Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, that's possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.
And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.
Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.
I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.
In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).
Indeed. The blockchain provides no media hosting, no enforcement, I guess. It can mark something as owned (and require their private key to decrypt or whatever), but ultimately that ownership is as beholden to reality (read: arbitrary purseholders) as any other system. It’s just a record.
With your scheme you can't prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can't be extracted from the camera.
Okay good. I thought it would, just didn't know any specifically. I wasn't trying to suggest a public blockchain would be the only solution or even the best of multiple solutions, only that they needed to consider more angles beyond just making a hash.
i thought we were talking about the opposite situation, archival.
so in this situation we're not actually talking about using a block chain, as in a progressive hashing function, but the blockchain, as in a massive network of computers used to verify anything.
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.
This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.
The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.
If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that's very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I've searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn't look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn't be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
That's security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there's nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
Yes it is. The scheme is that when you take a picture, the camera signs said picture. The key is stored somewhere in the camera. Hence the secrecy of the key hinges on the the attacker not knowing how the camera accesses the key. Once the attacker knows that, they can get the key from the camera. Therefore, security hinges on the secrecy of the camera design/protocol used by the camera to access the key, in addition to the secrecy of the key. Therefore, it is security by obscurity.
For example, you might use it as a trademark registry or to certify a chain of legal evidence. You can validate a presented copy matches the original and what the chain of ownership was. And you can do this without the single point of failure of a nationwide database
That’s the point, a use case where no one has to. It’s only the record of ownership.
And clearly you’d still need to make arrangements to prevent multiple chains of ownership for a copied artifact
NFTs make the mistake of assuming that somehow makes it unique, forgetting you can just copy the original. However these use cases work from the opposite direction: given an accused infringement, does that match?
Consider the current use case for trademark. Someone creates a trademark and registers with an authority. At some point they may renew modify, or sell. After some time, that authority has a database containing the original and a chain of ownership. Blockchain could serve this identically, with the potential advantage of the chain being self contained and distributable
This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what's coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.
A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that's hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).
The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).
The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.
This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.
The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.
Even if people can't get the key out of rom, which I doubt, they can man in the middle the cable going to the photosensor and inject arbitrary images into the system.
The problem is “misinformation” and has been since before nft/genai became a thing.
Gen Ai makes misinformation worse but the event that sparked this was a gop shared video of a democrat which was slightly speed up to seem more aggressive.
Also simple framing to cut off context from the original has been a very common form of misinformation for decades.
to be more clear: block chain for images is a solution in search of a problem because no one is looking for mass-verified images, they are looking for source-verified images, because you can still fake something on the block chain at point of creation. In 2025 the main concern about faked images is with AI, but more sophisticated and more convincing images can be made with older, even analog technology like airbrushing.
Your example of a sped up Democrat could still be disseminated on the block chain and it would do nothing to confirm or deny its veracity.
It would but it would be much easier to find/link and compare with the actual original.
Of course i have mentioned this was never a complete finished idea, just some thoughts i had for years.
Nowadays i can conceptualise ai tools that detect near duplicates but those obviously were not a thing when i first came up with this.
I would hope that it would be considered very damning if an official publishers referred to false footage while having all the tools to find and refer to the original. So would it
Be damning for the uploader and all footage recorded with their device.
isn't the entire concept just trying to side step journalism though? The block chain is just replacing journalistic standards for something that is more easily corrupted with no guarantee of a better outcome.
And often in tricky journalism such as exposés, you don't want your source to be trackable. That's why Robert Maxwell was such a piece of shit as a newspaper journalist, he would shop his sources to Mossad.
Not at all. I consider journalists the best potential of early adapter.
As a consumer i don't care if i have to copy or screenshot or need to list sources if i am
Just sharing to friends.
Publishers however have a responsibility towards the public to provide fair information. And if i post publicly i also try to pay a bit more attention. (Ignoring i failed exactly that just earlier today)
There would be nothing stopping anyone to ignore the system and keep sharing unverified pixels but its a real flex be able to provide open and transparent information about your sources almost upfront.
If enough established organisation start doing this then the ones that don’t will stick out like they have something to hide.
The exposé is an interesting example
I had not yet considered but again i think nothing is stopping publishers from publicly stating they cannot provide sources but have the means to get it independently verified.
I also believe its possible for a camera/recorded to exist anonymously on the blockchain, just like you don't know the owner of a crypto wallet.
The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.
If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they'd sign it and say "yes it's authentic".
Now maybe you can say "Canon genuine" to say it's not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.
Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it's of limited use.
Traditional signing is enough to say "If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed", no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.
Had thoughts like that before, someone pointed that it already exists and is called C2PA - no blockchain necessary. It's not yet widespread, though.
As for NFT, when it came out I had thoughts that it could be used for completely transparent and automated businesses. Something like an AirBnB with a digital lock on the front door and you could buy an NFT for a daily stay that you could use to unlock said lock. But then if there's only one company that accepts said NFT's then there's zero reason for it to be on blockchain, they can just send you the code, and if they scam you there's no use for either NFT or the code. There could be real estate ownership certificates, but then again, there would always be only one authority issuing them - zero reason for blockchain. There could be like crowdfunding NFT, but then again, there could only one party managing the funds. There were tons of ideas for practical usage of NFT's, but all of them hinge on there being some party linking the zero-trust crypto and the real world, and if there's only a single trusted party then it always makes more sense for that party to deploy a normal database in place of blockchain and just provide an API endpoint to verify ownership.
Iain M. Banks had a similar idea in The Player of Games. In the book AI is so realistic that all real photos and videos have to be logged and timestamped for authenticity.
I had an idea sort of like that - media for your camera or cell-camera that was write once, could not be erased or changed, did not forget (you know ssd's and thumb drives forget as the stranded charge leaks away) - Each picture cryptographically signed with GPS and date and time and author/photographer.
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
Yes, people vehemently hate when you point this out because to the general public NFT = stupid overpriced digital art, and they don't care to be convinced otherwise. My personal conspiracy theory is that the two were purposefully conflated to keep the technology from ever being taken seriously.
When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded
Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it's pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.
I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.
There were enough layers in that pyramid and enough years in construction to have room for more people to make a buck.
What’s the difference between a scam and a bubble, and is the bubble more legitimate or just a bigger, longer scam?
NFTs were a misuse of blockchain giving no real value. Plus it was very short term and really only rewarded scammers and manipulators. A true scam.
Crypto is better thought out and actually could serve as a currency. It has a bit more staying power and even enriched a few non-scammers. Does that make it a “bubble” ?
It's so funny looking back at it (though it was funny while it was happening too), these new-flavor cryptobros tried so hard to convince themselves that they were in the right, they made "cartoons," games, I think they even planned like an island resort or something around their monkey pictures.
Whenever you see a headline or article and don't understand why they're lying or pushing something. The answer is that it makes someone money. And a large chunk of modern media is owned by a handful of people who's goal is to make money, not tell the truth.
