4 ms·

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 pain

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
    The irony being that Fornite skins are an even closer analogy to NFT collectibles. What you described is exactly why many people collect NFT collectibles. With Fortnite skins, the aesthetics, price, clout and access derived are completely beholden to the continued scarcity of the skin as well as beholden to the organization for its continued existence and use anywhere, both of which the organization can modify at any time. The NFT version of this skin has a very transparent and immutable (when properly crafted) supply. The issuer cannot change, and even if they attempted to the market knows which one is the original by earlier time. In a game or metaverse, the NFT version of the skin can convey access outside of that game/metaverse, and be applied as skins in other games, or be used to prove ownership to convey access to physical world events of other metaverses. This is exactly what is happening, right now, right this second, and for months, and what people hoard existing NFTs for and buy new NFT drops for.
    - bananamerica 5y ago
      How is a skin the same as selling a contract for something that does not exist? A skin can actually be used. Besides selling it, what is the use of an NFT?
      - vmception 5y ago
        Skin = database entry with metadata NFT skin = database entry with metadata The NFT skin inherits all the capabilities of the skin, except that the database entry cant be modified. You are a programmer right? Do you know the concept of inheritance in programming as it applies here. The market finds value in that assurance. I think you are bringing a lot of inaccurate preconceptions to this concept, there is an opportunity to erase what you knew and look at the concept from this lens: does what I say work? Is this what a portion of the market is doing? If yes, thats all you need to know. Look for those NFTs and ignore the other NFTs.
        bananamerica 5y ago
        That's just a technical neatpick. The actual distinction is: a skin is something you use. An NFT is not. I do program, sure, but not everything is a programming metaphor.
koonsolo 5y ago
So you would pay thousands of dollars for a stupid baseball card? That is just ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as paying that much for some pokemon card or whatever. Pokemon are not real you know. But people pay that price, no? Just as they do with NFTs. So who is to say how they should spend their money?
- bananamerica 5y ago
  I wouldn't dare say how anyone in particular should spend their hard earned money. That is not at all what I was saying. I can, however, pose a general argument regarding my low opinion of some of the things people buy. In other words, buy whatever you want, but I reserve the right to say it is stupid.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    I agree that it's all stupid. There is a select group of idiots that want to spend a crazy amount of money on meaningless collectibles. Thats's why I understand both baseball cards and NFT's. :D
    - bananamerica 5y ago
      I still think that anything even marginally tangible, including virtual assets such as skins or dance animations, are way more reasonable than NFTs.
      - koonsolo 5y ago
        At a $5 or even $20 price point, I agree. But at a $20K, it all starts to become ridiculous. And then for me, the intrinsic value is neglectible. But I understand what you mean.

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
  The irony being that Fornite skins are an even closer analogy to NFT collectibles. What you described is exactly why many people collect NFT collectibles. With Fortnite skins, the aesthetics, price, clout and access derived are completely beholden to the continued scarcity of the skin as well as beholden to the organization for its continued existence and use anywhere, both of which the organization can modify at any time. The NFT version of this skin has a very transparent and immutable (when properly crafted) supply. The issuer cannot change, and even if they attempted to the market knows which one is the original by earlier time. In a game or metaverse, the NFT version of the skin can convey access outside of that game/metaverse, and be applied as skins in other games, or be used to prove ownership to convey access to physical world events of other metaverses. This is exactly what is happening, right now, right this second, and for months, and what people hoard existing NFTs for and buy new NFT drops for.
  - bananamerica 5y ago
    How is a skin the same as selling a contract for something that does not exist? A skin can actually be used. Besides selling it, what is the use of an NFT?
    - vmception 5y ago
      Skin = database entry with metadata NFT skin = database entry with metadata The NFT skin inherits all the capabilities of the skin, except that the database entry cant be modified. You are a programmer right? Do you know the concept of inheritance in programming as it applies here. The market finds value in that assurance. I think you are bringing a lot of inaccurate preconceptions to this concept, there is an opportunity to erase what you knew and look at the concept from this lens: does what I say work? Is this what a portion of the market is doing? If yes, thats all you need to know. Look for those NFTs and ignore the other NFTs.
      - bananamerica 5y ago
        That's just a technical neatpick. The actual distinction is: a skin is something you use. An NFT is not. I do program, sure, but not everything is a programming metaphor.

koonsolo 5y ago

So you would pay thousands of dollars for a stupid baseball card? That is just ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as paying that much for some pokemon card or whatever. Pokemon are not real you know. But people pay that price, no? Just as they do with NFTs. So who is to say how they should spend their money?

bananamerica 5y ago
I wouldn't dare say how anyone in particular should spend their hard earned money. That is not at all what I was saying. I can, however, pose a general argument regarding my low opinion of some of the things people buy. In other words, buy whatever you want, but I reserve the right to say it is stupid.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  I agree that it's all stupid. There is a select group of idiots that want to spend a crazy amount of money on meaningless collectibles. Thats's why I understand both baseball cards and NFT's. :D
  - bananamerica 5y ago
    I still think that anything even marginally tangible, including virtual assets such as skins or dance animations, are way more reasonable than NFTs.
    - koonsolo 5y ago
      At a $5 or even $20 price point, I agree. But at a $20K, it all starts to become ridiculous. And then for me, the intrinsic value is neglectible. But I understand what you mean.