it harder to obtain the data. You know, as opposed to just obtaining the data directly. But this is what gives anything in the blockchain any value, because it's hard to obtain. This is how money has value in general. Two things make money valuable. One is that people are using it to buy things and the other is that it's rare. But because data isn't inherently rare, that's what the blockchain tries to fix. You're trying to give something value that has no business to have any to begin with.
I imagine you could use NFT in places where titles are concerned. For example the title for you car could be in the form of an NFT. The energy usage will depend on the algorithm I imagine, proof of stake vs proof of work? Not an expert, correct me if I'm wrong..
Why the hell would I want that? So that one day the NFTs gets hacked and a tow truck is looking to take my car because I supposedly signed the title of the car to some guy in India? NFTs are not inherently secure. Nothing on the internet is secure and anything using the blockchain like NFTs have a time to live before quantum computers become more common.
credit card companies and the federal reserve use no electricity, last I heard, they communicate by turd flicking, or something...
You're comparing something that takes the equivalent of a TI84 calculator to do in a instant compared to a $700 GPU that takes hours. One only needs sunlight to work while the other needs several hundred watts of power. These are no comparable.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,152
But what would that buy you over the status quo? Titles work fine as they are.

It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

NFTs will allow people to build alternative investment classes via NFTs linked to physical items, or even fractionalized physical items. Think Masterworks, except instead of operating through a centralized service you'll be holding NFTs that you can trade off to anyone in the world at any time. We may even see NFTs that may be redeemable for gold or silver through precious metal exchanges like APMEX and more (think like GLD or SLV but something you can actually trade back in, unlike the ETFs).

The NFT use case for digital jpegs was really stupid, but it proved a use case: an undisputable certificate of ownership (I'm ignoring who issues the certificate for now).

When you tie NFTs to the real world, the use cases of them are bigger than anyone can imagine. You can't CRTL+C / CTRL+V ownership of a physical asset. It's not trivial right now to link the physical world to a blockchain. It'll be a slow process, but it will get there.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,152
Why the hell would I want that? So that one day the NFTs gets hacked and a tow truck is looking to take my car because I supposedly signed the title of the car to some guy in India? NFTs are not inherently secure. Nothing on the internet is secure and anything using the blockchain like NFTs have a time to live before quantum computers become more common.

If computing ever hits that point nothing will be secure. Not your online banking, or anything digital.

And yes NFTs are inherently secure. Since the nearly 9 years I've had my first private key, I've never had a single one compromised. Nor has anyone else who has taken the proper measures to secure their key. So until quantum computing decides to break our entire digital world - this is another moot crypto hater mob mentality argument - just like the "energy waste" one that ignores gen 3.0 blockchains that have as much throughput as Visa while consuming only about 100 households worth of power.
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,687
When you tie NFTs to the real world, the use cases of them are bigger than anyone can imagine. You can't CRTL+C / CTRL+V ownership of a physical asset. It's not trivial right now to link the physical world to a blockchain. It'll be a slow process, but it will get there.
There's just no point though - we have other technologies that can do this, now, reliably, cheaper, easier, and without the overhead of a blockchain, TODAY. Blockchain (and thus NFTs) are a solution looking for a problem.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,319
NFTs will allow people to build alternative investment classes via NFTs linked to physical items, or even fractionalized physical items. Think Masterworks, except instead of operating through a centralized service you'll be holding NFTs that you can trade off to anyone in the world at any time. We may even see NFTs that may be redeemable for gold or silver through precious metal exchanges like APMEX and more (think like GLD or SLV but something you can actually trade back in, unlike the ETFs).
Unpopular opinion I have but NFT's, Crypto, and Stock Market are all the same and all try to extract blood from a stone. None of these things add any inherit value other than through peoples perception. They all sell shares of a thing that you don't own. They all can tank if people started selling their shares of a thing that they don't own. I'd be happy to see them removed from the world. The stock market at least is backed by a businesses success, which as we've learned with GameStop and Enron that really doesn't matter. Crypto doesn't claim to be nothing more but a currency that has questionable value. NFT's are a picture of something you don't own the copyright to that mostly just represents the slice of the pie that is nothing you own. The only thing giving NFT's any value is investor confidence that this nothing is something. By trying to tie it to video game assets you're trying to add value to the nothing. That's all NFT's are, but a bunch of investors who are trying to add value to the nothing.
The NFT use case for digital jpegs was really stupid, but it proved a use case: an undisputable certificate of ownership (I'm ignoring who issues the certificate for now).
The pictures that are comically associated with NFTs are a trick of the hand to get people invested into this scam. Try selling an NFT without a picture. Humans are visual creatures. Hence why people added a picture and told them you own it. Which is part of the misunderstanding in that you don't own the photo but the photo represents the digital asset you just bought. Part of the problem is that the same photo can be used to represent other NFT's because there's no cohesion when it comes this to coercion.
When you tie NFTs to the real world, the use cases of them are bigger than anyone can imagine. You can't CRTL+C / CTRL+V ownership of a physical asset. It's not trivial right now to link the physical world to a blockchain. It'll be a slow process, but it will get there.
Why? The proof of ownership is done through titles and receipts. Why would I need that tied to NFTs? What purpose does it serve besides another idea to try and give NFTs value? As a computer guy I understand that putting anything on the internet is a bad idea unless you want that to spread. Also, it's not hard to see that some people here have invested into NFTs. I got a bridge to sell you, and the NFT has a picture of a bridge too.