My coworker had a virtual NFT gallery full of Marvel NFTs, all laid out like a showroom. He literally spent thousands, now it's worth close to nothing.
Near the peak of the NFT craze I was gifted (as part of an initial mint) an NFT, which I turned around and immediately sold for $3k. Last I looked it was worth about $200. That's the extent of my experience with NFTs.
I see what's going on here! You're confusing market value labor value and use value. Typical noob mistake. Clearly ypu dont understand the real value of an nft!
You know, I feel bad for the people who were conned by the Super Bowl commercials. Celebs added legitimacy to the con. Everyone else who actually got into it because of whatever other reason, I don't give a fuck about. And SBF? Fuck that guy. I'm glad he's in prison. (I know he was selling a crypto-currency, not NFTs. Don't correct me.)
Oh, and the late night guy and the celeb blond lady who had an awkward conversation about it (was it the hotel sex tape lady?) can also fuck right off. Someone paid them to shill and they went for it. Assholes.
But, all that being said, I'll sell you a jpeg for $1000. Or two for $1999.
Edit: Paris Hilton, don't @ me.
Edit: missing "the"
I feel bad for people who are duped by the scam artists. But on the other hand, scam is such an integral part of the US life, recognising it is an essential skill by now. So if you have enough money to be scammed, but didn't learn how not to get scammed, it's at least a little bit on you at this point.
That being said, nobody is safe, unfortunately, you can be as smart and as informed as possible, they still can invent a scam that will work on you specifically.
How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is "yes". It's always "yes".
The only question is, can you hold the tiger's tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren't the last one holding it.
I get the impression that most of the people who are swindled by crypto nowadays are aware of the scam and jump into it thinking they're going to make money by finding a greater fool to dump their participation the scheme on for a profit.
Such people are really trying to be scammers in the scam.
That explains them invariably rushing to defend whatever scam token they're holding whenever it gets criticized in social media: if outsider are generally made to suspect the true nature of the scam and hence become unwilling to jump in, these wannabe scammers aren't going to find a greater fool to take those tokens out of their hands and give them a nice profit.
Of course as @[email protected] pointed out, these scams are done from the very start for maximum profitability of those starting the scam, not for the profit of the first ones to buy into it, so often those wannabe scammers end up being the greater fools of that scam themselves.
I used to work in Tech back in the late 90s, during the first bubble and up to the Tech Crash. I also worked in both Investment Finance and Tech Startups much more recently.
I can't even begin to describe just how angry, disgusted and dissapointed this unholly intersection between Tech and Hyperspeculative-Finance of the XXI century makes me.
The whole spirit in pretty much the entire domain of Tech back in the 90s was completely different from this neverending bottomless swamp of crap we have in the supposedly innovative parts of Tech.
Ever since the sleazy slimeballs who saw from the first Tech bubble that there were massive opportunities to use Tech-mumbu-jumbo to extract money from suckers started (immediatly after the Crash) trying to pump the Net bubble back up (they even called it Web 2.0) that the old spirit of innovation for the sake of improving things of the old days in Tech was crushed and replaced by the most scammy, fraudulent, naked greed imaginable.
After my time in Finance (which, curiously, also involved a Crash in the Industry I was working in) I started describing Tech Startups as "The Even Wilder Wild West of Speculative Finance".
When I worked in investments, it was all about finding the best statistical model to balance returns against risk. It was fascinating how complex the models could be, and even included currency hedging to reduce the risk of exchange rates. And most importantly to also minimize trades to control costs and tax impact. This was before lightning trading: plenty of the funds were monthly trading. Those were the good old days when a better algorithm could shave points enough to stand out but everyone was on similar footing
After my time in Finance (which, curiously, also involved a Crash in the Industry I was working in)
A-ha! We've found the cause of the market crashes.
Joking aside, I was around for the dotcom bubble burst and the 2008 crash. Both were caused by wild speculation and we seemed to have learned nothing from them. I have little doubt we're headed for another recession and it will again, be driven by speculation. We also have a problem with private equity (I call them "vulture equity") which likes to capitalize on businesses which are struggling . They swoop in, buy up the company in a leveraged buyout, and then start extracting as much value from the company as possible. Usually this is in the real estate that the company owns. Once all of the value is extracted, the company is spun back off, saddled with the debt used to buy the company in the first place, and then it flounders until it ultimately collapses. This was the fate of companies like Sears or Red Lobster. Once a vulture equity company engages in a leveraged buyout of a company, that company is doomed.
Yeah, well, Asset Owners and the Speculators who caused the 2008 Crash got saved by Governments all around the World with public money and that was done by taking money away from those whose income comes from their Work (notice how salaries keep getting less and less able to cover living costs all the while asset prices keep beating records).
What I learned from the 2008 Crash - being right smack in the middle of the Industry which made it happen and spending the subsequent years observing what Governments were doing to "recover" from it and trying to figure out "how did this happen" - was that politicians don't work for most people, they work for a handful of people, and when push comes to shove they'll sacrifice the rest to make sure those few keep on accumulating riches.
The fishy speculation that played around the line separating Legal from Fraud has in the aftermath of the 2008 Crash fully became Fraud and more, once the industry figured out that politicians from the main parties had their backs, which is why we find ourselves were we are now. This was especially so in places like the US and UK were power is a duopoly which just alternates between two groups of politicians who all frequent the same social circles and send their children to the same private schools.
Fuck. Yup. I was working in industrial automation in the late 90s, and then transitioned to network engineering at a global scale. Around 2000, the entire vibe seemed to shift. I walked out just before 9/11 and am so glad to be in an entirely different industry now.
That’s the big question: do you recognize the scam in time to take advantage of it, and have the awareness to get out in time when there are still suckers?
I know a few people who made money on crypto in the early stages this way: recognize the scam but take advantage.
It was probably possible to take similar advantage of the Trump bribe laundering crypto scam, even without the benefit of the insider trading and market manipulation
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
Ya, one of the best pieces of advice I got was, "never gamble money you can't afford to lose". This is what keeps me out of trying to chase that tiger. Sure, it could be possible to make some money by jumping on one of these scams early and trying to ride sell the bump. But, it's also likely that be the sucker losing out in the end. I'd rather not waste my money that way.
Unfortunately for them that ship has sailed. It's not hard to get in on a scam like this of you do it early enough, i probably would have done it if i had enough money when this started (don't judge, much, money is important when you don't have it) and i probably would have gotten out like a bandit. Now though, it's mostly targeting them.
When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I'll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn't mean shit, it's just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.
When I first heard of NFTs I thought the media was encoded within the blockchain - in that case sure, I wouldn't necessarily buy one but I understand how that'd be interesting.
Ten minutes later when I was told they are just proof of purchase that points to a URL hosting your monkey image somewhere, I knew they were a total scam
I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I'm sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.
Every ticket scheme for NFTs fails because of a simple reason: contract law. Venues don't stick with TicketMaster because they like it. TicketMaster's store front doesn't have any magic technology; a room of overcaffinated fresh CS grads could recreate it in a weekend of binge coding.
