5 ms·

Pretty bad take on NFTs. There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "proble

Pretty bad take on NFTs. There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP and accommodate for different tradeoffs. A simple retort would point to the many alternative NFT networks that don't use POW-based consensus algorithms or the NFT offerings that enable value add offerings very differently than purchasing art or baseball cards. Evaluating the capabilities of NFTs against the value offerings of something like rare art is an apples to oranges comparison. Of course the market for digital assets offered via NFT is immature and speculative; this is a new market, based on an alternative technology paradigm, that has a long way to go before it settles into a more usable and valuable structure. Ultimately, the idea of using key-pairs pegged to widely accessible peer-to-peer public networks as a mechanism for tracking ownership of digital (or near digital or at times even physical) assets is incredibly novel. It turns the conventional model of third-party hosted digital assets on its head and enables really interesting mechanisms of distribution, ownership, access, and value consumption and creation that does not compare well with traditional mechanisms. And in saying it doesn't compare well I mean to acknowledge its limitations and its potential at the same time. However, the critique in the OP is pretty bland and doesn't seem to acknowledge the full scope of the situation.

smt88 6y ago
> Evaluating the capabilities of NFTs against the value offerings of something like rare art is an apples to oranges comparison. Someone should tell that to all the artists who are selling NFTs with the implication that they're analogous to owning original works. I agree that it's apples-to-oranges, which is why so many people are appalled at the charlatans who are successfully selling these oranges as apples. > It turns the conventional model of third-party hosted digital assets on its head How so? The assets that are "sold" as NFT are still hosted somewhere. Owning the NFT for something does nothing more than copyright already does. You can store the digital asset on your computer with or without the NFT. You can "consume" it either way as well. So what if the digital asset is an item in a video game? The game can check to make sure you own it before you use it! Yes, it can. But the creator of that game can also choose not to do that, just as anyone can choose not to respect copyright. > I mean to acknowledge its limitations and its potential at the same time What is its potential? What can someone do with NFTs that they couldn't do before?
- TheColorYellow 6y ago
  > What is its potential? What can someone do with NFTs that they couldn't do before? The novelty comes from the underlying protocols that back the NFT. These protocols create marketplaces that are widely available and accessible and are reliably secure and robust. Take copyright for example. Copyright laws vary across regions and marketplace. The encoding and repudiation of these copyright laws is based on analog processes. The data related to the assets in question are stored in databases with a widely varying degree of access. Verifiability across assets or even within a single asset class varies and to varying degrees of reliability. And I'm not saying this to point out that copyright laws and the assets relying on them have failed or are not value add in many ways. The fundamental point is that the technological infrastructure underlying the use of copyright laws today has a lot to be desired when it applies to ease of use for digital media. Networks using blockchain protocols can offer a natively digital infrastructure solution that helps extend or replicate the value offered by something like copyright law. The natively digital aspect enables broader interaction which engenders more general purpose usage which ultimately leads to new consumer models (i.e. direct artist to consumer, peer to peer, etc.). > Owning the NFT for something does nothing more than copyright already does. You can store the digital asset on your computer with or without the NFT. You can "consume" it either way as well. The point is not to displace copyright law)(although others may argue this I do not). The value add here is in creating a widely accessible and reliable digital mechanism for creating, expressing, and modifying ownership rights. Different, or maybe even traditional, consumption models are then built on top of this to capture this value. To your point about gaming creators choosing to do so or not; this question is really a question about what is the value of blockchain protocol networks in the first place and how would someone like a game creator benefit or capture this value? To this point, I can only point out the potential benefits as I'll be the first to agree the nature of blockchain and its value is still being explored. My arguments above are trying to express the value as I see it. Would be curious to hear more thoughts and criticism.
  - wokwokwok 6y ago
    The point you’re making is valid, but you’re side stepping the key concern being raised. The tokens you acquire are worth nothing. Nothing about owning a token grants you any rights to anything other than what some other person is willing to pay/exchange it for. So if a game developer chooses to accept tokens, you can use them; but that developer can at any time choose to stop accepting tokens or a subset of tokens making what you own worth actually nothing. Now... for a regulated system of tokens (eg currency) a developer can’t do that: they are legally bound to accept fiat currency even though it is not redeemable for any “real” equivalent (eg gold). Since a token is not bound to the DRM access to an item (say, image for example), it’s totally pointless to asset ownership with it, because it does not prevent the copy of the original digital asset. The best you could ever hope for would be a regulated system, in which access to an asset via DRM was granted by a token. ...at which point, any “decentralised” benefit is lost. So ultimately, the risk is 100% on the buyer here. What you buy may be redeemable for something for some period of time... but that is true of any kind of token. The “uniqueness” of the NFT is an illusion; it does not offer any strong guarantee of uniquely representing an actual asset.
dmitriid 6y ago
> There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP and accommodate for different tradeoffs. Ah, yes. The goid old "might", the adage as old as the whole blockchain itself. Translation: "will painstakingly re-invent all the attributes of what real world needs, and already has, and doesn't need blockchain in the least". More eloquently put in these articles: https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100 https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-c...
- TheColorYellow 6y ago
  This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here: https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/01/Property-Audrey-Chaing-and-Kai-Stinchcombe.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjupsPd2p3vAhWXMN4KHQiqB5EQFjABegQIBBAK&usg=AOvVaw1vMBwmJh1AwA2_uD0H4lnY https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/0... If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain I can genuinely understand why and it makes sense. Lots of other areas to invest personal time and effort in.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here 404 page not found for me > If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? What would those values and hypotheses be?
    - TheColorYellow 6y ago
      Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. > So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? Of course. This is a nascent and emerging market. To act as if this is anything but a hypothesis on what may be valuable is a lie. This is true of every emergent market ever. > What would those values and hypotheses be? See my other comments in this same thread if you'd genuinely like to engage in discussion. The value is derived from the characteristics of the network protocols and the hypothesis is these values are difficult to achieve without the protocol and that they will come to be highly desired. As a simple example, take the oft common hate for Google accounts being deserviced. A globally accessible, immutable ledger representation of a user account could be a theroetic start in the direction of mitigating the problems of thirs-party owned account data.