If computing ever hits that point nothing will be secure. Not your online banking, or anything digital.
Exactly, and putting money into anything digital will inherently not be secure.
And yes NFTs are inherently secure. Since the nearly 9 years I've had my first private key, I've never had a single one compromised. Nor has anyone else who has taken the proper measures to secure their key. So until quantum computing decides to break our entire digital world - this is another moot crypto hater mob mentality argument - just like the "energy waste" one that ignores gen 3.0 blockchains that have as much throughput as Visa while consuming only about 100 households worth of power.
YOU, you haven't been hacked, is not a metric to go by. The fact is that NFT's and crypto have ben stolen. You might as well upload photos of your credit card as a NFT because that's what you're doing. All it takes is a weak link and anything can be stolen.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,152
There's just no point though - we have other technologies that can do this, now, reliably, cheaper, easier, and without the overhead of a blockchain, TODAY. Blockchain (and thus NFTs) are a solution looking for a problem.

What technology do we have that would allow me to, freely from my desktop or phone, instantly exchange a (nearly) tamper-proof piece of data (NFT / certificate of ownership) from California to New York. Or Europe? Or Australia? Or China? NFTs are going to enable worldwide exchange of entirely new asset classes. Governments will hate it, but if they're smart there's a lot for them to gain from it. And like always, those that do not DYOR looking for easy money will get burned buying ownership of a tank from Ukraine or whatever else may pop up in these open and unregulated markets.

Why? The proof of ownership is done through titles and receipts. Why would I need that tied to NFTs? What purpose does it serve besides another idea to try and give NFTs value? As a computer guy I understand that putting anything on the internet is a bad idea unless you want that to spread. Also, it's not hard to see that some people here have invested into NFTs. I got a bridge to sell you, and the NFT has a picture of a bridge too.

Which is slow and involves a lot of red tape too. But forget cars for now: I think it would be nice for a freely open secondary video game market to exist where we can freely buy and sell ownership of keys, without worry whether or not the key is legitimate or who the buyers and sellers are. I wouldn't mind getting back something from a huge portion of my Steam library that I never touch anymore, and without having to go through some restricted marketplace that's asking for all of my personal info, taking a huge chunk in exchange fees, and etc.

I don't disagree that people exploited the shit out of NFTs with "fancy jpegs", but those fancy jpegs battle tested the proof-of-concept. It's really not much different than the altcoin craze of 2014/2017. All these features, garbage, scams, legitimate experiments that unfortunately went wrong, and etc. Tens of thousands of cryptos later and today we're left with maybe 10-20 good and legitimate blockchains that will shape the multichain future. Millions of garbage generative jpg NFTs later, we're left with this: yes the NFT works.

YOU, you haven't been hacked, is not a metric to go by. The fact is that NFT's and crypto have ben stolen. You might as well upload photos of your credit card as a NFT because that's what you're doing. All it takes is a weak link and anything can be stolen.

That was the fault of the marketplace that left up dated smart contracts that attackers exploited. The blockchain there did nothing wrong. It actually did exactly what it was told to do. This happens in pretty much all "hacks". Smart contract bugs and exploits are unfortunately given no mercy in the world of crypto.