Venues stick with TicketMaster because they are contractually obliged to do so. NFTs do not and cannot change that legal reality.
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.
Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: "selling their book" as they say in Finance.
People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the "investment" assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.
Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers' talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, "the grifters grift" - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.
Honestly provides basically no benefits that existing token systems don't already handle. Games have been tracking completely unique items as commodities in a large market for a long time - the only benefit new to NFT was decentralization, which basically nobody peddling them understands anyway.
The only thing it opens up is that as a game developer I can make a contract that turns NFT items from another game into NFT items of my game. Like HyperDragons that you level up by feeding them CryptoKitties, without consent or approval from CryptoKitties devs.
But why on earth, as a game developer, would you ever do that... Well, other than as a PR stunt.
Sure, but millennials weren't the generation that brought us things like this. They thought they could horde them to fund their kids college. I know firsthand, my mom spent hundreds of thousands on them claiming they would only go up. Now she's got nothing. God forbid she buy a fucking savings bond.
I think it's also the younger users here don't know/remember the time when all Boomers flipped their shit and thought Beanie Babies were THE ONE TRUE investment strategy. They didn't watch their parents blow their entire retirement fund on a scam. Instead they were the ones that actually got to play with them, so naturally they look back on them fondly.
I could buy a beanie baby at an auction and then drive across town and sell the beanie baby at a different auction. I'd get around the same estimated price on the toy buying and selling, unless I found a particularly friendly/disappointing market.
By contrast, the NFT auction houses are all owned and operated by the same assholes trying to sell the digital merch. The prices are set arbitrarily, many of the sales are wash sales or straw purchases, with the same individual/cartel running multiple accounts to create the illusion of a market. Once you've bought your NFT, there's no real way to off-load it onto anyone else. It's purely a scam.
Tack on to the tail end, at the absolute worst you get a cute little stuffed animal out of Beanie Babies. With NFTs, you're not even buying the artwork itself. You're buying a link to artwork with no guarantee of continued costing. Quite a few NFTs are the victims of Link Rot, leading to the owner having gone out of pocket for some absurd fee in exchange for what amounts to a stall bit.ly URL.
I had too much money once. I bought some nft Reddit avatars for like 2k and it is still there somewhere but I am too lazy to even check on that
It’s somewhere there some kind of nft safe they have or something like that. It’s all very clunky.
I think I had to note down some access code at some point or something like that, it’s all too tiring to remember and unclear if there is anything you can do with it
It’s just money right, it’s not like there’s a shortage.
At some point it only goes up and up, multiplicating like some kind of sex starved horny rabbits. Population of which you are informed monthly by some clean but boring site: -0.67%, 2.27%, -1.23%… which for some reason is trying hard to appeal to you and that fake tone seeps through every second word on their butt licking reports.
Please use our services, oh maam please. We are here for you please use us
We will need an immutable signature for content at some point moving forward since AI is going to be so prevalent and it will be easy to make fraudulent clips, podcasts etc. NFTs would be perfect for this.
It's a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments' enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It's good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it's the parties with the majority of the "proof of XYZ" creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there's the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn't invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it's incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
it’s the parties with the majority of the “proof of XYZ” creation hardware. Which are not normal people.
Originally the idea was that it WOULD be normal people using their own CPU cycle time to secure the chain and mint new blocks. Even then, as long as no one party holds the majority of hash power, the incentive is to support the security of the coin rather than subvert it. The moment that changes is the moment that Bitcoin dies, because no one will be able to trust it any more - which also means there is an incentive to make sure there are enough competing BTC farms.
there’s the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits.
The blockchain is upheld by the combination of the developers and the miners. If the developers aren't acting in good faith and the miners don't like it, they don't move to the new chain. Sure, you get a split, but odds are one of them is going to die.
People don't care because crypto is literally a made up thing.
Sure, people make money off of it. But people make money off loads of things. That doesn't change that it's literally a made up currency that has tons of people scamming the shit out of people for a quick buck.
lol yes absolutely they are. Yes the government is allowing legal scams. Yes scammers win lawsuits. Yes congress supports scams. A government stamp doesn't make trusting some corporate CEO a good idea; it just means they paid the bribes.
"Blue chips" typically perform well, especially relative to their risk. You've got all the risks of Bitcoin, plus trust in a central party that needs government permission.
It's remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than "art". NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It's a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.
For you as a user, this example can be interesting: event tickets.
Today, the market is dominated by companies like Ticketmasters and scalpers. Artists have very little control over their ticket price. Here in The Netherlands, some prominent artists started using GET to issue their event tickets on (these are technically NFTs). This gives them the assurance that the audience pays a fair price for the tickets and that scalpers cannot trade it for a higher price. Both the audience and the artist are better of using this technology, than issuing their tickets via Ticketmasters.
I could host my own ticket shop where tickets are only possible to check in if you have a passport and trading is impossible since it is bound to the person who bought it.
And trading can be made possible with the same platform that sells the tickets
Sure you can, but then we basically create the same situation as with Ticketmasters, all tickets will then eventually flow through your company and you can change policies again and we will end up with the same problems. With a blockchain solution (doesn't have to be blockchain for NFT's though) this platform can be decentralized and self managed, the rules are baked into the protocol, it can only be changed with the majority of voting rights. It basically enables the infrastructure for artists to control ticket sales (and reading at the gate) themselves, without having to use an agency. In your scenario, they would still need an agency.
It sounds nice in theory with the decentralization but in this case a governmental website selling tickets would be better
Also since when do NFTs without Blockchain exist?
Why do I think it won't work:
Voting by hardware = voting by the rich/ criminals
If there is money at play someone will buy the majority of the Blockchain by owning more than 50% of the hardware and making it a useless endeavour for everyone else.
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork. 🤷♀️
I don't see how it's much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
You didnd't purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven't figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn't "purchase my photos"? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
It's having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That's the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere "ownership certificate" which is not legally recognized is "ownership" is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with "magical" bytes instead of "magical" words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can't understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An "ownership stamp", no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that "ownership stamp" and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it's you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That's the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a "certificate of ownership", it's there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it's some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen "logic"
bruh it's really not that difficult. Fan sends money to artist. Fan receives some magical bytes in return. Could fan have right clicked and downloaded the artwork without paying? Of course. But fan wants to support artist. Because fan likes artist's art. It's how any digital "marketplace" works, NFT or not. All this "legal system" and "ownership" and "legal registrar" nonsense you're pulling up is completely irrelevant. You're reading too much into it.
"Bruh", your problem is exactly that in your mind it's all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you "rights" that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It's like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It's the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such "certificates" is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those "certificates" to.
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say shit about "rights" and "respect". The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You're bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I "read on a website" about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a token short string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that's it. All of these ideas of "ownership" and "rights" and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
They just really really really hate NFTs/crypto for some reason. I can't imagine ever getting so worked up about a technology like people do today about crypto. I want to support an artist so apparently I need to have a PhD in contract and IP law in order to do so.
