7 ms·

They just lost me as an user. Used it as primary browser for a couple of years, but adding this NFT scam stuff and crypto has forced me off of it. sigh

yrral 5y ago
I'm hearing this a lot, but why do you think NFTs are a scam?
- evergrande 5y ago
  Some are and they are overfitting those cases to an entire technology. It's understandable to see that nuance get lost on Twitter, but disappointing to see on a tech forum. It's like discounting email because it enables nigerian prince scams.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    No, NFTs seem like a scam on the order of "buying a star". https://www.wired.com/2001/12/buy-a-star-but-its-not-yours/ https://www.wired.com/2001/12/buy-a-star-but-its-not-yours/ But good news! You can also get your star registered on the blockchain now. Whether that's any better than the ISR's legacy offering (a certificate and an entry in their own ledger) is up to you. https://nftevening.com/star-naming-registry-gets-an-nft-twist/ https://nftevening.com/star-naming-registry-gets-an-nft-twis... Really, both products are just selling a story- a physical ledger in a vault in Geneva in the first instance, now updated to be an entry on a distributed ledger. These blockchain NFTs just make it easier for people who don't have the infrastructure of a company like the ISR to share one big ledger and dump whatever they want on there and call it an NFT. The equivalent of email here is the blockchain ledger technology, the equivalent of Nigerian email scams are NFTs. I suppose there might be some genuinely useful or interesting non-fungible blockchain tokens, but entries on a ledger that say you own a jpeg or whatever are not any more interesting than entries in ISR's Genevan vault.
    - knownjorbist 5y ago
      NFTs are just a standard. They can be a part of scams as much as they can function as an authorization scheme in dapps.
      - roywiggins 5y ago
        Sure, they can be, but they aren't. "NFT" has become synonymous with "selling a jpeg", and that's what the big NFT marketplaces are doing. That's where all the money is. Nobody would care about NFTs if all they were being used for was as "an authorization scheme in dapps". Like, imagine if JWTs were 99% part of an MLM scheme and 1% used for authentication. People would be skeptical!
        anon9001 5y ago
        > Nobody would care about NFTs if all they were being used for was as "an authorization scheme in dapps". Tell that to Uniswap: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/ https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/
        roywiggins 5y ago
        By "nobody" I meant "nobody not deeply invested in the technical guts of how Uniswap works". In the same way nobody really cares about JWTs, people care about the stuff they enable. Solving problems inside the crypto ecosystem isn't per se useful or important unless the actual thing it's enabling (in this case Uniswap) is important. Which, okay, maybe it is. But NFTs are a technical detail. It's when people started hyping up NFTs as their own thing that stuff got weird and stupid. Like, phone numbers are useful, but vanity phone numbers definitely aren't solving any problems other than proving you have one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/02/13/feature/trade-a-lexus-for-a-prestigious-phone-number-in-iraq-the-best-digits-cost-a-mint/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/02/13/feat...
        anon9001 5y ago
  - neither_color 5y ago
    Recently heard Tim Ferriss/Naval discussing NFTs on a podcast and while I'm open minded to its potential, I haven't seen any useful ones yet. That said I don't think they're any worse than trading for video game skins or MMORPG collectibles. For whatever reason humans can invent a scarcity free environment in video games/metaverses but feel compelled to create scarcity anyway.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      I don't get it, because of course the company running the MMO has total control over who gets to wear what hats, there's no decentralization introduced by NFTs beyond perhaps making it easier for people to use it for a bit of money laundering.
    - mikeiz404 5y ago
      > For whatever reason humans can invent a scarcity free environment in video games/metaverses but feel compelled to create scarcity anyway. I would encourage you to try turning on no clip or “god mode” for a game and see how much fun you have and for how long. It was my experience that it’s fun at first but then gets boring real quick. There is value in constraints as it gives you something you can work at and achieve.
    - kybernetikos 5y ago
      ENS domains follow the nft interface.
- kranke155 5y ago
  They aren’t. HN is super crypto resistant
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  Maybe not in a literal sense, but in a way that it’s a useless distraction wasting everyone’s time.