But cryptos and NFTs sitting in your personal crypto wallets, especially hardware wallets, are secure. They're as secure a bricks of gold stored in an undisclosed location.
 
Last edited:

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,655
NFT are the dumbest idea but great for those who get the first sale.
You are aware that NFTs are not just 8bit pixel PFPs right...

FYI, NFT market didn't crash at all..Solana NFT market has been on fire for weeks even while BTC crashed and burned.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,655
What technology do we have that would allow me to, freely from my desktop or phone, instantly exchange a (nearly) tamper-proof piece of data (NFT / certificate of ownership) from California to New York. Or Europe? Or Australia? Or China? NFTs are going to enable worldwide exchange of entirely new asset classes. Governments will hate it, but if they're smart there's a lot for them to gain from it. And like always, those that do not DYOR looking for easy money will get burned buying ownership of a tank from Ukraine or whatever else may pop up in these open and unregulated markets.



That was the fault of the marketplace that left up dated smart contracts that attackers exploited. The blockchain there did nothing wrong. It actually did exactly what it was told to do. This happens in pretty much all "hacks". Smart contract bugs and exploits are unfortunately given no mercy in the world of crypto.

But cryptos and NFTs sitting in your personal crypto wallets, especially hardware wallets, are secure. They're as secure a bricks of gold stored in an undisclosed location.
Bingo, people are so quick to blame the wrong thing with these thefts, these thefts occurred due to poor coding and exploits, just like Target getting ransomware'd - it was a Humans fault it happened. Not following best practice, using poor coding standards and half arsing something.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,687
What technology do we have that would allow me to, freely from my desktop or phone, instantly exchange a (nearly) tamper-proof piece of data (NFT / certificate of ownership) from California to New York. Or Europe? Or Australia? Or China? NFTs are going to enable worldwide exchange of entirely new asset classes. Governments will hate it, but if they're smart there's a lot for them to gain from it. And like always, those that do not DYOR looking for easy money will get burned buying ownership of a tank from Ukraine or whatever else may pop up in these open and unregulated markets.
Web server tied to a database tied to a payment processor. Same thing we use for multi-billion dollar transfers today - you know, the entire modern economy? WORM databases are easy to administer - we've had those for, well, 50 years. Consensus-based algorithms are even older - those date back to the 50s or 60s. Lots of use cases for those in the real world.

Minus the anonymity, but add-in regulation and security. Each part of what makes blockchain/etc work is something that is useful - but most of it is stuff that already exists and doesn't need a blockchain to be useful, and can be done easier and cheaper without one.

I call shens on instantly - no blockchain transaction in a public system is anywhere near instant, although I'm not familiar with how they've set up the current NFT ones (once I realized it was a ponzi scheme, I dialed out and started laughing).

There is not a single real world use case for NFTs that has been given that either can't be done already, easier, or doesn't actually accomplish the goal in question (an NFT for an actual piece of art, as a receipt, still requires a certificate of authenticity/etc - it changes nothing - since the art isn't actually a digital "item" - and digital items are exchanged all the time today without requiring a blockchain or NFTs).
That was the fault of the marketplace that left up dated smart contracts that attackers exploited. The blockchain there did nothing wrong. It actually did exactly what it was told to do. This happens in pretty much all "hacks". Smart contract bugs and exploits are unfortunately given no mercy in the world of crypto.

But cryptos and NFTs sitting in your personal crypto wallets, especially hardware wallets, are secure. They're as secure a bricks of gold stored in an undisclosed location.
*cough* Mt Gox, et all. *cough*. Everything has bugs. That's why regulation exists - to cover people when something goes wrong outside their fault (hence FDIC, etc). No such thing exists for BTC or NFTs - and it's already bitten folks.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,152
Web server tied to a database tied to a payment processor. Same thing we use for multi-billion dollar transfers today - you know, the entire modern economy? WORM databases are easy to administer - we've had those for, well, 50 years. Consensus-based algorithms are even older - those date back to the 50s or 60s. Lots of use cases for those in the real world.

Minus the anonymity, but add-in regulation and security. Each part of what makes blockchain/etc work is something that is useful - but most of it is stuff that already exists and doesn't need a blockchain to be useful, and can be done easier and cheaper without one.