You didnd’t purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven’t figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very "curious" cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated "bullshit".
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to "contribute to the artist" no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn't support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
It’s having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
Here's an excerpt of the "Holder Rights" explicitly outlined from a very very very large and well known music artist who released music NFTs:
"[Redacted] token holders have full commercial rights to their unique version. They can remix and release it, play it publicly, or use it in other content like videos."
"[Redacted] includes the ability to render full quality audio files and to render individual tracks as Stems to make edits and remixes easy."
"Holders do not have exclusive rights, meaning they cannot remove their version from [redacted] or stop it from showing up in NFT marketplaces like OpenSea."
"If you do use a version commercially, you should not sell the token. If you do, you will transfer the rights and may need to obtain permission from the new owner to coninue your use."
"Every buyer will be responsible for their own copyright claims."
Do you think this would hold up in a court of law?
That's pretty much a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract, same as you get from places that license musice for commercial use like Envato - it makes that token a tranferable license for that work with the licensing rights defined there and no more than that, and legally gives you no ownership (i.e. the copyright being yours) of those works.
Per those terms the copyright owner (which is not the person who has ownership of the token, as per those terms that only gives them a commercial license to use that work) can license it to other people under whatever terms they want.
Oh, and all of that is backed by Copyright laws, not by whatever technical solution was used for the NFT - they could've just as easilly used a seashell or a piece of paper as ownership "token".
If you bought an NFT which is a token for this work as per these contract terms, thinking you own the music, you've been had and should've had a lawyer check it out first.
So your chief complaint is mainly a semantical one related to the terms outlined, and not the underlying platform. Got it. Thanks for the responses. ☺️
You did not make the case that NFTs add value over a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract with your example and instead showed us an NFTs which even when actually backed by a contract does not provide "ownership", thus confirming my point and that of previous posters that NFTs by themselves don't given ownership.
Beyond that, if you think legally defined intellectual contract language elements like "ownership" and "licensing" are just semantics, you're going to be sorelly dissapointed when trying to assert your ownership of those assets.
yeah exactly I still haven't heard a single explanation of what makes NFTs a "scam". People just shout that word and expect you to accept it. Seriously, which part of a consensual transaction between two well-informed parties qualifies as a "scam"?
There is undoubtedly a huge number of rugpulls, vaporware, empty promises, and outright scams with NFTs. But this is true of any nascent technology, any sort of project like this. The reason so many people know about it and are aware about it is because of the permissionless and open nature of crypto which allows people to see these projects in realtime.
IMO it's neither good nor bad. It's just nascent tech. For an artist like Sabet, it's obviously good! It gets people exposed to his art, with a low entry barrier, and allows people to support him. For people like Trump, it's pretty clearly bad, and it just allows him to scam/rugpull people easier and faster.
Well its fine, I understand where it comes from. But like NFTs were obviously gambling and for anyone making money someone had to lose it. Since the whole concept was and is pretty degenerate tho pretty much everyone knew what they signed up for so its not like I made anyone grandmas lifesavings. U can call me an idiot for having done that but at most I took some bigger idiots money so the ur part of the problem talk is a stretch imo. I wasnt doing it on eth either which at the time was the most inefficient chain when it comes to using energy to run. Tbf tho. I wasnt part of any solution to any problem either, that much is clear. (obviously Im just talking about having bought and sold NFTs btw, never made one never sold one to a first buyer I was just trading them for a time)
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
Wait just a second! You have a bridge for sale? Tell me more.
Well first of all, it allows travel between point A and point B, usually above the ground
I'm in! Name your price.
And time travel! But you have to drive real slow for it to work
Or you could travel at any speed.
Well not 299,792,458 meters per second. The time travel effect becomes more effective the slower you are from that
Joke's on you: I constantly time travel for free!
Granted, it's always in the same direction and at the same rate of time change, but no fancy bridges are required.
Not true! The faster you're moving through space, the slower you're moving through time.
Good point!
Yeah, that's possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.
And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.
It's kind of like selling a website that redirects to Facebook, and thinking that therefore you own Facebook.
The virtual deeds would be great for game licences and trading second hand games online
How tf are you trading digital games you've finished
I mean we use fiat currency
the issue isnt that it is virtual
There's not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry
except that the government run land registry can deal with disputes in a flexible and fair manner. A blockchain with smart contracts cannot.
Enforcement of ownership must be off chain. You can still have a disputes procedure using blockchain.
What a smart contract registry allows is efficient notarisation of non-disputed ownership, which is 95% of the work.
Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.
I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.
In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).
This is such a funny thing to say since NFTs were all about "owning" stuff on the blockchain.
Indeed. The blockchain provides no media hosting, no enforcement, I guess. It can mark something as owned (and require their private key to decrypt or whatever), but ultimately that ownership is as beholden to reality (read: arbitrary purseholders) as any other system. It’s just a record.
With your scheme you can't prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can't be extracted from the camera.
Trusted, cryptographic timestamps exist, and have for some time. NFTs don't add anything new.
Okay good. I thought it would, just didn't know any specifically. I wasn't trying to suggest a public blockchain would be the only solution or even the best of multiple solutions, only that they needed to consider more angles beyond just making a hash.
Those would probably be a part of it.
Comparing a hashcode implies you have a verifiable source for the original footage.
You can do this manually and dig for the author but thats not always that simple.
A second step would be to build In a reference to the record in each media file, expressed as a small clickable logo.
You grandma deserves to be capable to verify.
surely so does a block chain? at the heart of it a block chain is just a series of hashes too.
Exactly my point why i think they would be a part of it.
Too often information about original media and potential hashes get lost. A decentralised ledger is the perfect tool for the job.
buh, i mean, what would it add over just a single hash?
If i give you any video from online would you or your grandma be able to find the hash of the original footage which is not provided?
i thought we were talking about the opposite situation, archival.
so in this situation we're not actually talking about using a block chain, as in a progressive hashing function, but the blockchain, as in a massive network of computers used to verify anything.
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.
This is correct.
This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.
The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.
If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.
You don't have to stage a scene, you can use modern displays, optics, and sensors to inject 'digital' strategies into the 'analog' approach.
There are decentralized oracles. That's how DAI tracks the price of USD.
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that's very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I've searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn't look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn't be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
That's security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there's nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
Yes it is. The scheme is that when you take a picture, the camera signs said picture. The key is stored somewhere in the camera. Hence the secrecy of the key hinges on the the attacker not knowing how the camera accesses the key. Once the attacker knows that, they can get the key from the camera. Therefore, security hinges on the secrecy of the camera design/protocol used by the camera to access the key, in addition to the secrecy of the key. Therefore, it is security by obscurity.
They buy it at a store.
The blockchain is distributed.
For example, you might use it as a trademark registry or to certify a chain of legal evidence. You can validate a presented copy matches the original and what the chain of ownership was. And you can do this without the single point of failure of a nationwide database
That’s the point, a use case where no one has to. It’s only the record of ownership.
