5 ms·
There needs to be many metaverses, and NFT's should be able to be shared between them. It's dangerous to think about the prospect of a major company like Faceb
by swalsh 5y ago
There needs to be many metaverses, and NFT's should be able to be shared between them. It's dangerous to think about the prospect of a major company like Facebook (Or a DAO for that matter) locking up the entire universe.
- jimkleiber 5y agoAgreed, I'm pro multimetaverse. I'm also pro democratic-representation metaverse.
- vineyardmike 5y agoWhy NFT? Why can't we just "import jpeg" instead of "link NFT"?
- swalsh 5y agoNFT's let you own digital assets. That means people can make a real living building them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- RC_ITR 5y agoBecause no one has ever made a living designing graphics before NFTs?
- uuddlrlr 5y agoNFTs let you own autographs of digital assets. Which is cool. If it weren't for the energy use.
- stale2002 5y agoPeople don't have to pay for VR avatars when playing VRChat. Forced monetization of all that, is a bad thing, not a good thing.
- vorpalhex 5y agoNFTs let you own a link to a digital asset... which isn't very useful for an infinitely reproducible asset. With a central entity (eg Meta) there's no need for distributed ownership.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoUnlike now, where no one makes a living building anything digitally. Sorry if your post was sarcasm, NFTs have hit some kind of milestone where I can't tell the difference between the jokes and sincere posts.
- lambdadmitry 5y agoWhich is exactly the argument big studios used to argue for DRM. NFT is (quite literally) DRM, rebranded and ostensibly accessible to the masses, but with all the caveats amplified accordingly and with a huge energy cost attached.
- charcircuit 5y agoA high energy cost is not fundemental to NFTs.
- LargeWu 5y agoFor some definition of "own" which is unclear to me why it's desirable.
- joshmarlow 5y agoThe neat thing about using NFTs is that you can represent the ownership on a public blockchain and that gives you some nice possibilities: 1) storing virtual property rights on a public ledger means that it can be shared among different 'metaverses', which provides friction against vendor lock-in; it limits specific vendors (like Facebook) to only providing UIs to underlying property 2) a single vendor going out of business doesn't impact your virtual property; Blizzard could shutdown WOW and you would loose all of your loot, but if it's on a public ledger then your loot survives I think something like this is the only really plausible approach to building an open and interoperable metaverse (it's also the most compelling application of NFTs IMHO).
- cma 5y agoChanging one bit on a texture or shifting a vertex by one bit changes the hash. NFT is useless for implementing IP without some other legal enforcement.
- joshmarlow 5y ago> NFT is useless for implementing IP without some other legal enforcement. From a real-world legal perspective, you're totally right. But as a means of acquiring an object in one virtual environment and maintaining access to it in others, it seems like a pretty good mechanism.
- cma 5y agoSomeone make you a counterfeit with one bit hnged an sells it cheaper, so it doesn't solve anything. Maybe oehing ith neural hashes could, but nothing in Tracy's popular nfts.
- cma 5y agoWow sorry about that autocorrect mess. It should have read: Someone could just make you a counterfeit with one bit changed and sell it cheaper or free, so it doesn't solve anything. Maybe something with neural hashes could work, but nothing in today's popular nft systems.