I call shens on instantly - no blockchain transaction in a public system is anywhere near instant, although I'm not familiar with how they've set up the current NFT ones (once I realized it was a ponzi scheme, I dialed out and started laughing).

There is not a single real world use case for NFTs that has been given that either can't be done already, easier, or doesn't actually accomplish the goal in question (an NFT for an actual piece of art, as a receipt, still requires a certificate of authenticity/etc - it changes nothing - since the art isn't actually a digital "item" - and digital items are exchanged all the time today without requiring a blockchain or NFTs).

*cough* Mt Gox, et all. *cough*. Everything has bugs. That's why regulation exists - to cover people when something goes wrong outside their fault (hence FDIC, etc). No such thing exists for BTC or NFTs - and it's already bitten folks.

And how much red tape is involved with your payment processor?

Again, if I want to exchange something from California to someone in Europe - just how much needs to go into that? I probably need to register and KYC. The person in Europe probably needs to register and KYC. Then there's international exchange fees or whatever else you need to do to be internationally compliant. How much maintenance and security need to go into this processor to make sure there are no screw ups? Your operation is going to be insanely expensive, and probably power hungry too considering everything that needs to go into it.

And with your payment processor, I am limited to interacting with those that are part of the payment processor am I not? Whereas with Ethereum, I can safely interact with anyone in the world. No boundaries. No red tape. No nothing. So again, I have to respectfully disagree something else exists. Because I can't just hop onto the Visa network and exchange true ownership of bits and bytes now, can I?

The ironic thing is that almost nobody within crypto, despite everything bad that's happened, actually wants regulation. Even people who lose money usually understand that it was entirely their own fault and often relate it to a gambling loss. Take the LUNA crash: it was revealed many months ago that there was a major flaw, but people decided to ignore it and focus on the get rich quick part instead. And they all bust. Regulation is like saying, "yes please hold my hand but severely restrict me from I can do, and also track my every move" - like you said we already have that. Regulations are coming anyway, I just hope they aren't the kind that prevent the space from evolving into something better. Because even crypto-haters would be lying out of their asses (or just flat out uneducated) if they said gen 3.0 blockchains weren't a big improvement over Bitcoin and PoW 1.0.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,319
What technology do we have that would allow me to, freely from my desktop or phone, instantly exchange a (nearly) tamper-proof piece of data (NFT / certificate of ownership) from California to New York. Or Europe? Or Australia? Or China?
If you're seriously asking this then you're an investor of NFT's. Kiss your money goodbye. The blockchain is just a very stupid form of encryption. We have encryption and it works really well. A VPN is another, and I don't mean commercial VPN's but a personal VPN tunnel like WireGuard. There's lots more and none require the complexity and inefficiency of the block chain. NFT's are just blockchain technology that is currently used to distribute information you that own it. That's literally all NFT's do now.

NFTs are going to enable worldwide exchange of entirely new asset classes. Governments will hate it, but if they're smart there's a lot for them to gain from it. And like always, those that do not DYOR looking for easy money will get burned buying ownership of a tank from Ukraine or whatever else may pop up in these open and unregulated markets.
Governments will get involved if anything has value. Perceived or real, it doesn't matter to them. Just another source of taxation for them.

Which is slow and involves a lot of red tape too. But forget cars for now: I think it would be nice for a freely open secondary video game market to exist where we can freely buy and sell ownership of keys, without worry whether or not the key is legitimate or who the buyers and sellers are. I wouldn't mind getting back something from a huge portion of my Steam library that I never touch anymore, and without having to go through some restricted marketplace that's asking for all of my personal info, taking a huge chunk in exchange fees, and etc.
Or just remove DRM from games. Not that Valve would work with other stores just because it doesn't benefit them. Also Valve can already validate keys very easily, so why get NFT's involved? The whole idiocy of NFT's is what potential they have, by unifying the economy world. The economic world doesn't want to be unified as there's no benefits for them. You having to buy a game yet again from another store or even a newer version of the game console, isn't a bug but a feature. Putting game keys into NFT's would have Gabe Newell lean over and fart on it, then telling you no. Tim Sweeney would take the NFT and take a piss on it and also tell you no. Buy the game again is a business model.
I don't disagree that people exploited the shit out of NFTs with "fancy jpegs", but those fancy jpegs battle tested the proof-of-concept. It's really not much different than the altcoin craze of 2014/2017. All these features, garbage, scams, legitimate experiments that unfortunately went wrong, and etc. Tens of thousands of cryptos later and today we're left with maybe 10-20 good and legitimate blockchains that will shape the multichain future. Millions of garbage generative jpg NFTs later, we're left with this: yes the NFT works.
NFTs have no use, at least no good use. Nothing you suggested NFTs could solve haven't been solved and been solved better decades ago. The whole thing is a scam.
That was the fault of the marketplace that left up dated smart contracts that attackers exploited. The blockchain there did nothing wrong. It actually did exactly what it was told to do. This happens in pretty much all "hacks". Smart contract bugs and exploits are unfortunately given no mercy in the world of crypto.