And clearly you’d still need to make arrangements to prevent multiple chains of ownership for a copied artifact
NFTs make the mistake of assuming that somehow makes it unique, forgetting you can just copy the original. However these use cases work from the opposite direction: given an accused infringement, does that match?
Consider the current use case for trademark. Someone creates a trademark and registers with an authority. At some point they may renew modify, or sell. After some time, that authority has a database containing the original and a chain of ownership. Blockchain could serve this identically, with the potential advantage of the chain being self contained and distributable
This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what's coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.
A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that's hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).
The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).
The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.
This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.
The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.
Even if people can't get the key out of rom, which I doubt, they can man in the middle the cable going to the photosensor and inject arbitrary images into the system.
still a solution in search of a problem, unfortunately.
We can still tell when something is AI and it's not at a stage where it can fool mainstream news or the legal system.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The problem is “misinformation” and has been since before nft/genai became a thing.
Gen Ai makes misinformation worse but the event that sparked this was a gop shared video of a democrat which was slightly speed up to seem more aggressive.
Also simple framing to cut off context from the original has been a very common form of misinformation for decades.
to be more clear: block chain for images is a solution in search of a problem because no one is looking for mass-verified images, they are looking for source-verified images, because you can still fake something on the block chain at point of creation. In 2025 the main concern about faked images is with AI, but more sophisticated and more convincing images can be made with older, even analog technology like airbrushing.
Your example of a sped up Democrat could still be disseminated on the block chain and it would do nothing to confirm or deny its veracity.
It would but it would be much easier to find/link and compare with the actual original.
Of course i have mentioned this was never a complete finished idea, just some thoughts i had for years.
Nowadays i can conceptualise ai tools that detect near duplicates but those obviously were not a thing when i first came up with this.
I would hope that it would be considered very damning if an official publishers referred to false footage while having all the tools to find and refer to the original. So would it Be damning for the uploader and all footage recorded with their device.
isn't the entire concept just trying to side step journalism though? The block chain is just replacing journalistic standards for something that is more easily corrupted with no guarantee of a better outcome.
And often in tricky journalism such as exposés, you don't want your source to be trackable. That's why Robert Maxwell was such a piece of shit as a newspaper journalist, he would shop his sources to Mossad.
Not at all. I consider journalists the best potential of early adapter.
As a consumer i don't care if i have to copy or screenshot or need to list sources if i am Just sharing to friends.
Publishers however have a responsibility towards the public to provide fair information. And if i post publicly i also try to pay a bit more attention. (Ignoring i failed exactly that just earlier today)
There would be nothing stopping anyone to ignore the system and keep sharing unverified pixels but its a real flex be able to provide open and transparent information about your sources almost upfront.
If enough established organisation start doing this then the ones that don’t will stick out like they have something to hide.
The exposé is an interesting example I had not yet considered but again i think nothing is stopping publishers from publicly stating they cannot provide sources but have the means to get it independently verified.
I also believe its possible for a camera/recorded to exist anonymously on the blockchain, just like you don't know the owner of a crypto wallet.
The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.
If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they'd sign it and say "yes it's authentic".
Now maybe you can say "Canon genuine" to say it's not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.
Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it's of limited use.
Traditional signing is enough to say "If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed", no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.
Had thoughts like that before, someone pointed that it already exists and is called C2PA - no blockchain necessary. It's not yet widespread, though.
As for NFT, when it came out I had thoughts that it could be used for completely transparent and automated businesses. Something like an AirBnB with a digital lock on the front door and you could buy an NFT for a daily stay that you could use to unlock said lock. But then if there's only one company that accepts said NFT's then there's zero reason for it to be on blockchain, they can just send you the code, and if they scam you there's no use for either NFT or the code. There could be real estate ownership certificates, but then again, there would always be only one authority issuing them - zero reason for blockchain. There could be like crowdfunding NFT, but then again, there could only one party managing the funds. There were tons of ideas for practical usage of NFT's, but all of them hinge on there being some party linking the zero-trust crypto and the real world, and if there's only a single trusted party then it always makes more sense for that party to deploy a normal database in place of blockchain and just provide an API endpoint to verify ownership.
EDIT: Fixed wrong link
I initially thought they were like numbered art prints, with a more robust way of guaranteeing authenticity.
That was the marketing hype.
They were actually selling numbered receipts of art prints.
Iain M. Banks had a similar idea in The Player of Games. In the book AI is so realistic that all real photos and videos have to be logged and timestamped for authenticity.
I had an idea sort of like that - media for your camera or cell-camera that was write once, could not be erased or changed, did not forget (you know ssd's and thumb drives forget as the stranded charge leaks away) - Each picture cryptographically signed with GPS and date and time and author/photographer.
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
One would assume that journalism would be more then motivated to proof authenticity of the images they show.
Of course such assumptions fail to consider the events at cern that fucked up any chance of reasonable reality.
Yeah. Crypto bros ruined crypto with their greed.
Crypto is still really cool but now when people read that word they just think scam. So it's never going to happen
Bitcoin is currently at all time highs
Whats your point?
That it's currently happening and belief that it's a scam is going down.
Yes, people vehemently hate when you point this out because to the general public NFT = stupid overpriced digital art, and they don't care to be convinced otherwise. My personal conspiracy theory is that the two were purposefully conflated to keep the technology from ever being taken seriously.
I was actually going to note that i feel similar about this conspiracy but i left it out in the end.
Glad not to be the only person to conceive this. Kill it before people discover a good use.
When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded
Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it's pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.
I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.
Bitcoin is still fucking shit. That just amounts to "I wish I was there first in this this pyramid scheme". It doesn't change what it is.
Sure, never said otherwise, so you can see how someone could theoretically think maybe nft is the next bitcoin and want to get in early.
There were enough layers in that pyramid and enough years in construction to have room for more people to make a buck.
What’s the difference between a scam and a bubble, and is the bubble more legitimate or just a bigger, longer scam?
Did we make fun of bitcoin? It was a cool currency for buying drugs on the black market at first.
I made fun of it immediately, despite also recognizing and using its ability to facilitate online purchases of contraband.
The "next Bitcoin" has just been Bitcoin every time. Right now is its umpteenth bubble.
My first wife was tarded. She's a pilot now.
Yep! Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives!
Why come you don't got a tatoo??
She pilots the Tardis.
It's so funny looking back at it (though it was funny while it was happening too), these new-flavor cryptobros tried so hard to convince themselves that they were in the right, they made "cartoons," games, I think they even planned like an island resort or something around their monkey pictures.
The national news media got behind it big, which I really don't understand.
It never made any sense.
Pump and dump deep state. It’s still happening. New sucker born every minute.
Explanation: Money.
Whenever you see a headline or article and don't understand why they're lying or pushing something. The answer is that it makes someone money. And a large chunk of modern media is owned by a handful of people who's goal is to make money, not tell the truth.
My coworker had a virtual NFT gallery full of Marvel NFTs, all laid out like a showroom. He literally spent thousands, now it's worth close to nothing.
