5 ms·

They might make more sense when they are actually used in other applications. For example, NFTs representing probably rare digital playing cards (like magic the

They might make more sense when they are actually used in other applications. For example, NFTs representing probably rare digital playing cards (like magic the gathering).

lottin 6y ago
No, they still don't make sense. What do you gain from "representing" a digital object? Nothing. You already have the digital object. The "representation" adds nothing to it.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  All of these crypto things are protocols. The representation and actions on the representations are possible because everyone agrees on a protocol for it. Imagine a future where everyone agrees on using these representations where it makes sense by using the same protocol, just like everyone agrees to use the http protocol. In this case, it's an introduction of scarcity to digital items that wasn't possible before, and that has value in possibly lots of different environments.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    The only value in faking scarcity is increased extraction by the latest wave of rent seekers. The world should be striving as hard as possible to move toward post-scarcity, and instead we are burning cities' worth of energy on...lucky numbers.
    - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
      I'm sure there are many artists who would disagree with you and who aren't rent seekers at all. And they benefit massively from scarcity in the digital space. That's just one group, there are many others.
  - lottin 6y ago
    Making something more scarce only creates value if the thing being made scarce has negative value. It's basic arithmetic.
- schnevets 6y ago
  Some coworkers were talking about NBA Top Shot and I felt completely out of the loop. Now that I have done some research, I have wedged it into my theory that spending money and ownership is a social activity and therefore can mitigate loneliness.
- michaelt 6y ago
  Hypothetically? You could make a computer-based trading card game, where you must own the NFT to play the card in-game. The advantage to the game maker, over just storing ownership in a SQL database, would be making it more like physical collectable cards (with 'limited printings' and 'first editions') that some chumps will pay six-figure sums for. The direct advantage to the player of owning the NFT would be playing the card in-game, and the benefit of an NFT over normal digital items would be letting them "invest" while feeling assured them the game maker wasn't 'printing' more cards. Obviously, a lot of people aren't interested in 'collectables', pay-to-win, skins/hats/lootboxes and so on. I'm certainly not. But there is an existing market for digital hats, baffling though it may seem, so there's precedent for people trading in-game digital items for real money.
  - cbm-vic-20 6y ago
    > The direct advantage to the player of owning the NFT would be playing the card in-game, "Thinking out loud here", so this may be wrong, obvious, or both. I wonder how that would work. Presumably, the game maker would create a rare "card" and put it on the blockchain, and transfer it to a player in a transaction. That player could then transfer it to some other player, etc. To be used in a game, a player would have to be able to prove that they are the rightful owner. The player would be represented as their private key ("wallet"), and any "card" that is sent to the player would need a chain of signatures that lead back to the creation of the card by the game maker. I think that blockchain would only be able to represent the custody of the "card", the barter would likely have to happen off-chain. ie, you send me $100 or 1mBTC or whatever and I will sign over my card to you...

They might make more sense when they are actually used in other applications. For example, NFTs representing probably rare digital playing cards (like magic the gathering).

lottin 6y ago

No, they still don't make sense. What do you gain from "representing" a digital object? Nothing. You already have the digital object. The "representation" adds nothing to it.

adnzzzzZ 6y ago
All of these crypto things are protocols. The representation and actions on the representations are possible because everyone agrees on a protocol for it. Imagine a future where everyone agrees on using these representations where it makes sense by using the same protocol, just like everyone agrees to use the http protocol. In this case, it's an introduction of scarcity to digital items that wasn't possible before, and that has value in possibly lots of different environments.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  The only value in faking scarcity is increased extraction by the latest wave of rent seekers. The world should be striving as hard as possible to move toward post-scarcity, and instead we are burning cities' worth of energy on...lucky numbers.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    I'm sure there are many artists who would disagree with you and who aren't rent seekers at all. And they benefit massively from scarcity in the digital space. That's just one group, there are many others.
- lottin 6y ago
  Making something more scarce only creates value if the thing being made scarce has negative value. It's basic arithmetic.
schnevets 6y ago
Some coworkers were talking about NBA Top Shot and I felt completely out of the loop. Now that I have done some research, I have wedged it into my theory that spending money and ownership is a social activity and therefore can mitigate loneliness.
michaelt 6y ago
Hypothetically? You could make a computer-based trading card game, where you must own the NFT to play the card in-game. The advantage to the game maker, over just storing ownership in a SQL database, would be making it more like physical collectable cards (with 'limited printings' and 'first editions') that some chumps will pay six-figure sums for. The direct advantage to the player of owning the NFT would be playing the card in-game, and the benefit of an NFT over normal digital items would be letting them "invest" while feeling assured them the game maker wasn't 'printing' more cards. Obviously, a lot of people aren't interested in 'collectables', pay-to-win, skins/hats/lootboxes and so on. I'm certainly not. But there is an existing market for digital hats, baffling though it may seem, so there's precedent for people trading in-game digital items for real money.
- cbm-vic-20 6y ago
  > The direct advantage to the player of owning the NFT would be playing the card in-game, "Thinking out loud here", so this may be wrong, obvious, or both. I wonder how that would work. Presumably, the game maker would create a rare "card" and put it on the blockchain, and transfer it to a player in a transaction. That player could then transfer it to some other player, etc. To be used in a game, a player would have to be able to prove that they are the rightful owner. The player would be represented as their private key ("wallet"), and any "card" that is sent to the player would need a chain of signatures that lead back to the creation of the card by the game maker. I think that blockchain would only be able to represent the custody of the "card", the barter would likely have to happen off-chain. ie, you send me $100 or 1mBTC or whatever and I will sign over my card to you...