But cryptos and NFTs sitting in your personal crypto wallets, especially hardware wallets, are secure. They're as secure a bricks of gold stored in an undisclosed location.
So what? Your iPhone did nothing wrong when you lost it and someone else found it and extracted your bank info from it. The bank did nothing wrong knowing that your iPhone was stolen. A mobile device is inherently volatile because you can easily lose it. The question people would be asking is why did you save your bank info onto your device? Apple and Wells Fargo does a good job protecting you from hackers, but not from Social engineering.

NFT's and the blockchain is similar in that your data is now traveling across the volatile internet. Doesn't have to be the NFT's or blockchains fault that your password is your favorite band and the year you were born. It has no business being distributed in such a way. You're always better off taking your documents and just hiding them in your home. You're better off taking data and sticking it into a USB and hiding that in your home.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,319
Again, if I want to exchange something from California to someone in Europe - just how much needs to go into that? I probably need to register and KYC. The person in Europe probably needs to register and KYC. Then there's international exchange fees or whatever else you need to do to be internationally compliant. How much maintenance and security need to go into this processor to make sure there are no screw ups? Your operation is going to be insanely expensive, and probably power hungry too considering everything that needs to go into it.
The majority of the cost of transferring money from one currency to another is based on the currencies value and how much the bank wants to make from the transaction. There are also ways that doesn't require anyone else's interaction and therefore fees. PayPal has been doing this forever.
And with your payment processor, I am limited to interacting with those that are part of the payment processor am I not? Whereas with Ethereum, I can safely interact with anyone in the world. No boundaries. No red tape. No nothing. So again, I have to respectfully disagree something else exists. Because I can't just hop onto the Visa network and exchange true ownership of bits and bytes now, can I?
You think Ethereum has no payment processor to convert it to Dollars or Euros? It's only zero cost if it stays Ethereum, which is about as useful as using AC to directly power DC circuit. Someone has to convert it.
The ironic thing is that almost nobody within crypto, despite everything bad that's happened, actually wants regulation. Even people who lose money usually understand that it was entirely their own fault and often relate it to a gambling loss. Because otherwise it's like saying, "yes please hold my hand but severely restrict me from what I can do" - like you said we already have that. One of the purposes of the decentralized consensus is for it to be self-regulating as the people see it need be.
I don't feel bad for those who lose their money in the crypto NFT scam market. I do feel that these scams shouldn't exist to begin with and those responsible should be held liable.
Take the LUNA crash: it was reveled many months ago that there was a major flaw, but people decided to ignore it and focus on the get rich quick part instead. And they all bust.
giphy-downsized.gif
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,152
Or just remove DRM from games. Not that Valve would work with other stores just because it doesn't benefit them. Also Valve can already validate keys very easily, so why get NFT's involved? The whole idiocy of NFT's is what potential they have, by unifying the economy world. The economic world doesn't want to be unified as there's no benefits for them. You having to buy a game yet again from another store or even a newer version of the game console, isn't a bug but a feature. Putting game keys into NFT's would have Gabe Newell lean over and fart on it, then telling you no. Tim Sweeney would take the NFT and take a piss on it and also tell you no. Buy the game again is a business model.

Buy the game again business model? It's a good thing actual innovator might realize that any money "lost" from this model forced on us could be replaced by massive amounts of royalties capture from countless secondhand exchanges through NFTs. And with all of the overhead from having to maintain databases and IT security and services largely removed, since that's one of the points of the blockchain, it's could be a win-win for everyone. Cheaper games and more profits for the original distributors.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,474
If computing ever hits that point nothing will be secure. Not your online banking, or anything digital.