Near the peak of the NFT craze I was gifted (as part of an initial mint) an NFT, which I turned around and immediately sold for $3k. Last I looked it was worth about $200. That's the extent of my experience with NFTs.
Still surprised it's worth $200. I thought it'd be worth a few cents or maybe a few dollars at most
It's worth what someone will actually pay for it. I suspect that $200 is the price at which it is listed...
I see what's going on here! You're confusing market value labor value and use value. Typical noob mistake. Clearly ypu dont understand the real value of an nft!
a Mitch Hedberg variant
NFT's used to be stupid.
They still are, but they used to be, too.
You know, I feel bad for the people who were conned by the Super Bowl commercials. Celebs added legitimacy to the con. Everyone else who actually got into it because of whatever other reason, I don't give a fuck about. And SBF? Fuck that guy. I'm glad he's in prison. (I know he was selling a crypto-currency, not NFTs. Don't correct me.)
Oh, and the late night guy and the celeb blond lady who had an awkward conversation about it (was it the hotel sex tape lady?) can also fuck right off. Someone paid them to shill and they went for it. Assholes.
But, all that being said, I'll sell you a jpeg for $1000. Or two for $1999.
Edit: Paris Hilton, don't @ me. Edit: missing "the"
I feel bad for people who are duped by the scam artists. But on the other hand, scam is such an integral part of the US life, recognising it is an essential skill by now. So if you have enough money to be scammed, but didn't learn how not to get scammed, it's at least a little bit on you at this point.
That being said, nobody is safe, unfortunately, you can be as smart and as informed as possible, they still can invent a scam that will work on you specifically.
How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is "yes". It's always "yes".
The only question is, can you hold the tiger's tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren't the last one holding it.
I get the impression that most of the people who are swindled by crypto nowadays are aware of the scam and jump into it thinking they're going to make money by finding a greater fool to dump their participation the scheme on for a profit.
Such people are really trying to be scammers in the scam.
That explains them invariably rushing to defend whatever scam token they're holding whenever it gets criticized in social media: if outsider are generally made to suspect the true nature of the scam and hence become unwilling to jump in, these wannabe scammers aren't going to find a greater fool to take those tokens out of their hands and give them a nice profit.
Of course as @[email protected] pointed out, these scams are done from the very start for maximum profitability of those starting the scam, not for the profit of the first ones to buy into it, so often those wannabe scammers end up being the greater fools of that scam themselves.
I used to work in Tech back in the late 90s, during the first bubble and up to the Tech Crash. I also worked in both Investment Finance and Tech Startups much more recently.
I can't even begin to describe just how angry, disgusted and dissapointed this unholly intersection between Tech and Hyperspeculative-Finance of the XXI century makes me.
The whole spirit in pretty much the entire domain of Tech back in the 90s was completely different from this neverending bottomless swamp of crap we have in the supposedly innovative parts of Tech.
Ever since the sleazy slimeballs who saw from the first Tech bubble that there were massive opportunities to use Tech-mumbu-jumbo to extract money from suckers started (immediatly after the Crash) trying to pump the Net bubble back up (they even called it Web 2.0) that the old spirit of innovation for the sake of improving things of the old days in Tech was crushed and replaced by the most scammy, fraudulent, naked greed imaginable.
After my time in Finance (which, curiously, also involved a Crash in the Industry I was working in) I started describing Tech Startups as "The Even Wilder Wild West of Speculative Finance".
Yeah it’s such a degeneracy…..
When I worked in investments, it was all about finding the best statistical model to balance returns against risk. It was fascinating how complex the models could be, and even included currency hedging to reduce the risk of exchange rates. And most importantly to also minimize trades to control costs and tax impact. This was before lightning trading: plenty of the funds were monthly trading. Those were the good old days when a better algorithm could shave points enough to stand out but everyone was on similar footing
A-ha! We've found the cause of the market crashes.
Joking aside, I was around for the dotcom bubble burst and the 2008 crash. Both were caused by wild speculation and we seemed to have learned nothing from them. I have little doubt we're headed for another recession and it will again, be driven by speculation. We also have a problem with private equity (I call them "vulture equity") which likes to capitalize on businesses which are struggling . They swoop in, buy up the company in a leveraged buyout, and then start extracting as much value from the company as possible. Usually this is in the real estate that the company owns. Once all of the value is extracted, the company is spun back off, saddled with the debt used to buy the company in the first place, and then it flounders until it ultimately collapses. This was the fate of companies like Sears or Red Lobster. Once a vulture equity company engages in a leveraged buyout of a company, that company is doomed.
Yeah, well, Asset Owners and the Speculators who caused the 2008 Crash got saved by Governments all around the World with public money and that was done by taking money away from those whose income comes from their Work (notice how salaries keep getting less and less able to cover living costs all the while asset prices keep beating records).
What I learned from the 2008 Crash - being right smack in the middle of the Industry which made it happen and spending the subsequent years observing what Governments were doing to "recover" from it and trying to figure out "how did this happen" - was that politicians don't work for most people, they work for a handful of people, and when push comes to shove they'll sacrifice the rest to make sure those few keep on accumulating riches.
The fishy speculation that played around the line separating Legal from Fraud has in the aftermath of the 2008 Crash fully became Fraud and more, once the industry figured out that politicians from the main parties had their backs, which is why we find ourselves were we are now. This was especially so in places like the US and UK were power is a duopoly which just alternates between two groups of politicians who all frequent the same social circles and send their children to the same private schools.
It's a big group and we ain't in it.
Fuck. Yup. I was working in industrial automation in the late 90s, and then transitioned to network engineering at a global scale. Around 2000, the entire vibe seemed to shift. I walked out just before 9/11 and am so glad to be in an entirely different industry now.
That’s a big part of knowing when to get out. They don’t. ….. or maybe they do: I don’t know if that scam is still finding enough suckers.
That’s the big question: do you recognize the scam in time to take advantage of it, and have the awareness to get out in time when there are still suckers?
I know a few people who made money on crypto in the early stages this way: recognize the scam but take advantage.
It was probably possible to take similar advantage of the Trump bribe laundering crypto scam, even without the benefit of the insider trading and market manipulation
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
Ya, one of the best pieces of advice I got was, "never gamble money you can't afford to lose". This is what keeps me out of trying to chase that tiger. Sure, it could be possible to make some money by jumping on one of these scams early and trying to ride sell the bump. But, it's also likely that be the sucker losing out in the end. I'd rather not waste my money that way.
Unfortunately for them that ship has sailed. It's not hard to get in on a scam like this of you do it early enough, i probably would have done it if i had enough money when this started (don't judge, much, money is important when you don't have it) and i probably would have gotten out like a bandit. Now though, it's mostly targeting them.
Nobody is going to judge a cute and awkward baby trans girl needing cash on my watch. That’s for sure.
C-cute!? (~\\~)
Very cute and very pretty
Scam or not some of them are very useful to pay for some not so legal things
Investing in currency is already dumb, in cryptocurrency? Doubly so
When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I'll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn't mean shit, it's just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.