smt88 6y ago

> Evaluating the capabilities of NFTs against the value offerings of something like rare art is an apples to oranges comparison. Someone should tell that to all the artists who are selling NFTs with the implication that they're analogous to owning original works. I agree that it's apples-to-oranges, which is why so many people are appalled at the charlatans who are successfully selling these oranges as apples. > It turns the conventional model of third-party hosted digital assets on its head How so? The assets that are "sold" as NFT are still hosted somewhere. Owning the NFT for something does nothing more than copyright already does. You can store the digital asset on your computer with or without the NFT. You can "consume" it either way as well. So what if the digital asset is an item in a video game? The game can check to make sure you own it before you use it! Yes, it can. But the creator of that game can also choose not to do that, just as anyone can choose not to respect copyright. > I mean to acknowledge its limitations and its potential at the same time What is its potential? What can someone do with NFTs that they couldn't do before?

TheColorYellow 6y ago
> What is its potential? What can someone do with NFTs that they couldn't do before? The novelty comes from the underlying protocols that back the NFT. These protocols create marketplaces that are widely available and accessible and are reliably secure and robust. Take copyright for example. Copyright laws vary across regions and marketplace. The encoding and repudiation of these copyright laws is based on analog processes. The data related to the assets in question are stored in databases with a widely varying degree of access. Verifiability across assets or even within a single asset class varies and to varying degrees of reliability. And I'm not saying this to point out that copyright laws and the assets relying on them have failed or are not value add in many ways. The fundamental point is that the technological infrastructure underlying the use of copyright laws today has a lot to be desired when it applies to ease of use for digital media. Networks using blockchain protocols can offer a natively digital infrastructure solution that helps extend or replicate the value offered by something like copyright law. The natively digital aspect enables broader interaction which engenders more general purpose usage which ultimately leads to new consumer models (i.e. direct artist to consumer, peer to peer, etc.). > Owning the NFT for something does nothing more than copyright already does. You can store the digital asset on your computer with or without the NFT. You can "consume" it either way as well. The point is not to displace copyright law)(although others may argue this I do not). The value add here is in creating a widely accessible and reliable digital mechanism for creating, expressing, and modifying ownership rights. Different, or maybe even traditional, consumption models are then built on top of this to capture this value. To your point about gaming creators choosing to do so or not; this question is really a question about what is the value of blockchain protocol networks in the first place and how would someone like a game creator benefit or capture this value? To this point, I can only point out the potential benefits as I'll be the first to agree the nature of blockchain and its value is still being explored. My arguments above are trying to express the value as I see it. Would be curious to hear more thoughts and criticism.
- wokwokwok 6y ago
  The point you’re making is valid, but you’re side stepping the key concern being raised. The tokens you acquire are worth nothing. Nothing about owning a token grants you any rights to anything other than what some other person is willing to pay/exchange it for. So if a game developer chooses to accept tokens, you can use them; but that developer can at any time choose to stop accepting tokens or a subset of tokens making what you own worth actually nothing. Now... for a regulated system of tokens (eg currency) a developer can’t do that: they are legally bound to accept fiat currency even though it is not redeemable for any “real” equivalent (eg gold). Since a token is not bound to the DRM access to an item (say, image for example), it’s totally pointless to asset ownership with it, because it does not prevent the copy of the original digital asset. The best you could ever hope for would be a regulated system, in which access to an asset via DRM was granted by a token. ...at which point, any “decentralised” benefit is lost. So ultimately, the risk is 100% on the buyer here. What you buy may be redeemable for something for some period of time... but that is true of any kind of token. The “uniqueness” of the NFT is an illusion; it does not offer any strong guarantee of uniquely representing an actual asset.

dmitriid 6y ago

> There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP and accommodate for different tradeoffs. Ah, yes. The goid old "might", the adage as old as the whole blockchain itself. Translation: "will painstakingly re-invent all the attributes of what real world needs, and already has, and doesn't need blockchain in the least". More eloquently put in these articles: https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100 https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-c...

TheColorYellow 6y ago
This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here: https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/01/Property-Audrey-Chaing-and-Kai-Stinchcombe.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjupsPd2p3vAhWXMN4KHQiqB5EQFjABegQIBBAK&usg=AOvVaw1vMBwmJh1AwA2_uD0H4lnY https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/0... If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain I can genuinely understand why and it makes sense. Lots of other areas to invest personal time and effort in.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here 404 page not found for me > If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? What would those values and hypotheses be?
  - TheColorYellow 6y ago
    Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. > So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? Of course. This is a nascent and emerging market. To act as if this is anything but a hypothesis on what may be valuable is a lie. This is true of every emergent market ever. > What would those values and hypotheses be? See my other comments in this same thread if you'd genuinely like to engage in discussion. The value is derived from the characteristics of the network protocols and the hypothesis is these values are difficult to achieve without the protocol and that they will come to be highly desired. As a simple example, take the oft common hate for Google accounts being deserviced. A globally accessible, immutable ledger representation of a user account could be a theroetic start in the direction of mitigating the problems of thirs-party owned account data.