And yes NFTs are inherently secure. Since the nearly 9 years I've had my first private key, I've never had a single one compromised. Nor has anyone else who has taken the proper measures to secure their key. So until quantum computing decides to break our entire digital world - this is another moot crypto hater mob mentality argument - just like the "energy waste" one that ignores gen 3.0 blockchains that have as much throughput as Visa while consuming only about 100 households worth of power.

As computing power grows over time, it's only a matter of time before any encryption algorithm becomes trivial to break. It's a constant arms race. You need to constantly beef up encryption as computing power becomes more and more capable.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,448
Unpopular opinion I have but NFT's, Crypto, and Stock Market are all the same and all try to extract blood from a stone. None of these things add any inherit value other than through peoples perception. They all sell shares of a thing that you don't own. They all can tank if people started selling their shares of a thing that they don't own
You think that the ability for a company to get investors via something that is like a stock market has no value ? Would you suggest that people that create or invest in a company could not one day resell it to someone else or that they should not be able to invest in a company to start with ?

If Apple tank tomorrow just because every owner outside me sells their stock, why should I care outside, gaining the opportunity to own 100% of Apple for free being a marvellous blessing and making me the richest person that ever lived ?
 
Last edited:

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,885
Yeah, but you don't actually own anything with an NFT, you own a non-tangible, non-permanent link to a thing that anyone else can reproduce with 100% accuracy with CTRL-C/CTRL-V.

Using your example, it would be like if someone owned a certificate saying they owned Starry Night, but they don't own the actual rights to the original copy, and anyone can just replicate it exactly in some sort of Star Trek replicator for free.
Funny but that is true to life. Many art masterpieces are lent to museums so you just own the certificate of authentication and people can buy an exact replica in the museum gift shop.

Remember something is only worth what people will pay for it. If I can sell an NFT for a million dollars and art snobs declare Van Gogh passé and the value of his paintings tanks I know which I would rather own.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,687
And how much red tape is involved with your payment processor?
Not much. Given that this happens thousands of times a day. What tape exists is there as protection and regulation, and isn't onerous if you have real business to do.
Again, if I want to exchange something from California to someone in Europe - just how much needs to go into that?
I just did it for 1.2M in hardware. The only hard part was Slovakia. Wire transfers from bank to bank - took about 3 days to process and clear.

Anything in the Schengen zone is not hard to do business with - import/export rules on stuff is pretty well laid out (and no, doing it via NFT doesn't change anything - if you want to move a physical item across international borders, you still have to deal with the same red tape).
I probably need to register and KYC. The person in Europe probably needs to register and KYC. Then there's international exchange fees or whatever else you need to do to be internationally compliant. How much maintenance and security need to go into this processor to make sure there are no screw ups? Your operation is going to be insanely expensive, and probably power hungry too considering everything that needs to go into it.
WAY less than blockchain. Massively less. By orders of magnitude - and capable of handling millions of transactions a day. Do you really even know what you're talking about? Compare VISA's transaction rate vs BTC - and the power consumption differences.
And with your payment processor, I am limited to interacting with those that are part of the payment processor am I not? Whereas with Ethereum, I can safely interact with anyone in the world. No boundaries. No red tape. No nothing. So again, I have to respectfully disagree something else exists. Because I can't just hop onto the Visa network and exchange true ownership of bits and bytes now, can I?
Sure you can. Thousands of businesses and individuals do every day. Or hell - use Western Union, you know - the one that has been around since 1851?

You think some bits on a blockchain define true ownership more than bits in a database? So all the land people own isn't actually owned? Buildings? Cars? None of those are stored in a blockchain. This is nonsensical and silly.
The ironic thing is that almost nobody within crypto, despite everything bad that's happened, actually wants regulation. Even people who lose money usually understand that it was entirely their own fault and often relate it to a gambling loss. Take the LUNA crash: it was revealed many months ago that there was a major flaw, but people decided to ignore it and focus on the get rich quick part instead. And they all bust. Regulation is like saying, "yes please hold my hand but severely restrict me from I can do, and also track my every move" - like you said we already have that. Regulations are coming anyway, I just hope they aren't the kind that prevent the space from evolving into something better. Because even crypto-haters would be lying out of their asses (or just flat out uneducated) if they said gen 3.0 blockchains weren't a big improvement over Bitcoin and PoW 1.0.
Nope, because that's how they screw you over easier. With regulation, there would be penalties when this all falls flat - and penalties for making false promises that people listen to. Gambling is NOT international business. International business is an entirely different world - if you want me to sell you millions of dollars worth of stuff, why would I do it on an unregulated platform? Unless I was selling drugs or guns, I'd rather be protected.