When I first heard of NFTs I thought the media was encoded within the blockchain - in that case sure, I wouldn't necessarily buy one but I understand how that'd be interesting.
Ten minutes later when I was told they are just proof of purchase that points to a URL hosting your monkey image somewhere, I knew they were a total scam
Okay but how are nft's different from the deed to a house? Checkmate, filthy commie.
Now that i have defeated you in single combat, you must tell me the seed phrase for your largest bitcoin wallet.
hunter2
wtf why isn't it starred out for privacy
guys help
"Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place."
For real cash ofc.
Gonna need a bank loan, naturally.
Aaaaand now I have that flute part stuck in my head again
Is it over? I stopped watching.
Fifa is selling world cup nfts right now...
Fifa is pretty fucked up and behind the times. I am not surprised.
I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I'm sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.
Yup! There were no technical problems that weren’t already solved, but NFT bros made grand claims unrelated to reality.
Techbros are still doing it. In this thread even, and people are still falling for it judging by their upvotes.
Every ticket scheme for NFTs fails because of a simple reason: contract law. Venues don't stick with TicketMaster because they like it. TicketMaster's store front doesn't have any magic technology; a room of overcaffinated fresh CS grads could recreate it in a weekend of binge coding.
Venues stick with TicketMaster because they are contractually obliged to do so. NFTs do not and cannot change that legal reality.
Pretty much all crypto bro stuff, honestly
Every time someone mentions NFT's, I think of this gem and its sequel
Amazing.
For me it's usually the Bitcoin guy from the "If Google was a guy" sketches
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.
Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: "selling their book" as they say in Finance.
People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the "investment" assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.
Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers' talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, "the grifters grift" - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.
Seems like a resurgence now, plus I’m seeing a lot more misleading videos.
This time it’s worse: all scam and manipulation.
Before there were a lot of true believers and the bubble went on too long to be just a scam
I actually would say it’s harder to say now.
It was easy at first because it was obvious.
But NFTs are still a thing… so even though it’s still a scam, it now makes you question humanity.
Pyramid schemes are still a thing too.
Amway and Herbalife should have been shut down decades ago. But the DeVos family made a lot of money on Amway.
The SEC should have intervened on crypto and NFTs, but again, it’s qui bono. Things that help rich people grift are always allowed.
Had Hillary won they might have. Was never going to happen with Trump 1.
Hahaha
NFTs are great, the stupid fucking pictures that everyone calls NFTs are not
Honestly provides basically no benefits that existing token systems don't already handle. Games have been tracking completely unique items as commodities in a large market for a long time - the only benefit new to NFT was decentralization, which basically nobody peddling them understands anyway.
The only thing it opens up is that as a game developer I can make a contract that turns NFT items from another game into NFT items of my game. Like HyperDragons that you level up by feeding them CryptoKitties, without consent or approval from CryptoKitties devs.
But why on earth, as a game developer, would you ever do that... Well, other than as a PR stunt.
I'm not saying it doesn't have real use cases. But I'm not aware of any useful application of that concept.
i smoked a joint with an one of those ape drawings on the jar last night, that was a Nice Fuckin Toke
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
Beanie babies were beanie babies for millennials. I still have some.
Sure, but millennials weren't the generation that brought us things like this. They thought they could horde them to fund their kids college. I know firsthand, my mom spent hundreds of thousands on them claiming they would only go up. Now she's got nothing. God forbid she buy a fucking savings bond.
Don't forget Funko pops
A plague upon humanity.
I really hate these things and can’t believe I wasted money on some my kids wanted.
But you do buy something. It’s not imaginary
At least beanie babies were a toy a child could play with.
Noooo! They'd lose value! (they'd go from 2 to 1.5 dollars)
Well, that's why you get the tag protectors!
Millenials had beanie babied wut
I think it's also the younger users here don't know/remember the time when all Boomers flipped their shit and thought Beanie Babies were THE ONE TRUE investment strategy. They didn't watch their parents blow their entire retirement fund on a scam. Instead they were the ones that actually got to play with them, so naturally they look back on them fondly.
I could buy a beanie baby at an auction and then drive across town and sell the beanie baby at a different auction. I'd get around the same estimated price on the toy buying and selling, unless I found a particularly friendly/disappointing market.
By contrast, the NFT auction houses are all owned and operated by the same assholes trying to sell the digital merch. The prices are set arbitrarily, many of the sales are wash sales or straw purchases, with the same individual/cartel running multiple accounts to create the illusion of a market. Once you've bought your NFT, there's no real way to off-load it onto anyone else. It's purely a scam.
Tack on to the tail end, at the absolute worst you get a cute little stuffed animal out of Beanie Babies. With NFTs, you're not even buying the artwork itself. You're buying a link to artwork with no guarantee of continued costing. Quite a few NFTs are the victims of Link Rot, leading to the owner having gone out of pocket for some absurd fee in exchange for what amounts to a stall bit.ly URL.
I had too much money once. I bought some nft Reddit avatars for like 2k and it is still there somewhere but I am too lazy to even check on that
It’s somewhere there some kind of nft safe they have or something like that. It’s all very clunky.
I think I had to note down some access code at some point or something like that, it’s all too tiring to remember and unclear if there is anything you can do with it
what the fuck
It’s just money right, it’s not like there’s a shortage.
At some point it only goes up and up, multiplicating like some kind of sex starved horny rabbits. Population of which you are informed monthly by some clean but boring site: -0.67%, 2.27%, -1.23%… which for some reason is trying hard to appeal to you and that fake tone seeps through every second word on their butt licking reports.
Please use our services, oh maam please. We are here for you please use us
We will need an immutable signature for content at some point moving forward since AI is going to be so prevalent and it will be easy to make fraudulent clips, podcasts etc. NFTs would be perfect for this.
What would be the advantage over current digital signatures?
The idea of NFT was not as much a proof of authenticity, but more like a way to sell and but those signatures.
In the context of AI I don't see an advantage to having a easy way to sell your private key sort of speaking.
It's a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments' enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It's good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it's the parties with the majority of the "proof of XYZ" creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there's the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn't invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it's incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
Originally the idea was that it WOULD be normal people using their own CPU cycle time to secure the chain and mint new blocks. Even then, as long as no one party holds the majority of hash power, the incentive is to support the security of the coin rather than subvert it. The moment that changes is the moment that Bitcoin dies, because no one will be able to trust it any more - which also means there is an incentive to make sure there are enough competing BTC farms.
The blockchain is upheld by the combination of the developers and the miners. If the developers aren't acting in good faith and the miners don't like it, they don't move to the new chain. Sure, you get a split, but odds are one of them is going to die.
People don't care because crypto is literally a made up thing.
Sure, people make money off of it. But people make money off loads of things. That doesn't change that it's literally a made up currency that has tons of people scamming the shit out of people for a quick buck.
🙄
Sure bud. Act like your digital picture is the same as a painting someone made.
