4 ms·

Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely

Three types of people "get" NFTs: - those that have something to gain from it, and are likely insincere; - those that are ashamed of not getting it and merely pretend to understand it; - those that duel in such profound abstractions that the actual world for them becomes a nuisance, a minor detail, an after thought. NFTs are a joke, a thought experiment taken too far. They're the modern version of The Emperor's New clothes.

koonsolo 5y ago
Or they are the new baseball cards.
- koffiezet 5y ago
  But you get a baseball card that's pretty hard to perfectly duplicate, not a link to a digital picture of a baseball card, which can be copied at virtually zero-cost, and where you have zero control over the hosting of that picture, and can be replaced at any time. What's the point of 'owning' a digital baseball card if anyone can download it and store it on their PC? There's only one Mona Lisa, it only hangs in the Louvre, you can't just have an exact copy of it at zero cost. It's make-belief ownership. The only viable application I've seen is digital licensing, for non-free software or digital assets. This can work in a closed-garden system, like in-game assets, software licensing, ... where you don't have control over the environment you're in, but cannot work on an open internet. But anyway, the gas-cost on eth is WAY too high ($70-ish to mint?) for this to be actually used for these applications, and if you're in a walled-garden anyway, who needs decentralisation?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  Baseball cards used to come with a purchase of a real product. They were an incentive to buy actual things. People collect them now, but they didn't exist on their own back then initially.
  - addandsubtract 5y ago
    What did you buy to get a baseball card? I figured they were sold in packs, much like Pokemon cards are sold today.
    - karmakaze 5y ago
      As I recall collectible cards were sold with a plain single stick of chewing gum for reason(s) I don't know.
- bananamerica 5y ago
  Please stop with this ridiculous comparison. I can hold a baseball card. I can look at it. I can put it on a binder. It's an object of appreciation, like a painting I hang on the wall. It is tangible. NFTs are nothing but an empty concept which seduces programmers with a weak grasp on reality. It's fairy dust, or an eunuch's cum. NFTs are magical thinking, occultism for programmers.
  - vmception 5y ago
    But it is an apt comparison. NFTs collectibles are a subset of the NFT technology use, and are similar to trading cards. There are two generations of people that don’t care about holding something to determine value so how is that a line in the sand.
    - bananamerica 5y ago
      They are not similar enough for the purpose of validating the intrinsic (as opposed to strictly monetary) value of NFTs. Only a subset of people purchase baseball cards (or any collectible for that matter) exclusive as an investment, and even if I bought Action Comics #1 mostly due to its monetary value, it is not just a token, it is an actual artistic object that can be appreciated for it's intrinsic and historical qualities. Does the same can be said about NFTs? I don't even know what an NFT is, objectively. A string of bytes? If so, does people appreciate its binary code or whatever? Whatta fuck is it? A virtual contract that states you own real state on the third moon of a planet that does not exist? No, collectibles are not an apt comparison, and this argument only serves to show how its proponents are detached from reality... Besides, even the generations you mention usually purchase things that can be artistically appreciated somehow. If I purchase a Fortnite skin, I'm purchasing the ability of having that skin applied to my character. It is something I enjoy looking at, having the knowledge that others can look at it as well. I cannot hold it in my hands, but it has some kind of existence. NFTs are not like that at all. They're like contacts in which the only guarantee is the payment one can collect. But I suppose even programmers need a mysticism...
      - vmception 5y ago

koonsolo 5y ago

Or they are the new baseball cards.

koffiezet 5y ago
But you get a baseball card that's pretty hard to perfectly duplicate, not a link to a digital picture of a baseball card, which can be copied at virtually zero-cost, and where you have zero control over the hosting of that picture, and can be replaced at any time. What's the point of 'owning' a digital baseball card if anyone can download it and store it on their PC? There's only one Mona Lisa, it only hangs in the Louvre, you can't just have an exact copy of it at zero cost. It's make-belief ownership. The only viable application I've seen is digital licensing, for non-free software or digital assets. This can work in a closed-garden system, like in-game assets, software licensing, ... where you don't have control over the environment you're in, but cannot work on an open internet. But anyway, the gas-cost on eth is WAY too high ($70-ish to mint?) for this to be actually used for these applications, and if you're in a walled-garden anyway, who needs decentralisation?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thinkingemote 5y ago
Baseball cards used to come with a purchase of a real product. They were an incentive to buy actual things. People collect them now, but they didn't exist on their own back then initially.
- addandsubtract 5y ago
  What did you buy to get a baseball card? I figured they were sold in packs, much like Pokemon cards are sold today.
  - karmakaze 5y ago
    As I recall collectible cards were sold with a plain single stick of chewing gum for reason(s) I don't know.
bananamerica 5y ago
Please stop with this ridiculous comparison. I can hold a baseball card. I can look at it. I can put it on a binder. It's an object of appreciation, like a painting I hang on the wall. It is tangible. NFTs are nothing but an empty concept which seduces programmers with a weak grasp on reality. It's fairy dust, or an eunuch's cum. NFTs are magical thinking, occultism for programmers.
- vmception 5y ago
  But it is an apt comparison. NFTs collectibles are a subset of the NFT technology use, and are similar to trading cards. There are two generations of people that don’t care about holding something to determine value so how is that a line in the sand.
  - bananamerica 5y ago
    They are not similar enough for the purpose of validating the intrinsic (as opposed to strictly monetary) value of NFTs. Only a subset of people purchase baseball cards (or any collectible for that matter) exclusive as an investment, and even if I bought Action Comics #1 mostly due to its monetary value, it is not just a token, it is an actual artistic object that can be appreciated for it's intrinsic and historical qualities. Does the same can be said about NFTs? I don't even know what an NFT is, objectively. A string of bytes? If so, does people appreciate its binary code or whatever? Whatta fuck is it? A virtual contract that states you own real state on the third moon of a planet that does not exist? No, collectibles are not an apt comparison, and this argument only serves to show how its proponents are detached from reality... Besides, even the generations you mention usually purchase things that can be artistically appreciated somehow. If I purchase a Fortnite skin, I'm purchasing the ability of having that skin applied to my character. It is something I enjoy looking at, having the knowledge that others can look at it as well. I cannot hold it in my hands, but it has some kind of existence. NFTs are not like that at all. They're like contacts in which the only guarantee is the payment one can collect. But I suppose even programmers need a mysticism...
    - vmception 5y ago