As for blockchain 3.0 - once again, give me a real world use case that isn't already handled today. We sell art today. We sell digital assets today. We sell EVERYTHING today - and other than folks selling drugs and guns, no one really gives that much of a shit about the regulation. This is a solution looking for a problem.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,687
Buy the game again business model? It's a good thing actual innovator might realize that any money "lost" from this model forced on us could be replaced by massive amounts of royalties capture from countless secondhand exchanges through NFTs. And with all of the overhead from having to maintain databases and IT security and services largely removed, since that's one of the points of the blockchain, it's could be a win-win for everyone. Cheaper games and more profits for the original distributors.
You think the overhead is removed? Do you actually understand how a blockchain (currently) works? You actually think the databases and security folks are going away somehow as a result of this?
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,687
"I dont like this relatively new thing. Lets kill it NOW so it cant develop and adress the things I dont like about it!"
When it does what existing things do, just way worse, you should find a different thing for it to do.

Hence solution looking for a problem. It’s a dumb way of transferring funds and recording ownership - I’m still waiting for a valid use. If you’ve seen the hype diagram, it’s on the downward slope before the reversal to real use cases. Find me a real use case that can’t be done cheaper and easier today.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
3,148
I'm just watching this and Bitcoin tanking and I'm pretty happy.

I look at the value of Bitcoin daily hoping to see the bottom fall out of it.

Let's hope it's all dip from here on out so we can put this crypto stupidity behind us and move on.


Ah so cheering on colapsing fiat are you? Backing ever inflationary fiat and feeling proud?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,474
Ah so cheering on colapsing fiat are you? Backing ever inflationary fiat and feeling proud?
Inflation - in moderation - is a GOOD thing.

About 2% year over year is ideal.

Occasionally it is higher (like right now) and occasionally it is lower, but a 2% long term average is a positive thing. Without it, the economy would be in trouble.

Cryptocurrencies are deflationary by their nature, and this is extremely harmful to an economy due to the harm it does to most consumer spending, which tends to be largely credit backed.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,885
You think that the ability for a company to get investors via something that is like a stock market has no value ?

If Apple tank tomorrow just because every owner outside me sells their stock, why should I care outside, gaining the opportunity to own 100% of Apple for free being a marvellous blessing and making me the richest person that ever lived ?
Apple sure, but ask people that invested in Enron or Theranos. There is way too much speculation in the market and many companies' stock valuation is way over their true value.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,412
Funny but that is true to life. Many art masterpieces are lent to museums so you just own the certificate of authentication and people can buy an exact replica in the museum gift shop.

Remember something is only worth what people will pay for it. If I can sell an NFT for a million dollars and art snobs declare Van Gogh passé and the value of his paintings tanks I know which I would rather own.

You can't buy an exact copy in the gift shop - you can buy a replica that is a print or something similar, not the actual, legitimate art piece. With NFT I am talking an exact, 100% copy. There is literally no difference between the JPG that your NFT links to any the JPG I download from that same link.

Obviously people cannot sell NFTs for a million dollars anymore, that's why the whole thing is collapsing. I get what you're saying but you're misrepresenting what NFTs actually are.
 

rinaldo00

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,885
You can't buy an exact copy in the gift shop - you can buy a replica that is a print or something similar, not the actual, legitimate art piece. With NFT I am talking an exact, 100% copy. There is literally no difference between the JPG that your NFT links to any the JPG I download from that same link.