Solana and Ethereum are both centralized scams that have been going down vs Bitcoin for the last year, despite the bull market.
lol yes absolutely they are. Yes the government is allowing legal scams. Yes scammers win lawsuits. Yes congress supports scams. A government stamp doesn't make trusting some corporate CEO a good idea; it just means they paid the bribes.
"Blue chips" typically perform well, especially relative to their risk. You've got all the risks of Bitcoin, plus trust in a central party that needs government permission.
It's remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than "art". NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It's a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.
Explain to me one such benefit please
For you as a user, this example can be interesting: event tickets.
Today, the market is dominated by companies like Ticketmasters and scalpers. Artists have very little control over their ticket price. Here in The Netherlands, some prominent artists started using GET to issue their event tickets on (these are technically NFTs). This gives them the assurance that the audience pays a fair price for the tickets and that scalpers cannot trade it for a higher price. Both the audience and the artist are better of using this technology, than issuing their tickets via Ticketmasters.
https://guts.tickets/ E.g. Dutch article with prominent artists starting sales via GUTS in 2018, and they still use that platform today: https://www.parool.nl/kunst-media/jochem-myjer-en-youp-van-t-hek-pakken-ticketfraude-aan~bc419f5c/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
And why do I need a Blockchain for that?
I could host my own ticket shop where tickets are only possible to check in if you have a passport and trading is impossible since it is bound to the person who bought it.
And trading can be made possible with the same platform that sells the tickets
Sure you can, but then we basically create the same situation as with Ticketmasters, all tickets will then eventually flow through your company and you can change policies again and we will end up with the same problems. With a blockchain solution (doesn't have to be blockchain for NFT's though) this platform can be decentralized and self managed, the rules are baked into the protocol, it can only be changed with the majority of voting rights. It basically enables the infrastructure for artists to control ticket sales (and reading at the gate) themselves, without having to use an agency. In your scenario, they would still need an agency.
It sounds nice in theory with the decentralization but in this case a governmental website selling tickets would be better
Also since when do NFTs without Blockchain exist?
Why do I think it won't work:
Voting by hardware = voting by the rich/ criminals
If there is money at play someone will buy the majority of the Blockchain by owning more than 50% of the hardware and making it a useless endeavour for everyone else.
Software licenses
Why would a vendor prefer that over centralized DRM that customers tolerate anyways?
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork. 🤷♀️
I don't see how it's much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
You didnd't purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven't figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn't "purchase my photos"? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
It's having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That's the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere "ownership certificate" which is not legally recognized is "ownership" is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with "magical" bytes instead of "magical" words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can't understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An "ownership stamp", no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that "ownership stamp" and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it's you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That's the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a "certificate of ownership", it's there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it's some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen "logic"
bruh it's really not that difficult. Fan sends money to artist. Fan receives some magical bytes in return. Could fan have right clicked and downloaded the artwork without paying? Of course. But fan wants to support artist. Because fan likes artist's art. It's how any digital "marketplace" works, NFT or not. All this "legal system" and "ownership" and "legal registrar" nonsense you're pulling up is completely irrelevant. You're reading too much into it.
"Bruh", your problem is exactly that in your mind it's all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you "rights" that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It's like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It's the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such "certificates" is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those "certificates" to.
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say shit about "rights" and "respect". The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You're bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I "read on a website" about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a
tokenshort string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that's it. All of these ideas of "ownership" and "rights" and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.They just really really really hate NFTs/crypto for some reason. I can't imagine ever getting so worked up about a technology like people do today about crypto. I want to support an artist so apparently I need to have a PhD in contract and IP law in order to do so.
As per another poster higher up this thread:
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very "curious" cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated "bullshit".
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to "contribute to the artist" no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn't support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
Seriously, what is your endgame here?
Here's an excerpt of the "Holder Rights" explicitly outlined from a very very very large and well known music artist who released music NFTs:
"[Redacted] token holders have full commercial rights to their unique version. They can remix and release it, play it publicly, or use it in other content like videos."
"[Redacted] includes the ability to render full quality audio files and to render individual tracks as Stems to make edits and remixes easy."
"Holders do not have exclusive rights, meaning they cannot remove their version from [redacted] or stop it from showing up in NFT marketplaces like OpenSea."
"If you do use a version commercially, you should not sell the token. If you do, you will transfer the rights and may need to obtain permission from the new owner to coninue your use."
"Every buyer will be responsible for their own copyright claims."
Do you think this would hold up in a court of law?
That's pretty much a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract, same as you get from places that license musice for commercial use like Envato - it makes that token a tranferable license for that work with the licensing rights defined there and no more than that, and legally gives you no ownership (i.e. the copyright being yours) of those works.
Per those terms the copyright owner (which is not the person who has ownership of the token, as per those terms that only gives them a commercial license to use that work) can license it to other people under whatever terms they want.
Oh, and all of that is backed by Copyright laws, not by whatever technical solution was used for the NFT - they could've just as easilly used a seashell or a piece of paper as ownership "token".
If you bought an NFT which is a token for this work as per these contract terms, thinking you own the music, you've been had and should've had a lawyer check it out first.
So your chief complaint is mainly a semantical one related to the terms outlined, and not the underlying platform. Got it. Thanks for the responses. ☺️
You did not make the case that NFTs add value over a standard non-exclusive commercial licensing contract with your example and instead showed us an NFTs which even when actually backed by a contract does not provide "ownership", thus confirming my point and that of previous posters that NFTs by themselves don't given ownership.
Beyond that, if you think legally defined intellectual contract language elements like "ownership" and "licensing" are just semantics, you're going to be sorelly dissapointed when trying to assert your ownership of those assets.
yeah exactly I still haven't heard a single explanation of what makes NFTs a "scam". People just shout that word and expect you to accept it. Seriously, which part of a consensual transaction between two well-informed parties qualifies as a "scam"?
There is undoubtedly a huge number of rugpulls, vaporware, empty promises, and outright scams with NFTs. But this is true of any nascent technology, any sort of project like this. The reason so many people know about it and are aware about it is because of the permissionless and open nature of crypto which allows people to see these projects in realtime.
IMO it's neither good nor bad. It's just nascent tech. For an artist like Sabet, it's obviously good! It gets people exposed to his art, with a low entry barrier, and allows people to support him. For people like Trump, it's pretty clearly bad, and it just allows him to scam/rugpull people easier and faster.
made money and got out so cant rlly complain tbh
damn those 17 downvotes are so salty it's making my monitor bezels corrode
Well its fine, I understand where it comes from. But like NFTs were obviously gambling and for anyone making money someone had to lose it. Since the whole concept was and is pretty degenerate tho pretty much everyone knew what they signed up for so its not like I made anyone grandmas lifesavings. U can call me an idiot for having done that but at most I took some bigger idiots money so the ur part of the problem talk is a stretch imo. I wasnt doing it on eth either which at the time was the most inefficient chain when it comes to using energy to run. Tbf tho. I wasnt part of any solution to any problem either, that much is clear. (obviously Im just talking about having bought and sold NFTs btw, never made one never sold one to a first buyer I was just trading them for a time)