6 ms·
Wow. NFT are even more worthless* than I imagined. I thought the data was "hashed" and "signed". This arrival makes it would like its just "url" to thing. Now
by njharman 6y ago
Wow. NFT are even more worthless* than I imagined. I thought the data was "hashed" and "signed". This arrival makes it would like its just "url" to thing. Now That I type it. That can't be true! Journo/layman misunderstand tech or is really how it works!?
* inheirent worthless. Real worth is what some is willing or can be convinced to pay.
- nickthegreek 6y agonft link rot is gonna be very real.
- dbt00 6y agoit already is!
- jameskilton 6y agoNFTs are signed-and-hashed JSON blobs that contain the URL to the content. There's no actual content being purchased. It really is that crazy.
- RandallBrown 6y agoYou could embed the data in the JSON if you wanted though couldn't you?
- freeone3000 6y agoFor fairly small images. It costs gas to store data in the chain -- the bigger the transaction (in bytes), the more it costs to process. Rates fluctuate, but you can estimate around 0.03 ETH per KB. Since you have to exchange the token every transfer, it becomes clear quickly why you want to offload the file itself from the main chain.
- RandallBrown 6y agoInteresting. I thought the whole point of an NFT was to have a unique copy of a digital item that only existed for you. If you're just "buying" a URL, it's even sillier than I thought.
- freeone3000 6y agoThe unique copy of the URL exists only for you. It's equally as silly as you thought. (Or perhaps imagined that the blockchain wasn't 100% public 100% visible)
- ksm1717 6y agoPeople/platforms are also making embedded scripts that render generative work
- tudorw 6y agoHow different is this to me purchasing the rights to watch an online movie that is then no longer available?
- maxerickson 6y agoWith the movie, the bullshit starts when it is no longer available. With the NFT, it's bullshit every step of the way.
- gerikson 6y agoYou can resell the rights to watch that no-longer-available movie to someone else...
- PurpleFoxy 6y agoI don’t think NFTs come with any legal or copyright rights. And even if the nft did give you some rights, legally they probably wouldn’t transfer to the next person.
- tom_mellior 6y agoIt's different in that you're only buying an URL, not necessarily the right to watch the content that's (maybe) hosted there.
- xur17 6y agoWhy wouldn't they at least point the NFT at a hash of the image, or an ipfs link? You still have the issue of the file disappearing because no one is hosting it, but at least no one could swap out the content..
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoIPFS is not mandated. The URL could be https://xur17.is/url-expires-in-2022-ha-ha-ha-ha https://xur17.is/url-expires-in-2022-ha-ha-ha-ha
- xur17 6y agoThat's my point.
- banana_giraffe 6y agoIs there at least some attempt to normalize the URL, or could I sell twenty versions of my tweet if I wanted to by making different URLs that all point to the same tweet? (and could find buyers, which in my case, wouldn't happen)
- qeternity 6y agoWorse. You can just make 20 NFTs of the same URL. The token is non fungible. The contents don’t have to be.
- banana_giraffe 6y agoSometimes I hear about some fancy new thing and don't get it, and think it doesn't do what it claims to do. I like to assume I don't get it because I don't understand the problem space, or am just missing something basic for whatever reason. I'm beginning to suspect that's not why I don't get NFTs.
- spoonjim 6y agoWhy are museums upset to discover that a painting they own is a forgery? Clearly it was indistinguishable from the original even to experienced curators, the “content” is the same as an original Vermeer. But the difference is that on one person can own the original, and they get to thumb their nose at all the losers who can’t. NFTs are the same. So what really “crazy” is the infantile human desire for exclusivity, not NFTs in particular.
- relax88 6y agoIt can work both ways. It's just easier to create an NFT of a hashed and signed set of metadata + URL than it is to encode all of this artwork on an actual blockchain.
- anyonecancode 6y agoSo from a pure tech perspective, would a service that simply generates UUIDS and hashes and signs them into a NFTs be equivalent?
- ac29 6y agoNo, no there is nothing actually unique about about an NFT. You can make as many as tokens as you want that point to the same resource (or a bit-perfect copy of it). You cant copy the token, but you can copy its contents.
- jandrese 6y agoMost people's response when someone explains what NFTs are is "It can't be that stupid, you must be explaining it wrong." But really, they're not that different than any other asset. They have value for as long as someone is willing to pay for them. Gold works the same way, except that if you can't find a buyer for your gold you can make jewelry or electronics connectors with it instead. With a NFT if there is no buyer then you have absolutely nothing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- PurpleFoxy 6y agoThis is an emperor has no clothes situation. No one wants to point out the whole thing is stupid and a borderline scam because they fear or believe that they might be seen a stupid or are stupid for not understanding something everyone else does. No, as it turns out, it was just another crypto scam
- spoonjim 6y agoI don’t see how an NFT is any worse (or better) than something like Duchamp’s Fountain.