Obviously people cannot sell NFTs for a million dollars anymore, that's why the whole thing is collapsing. I get what you're saying but you're misrepresenting what NFTs actually are.
My analogy is not perfect so let me try to improve it. I could pay an expert forger to reproduce an art masterpiece to the smallest detail that would fool most people but an expert could tell the difference. While on the surface it is true that there is no difference between the JPG that your NFT links to and the JPG download from that same link it is NOT the original. Digital art can contain meta data that the copy will not have and an expert can tell if it has been modified.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,687
My analogy is not perfect so let me try to improve it. I could pay an expert forger to reproduce an art masterpiece to the smallest detail that would fool most people but an expert could tell the difference. While on the surface it is true that there is no difference between the JPG that your NFT links to and the JPG download from that same link it is NOT the original. Digital art can contain meta data that the copy will not have and an expert can tell if it has been modified.
And who cares? It was two mouse clicks to duplicate vs thousands of dollars and an expert, and while the expert one will be close, the JPG will actually be identical minus said metadata which no. One. Can. See.

So what if you have the original or not in that case?

You’re also not handling the issues with authenticity of the original art in your case. Look up all the artists having their stuff stolen and minted today. I’m waiting for the first lawsuit for owning “stolen goods” that hits an NFT buyer.
 

Verge

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 27, 2001
Messages
7,449
I could pay an expert forger to reproduce an art masterpiece to the smallest detail that would fool most people but an expert could tell the difference.
You could, ONLY IF, the owner allowed this expert hundreds of hours studying the original piece. As the owner of something real, you can just tell people to **** off.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,474
You could, ONLY IF, the owner allowed this expert hundreds of hours studying the original piece. As the owner of something real, you can just tell people to **** off.

That is neither here nor there.

Even if you can exactly replicate the original to the point where no one can tell the difference, there is still one that physically is the original.

When it comes to digital files, that is not the case. It will never be the case. There is no original. It's just a bunch of bits stored on a drive.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,947
I did the calculations based on estimated numbers years ago. If every credit card transaction was a crypto transaction instead, it would take 10 times the entire energy consumption of all of humanity to facilitate.
While this is understandable, the argument I've heard in response to this is: well, a better comparison would include the shit ton of additional organizations/banks/things that go along with protecting and managing such a system, including wars we fight over stupid money-related shit
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,965
While this is understandable, the argument I've heard in response to this is: well, a better comparison would include the shit ton of additional organizations/banks/things that go along with protecting and managing such a system, including wars we fight over stupid money-related shit
That's assuming crypto is oblivious to fraud, stealing, and hacking. But we see that it's not. LAck of regulation made it a hacker's / scammer's paradise. The great leader, or dear leader (I always confuse the two) thanks the west for popularizing crypto.

As for the current banking systems, they are already in place and obviously not using 10 times the power requirement of humanity. Whatever it uses is negligible. As for human resources necessary to keep it running, that's actually a benefit in a world of technological unemployment.
 

Armenius

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
33,126
And how much red tape is involved with your payment processor?

Again, if I want to exchange something from California to someone in Europe - just how much needs to go into that? I probably need to register and KYC. The person in Europe probably needs to register and KYC. Then there's international exchange fees or whatever else you need to do to be internationally compliant. How much maintenance and security need to go into this processor to make sure there are no screw ups? Your operation is going to be insanely expensive, and probably power hungry too considering everything that needs to go into it.

And with your payment processor, I am limited to interacting with those that are part of the payment processor am I not? Whereas with Ethereum, I can safely interact with anyone in the world. No boundaries. No red tape. No nothing. So again, I have to respectfully disagree something else exists. Because I can't just hop onto the Visa network and exchange true ownership of bits and bytes now, can I?

The ironic thing is that almost nobody within crypto, despite everything bad that's happened, actually wants regulation. Even people who lose money usually understand that it was entirely their own fault and often relate it to a gambling loss. Take the LUNA crash: it was revealed many months ago that there was a major flaw, but people decided to ignore it and focus on the get rich quick part instead. And they all bust. Regulation is like saying, "yes please hold my hand but severely restrict me from I can do, and also track my every move" - like you said we already have that. Regulations are coming anyway, I just hope they aren't the kind that prevent the space from evolving into something better. Because even crypto-haters would be lying out of their asses (or just flat out uneducated) if they said gen 3.0 blockchains weren't a big improvement over Bitcoin and PoW 1.0.
The cryptocurrency has no value until you convert it to fiat currency, which means going through an exchange and their red tape so they can get their cut and the governments can get their's. Also, have you cashed out any crypto lately? Did you receive any 1099-B forms? How did your 8949 look? What are the gas fees on Ethereum looking like these days?
 
Top