- joeberon 5y ago
  They actually facilitate no transfer of ownership of copyright, which is something that isn't even possible in many countries, and further most are sold even without explicit licensing. The NFT also does not contain the art, but mostly just a link to the art on a centralised server, and therefore is still reliant on that centralised server being up and pointing to the correct piece of art. This means that a vast majority of NFTs do not have any real meaning, and are basically just a digital coin with a fancy colour. So the vast majority of NFTs have no real meaning, then add on top of this that a vast majority of blockchains still use the insanely inefficient and environmentally damaging proof of work (a single Ethereum transaction uses 48.14 kWh of energy!!!), that the platform is used for money laundering, that many people are pressuring others into getting into it so that they buy their NFTs (it's also a Ponzi scheme), and finally that a lot of legitimate artists are having their art stolen (there's nothing stopping you from minting an NFT of someone else's art)
- mikeiz404 5y ago
  I’m not the parent but I have some thoughts on this. I’m of the opinion that tokens when applied to digital art typically aren’t providing much value, aside from say bragging rights / social status since digital art can be copied and viewed without owning the token. One might argue that these tokens help pay artists but 1) if that’s all one cares about then donating to them directly will give them more money since transaction fees are cheaper and 2), I haven’t looked into this directly, but it would seem token resale fees given to artists are not enforceable since they could be worked around by having a holding contract that gets traded instead. It just doesn’t seem like digital art tokens are providing much value. Now if they start to be used in some enforceable way such as in a DRMd display then this would be a form of underlying value but why not use a non DRMd display? If it’s anything like movies and music then the answer probably revolves around convenience and risk. Then there is the more general trend of treating tokens like these as investments where the value gets driven up and, appears to me, detached from any sense of underlying value. So the only way for the sale value of these tokens to hold is to have some one else willing to buy it. But if there is no underlying value then it’s not clear to me how this can continue indefinitely. But if a token is providing some underlying value like when it is exchangeable for a service or currency and the token’s value is close to it’s underlying value then I don’t think they are scams or at least less likely to be so. What are your thoughts on this yrral? For context: I was initially quite interested in the whole distributed ledger stuff from a technical perspective but stopped keeping up with it for the past couple of years or so.
  - anon9001 5y ago
    > aside from say bragging rights / social status since digital art can be copied and viewed without owning the token https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lis... This is a pretty high resolution copy of the Mona Lisa. If I went to see it at the Louvre in person, I wouldn't be able to see this level of detail. I've never even seen the thing with my own eyes, but I know it's a pretty big flex by the French that they own it. The most common reaction I've heard from people that have seen it is that it's surprisingly small. It was insured in 2021 for $870M. > 1) if that’s all one cares about then donating to them directly will give them more money since transaction fees are cheaper It's not about donating to the artist directly, exactly. It's about putting a value on their work, which is likely more valuable to the artist than a direction donation. > 2), I haven’t looked into this directly, but it would seem token resale fees given to artists are not enforceable since they could be worked around by having a holding contract that gets traded instead. Maybe, but if you ever need to "really" own the piece for some reason, you'd have to reconcile to mainnet anyway, and the artist would get paid then. Everything else is just a promise. For example, even today, you may need a previous NFT by an artist to get in on a new drop from that artist. > Now if they start to be used in some enforceable way such as in a DRMd display then this would be a form of underlying value but why not use a non DRMd display? Actually, most artists want their work to be widely seen. This creates a virtuous cycle. You buy an artist's work, which increases the value of that work, which increase the artist's exposure, which increase the artist's perceived value, which increases the value of the work you purchased, which leads to more sales for the artist, etc. Instead of a one-time donation, the fan becomes quite literally invested in the artist. It's the same reason a musician might want to trend on TikTok by giving away 60 seconds of their song "for free" in the hopes to make it up on streaming, merch, ticket sales, and influence later. > Then there is the more general trend of treating tokens like these as investments where the value gets driven up and, appears to me, detached from any sense of underlying value. So the only way for the sale value of these tokens to hold is to have some one else willing to buy it. But if there is no underlying value then it’s not clear to me how this can continue indefinitely. I remember being much younger and seeing people buy toys, instruments, and curiosities "as an investment". Most of these didn't work out, but occasionally I see something from my childhood on ebay and think "oh, well, obviously that was going to be important, i should have bought a couple of those and put it away". Time causes some things to crystalize and other things to fade into obscurity. I suspect the same will happen with these "original" era NFTs.
tcoff91 5y ago
Brave was all about crypto from the beginning: Basic Attention Token
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  Yeah, I always found that...let's say "curious." Programmer/typographer Matthew Butterick summed up my feelings relatively well with "It's just substituting one set of ads for another... for publishers, it's the same old shakedown, but run by Brave instead of Google or Facebook; for users, Brave is still going to collect data about you." That Brendan Eich himself went around crankily responding to anyone who linked to Butterick's article on Twitter added an extra layer of weird.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    The article in question. https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    Yeah, I get cranky at sloppy hit pieces. Your bias is showing, as Butterick was at least as cranky, and what's more important, wrong on material facts.
- iszomer 5y ago
  What they don't tell you about BAT is that you cannot extract or trade the ERC20 without first going through their authorized 3rd-party custodial wallet service with KYC and your "earnings" don't accrue in your native Brave wallet either.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    That killed it for me. What’s the point of a wallet if I have to do a shuffle to use it? Blockchain is hard enough
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sergiotapia 5y ago
What are you switching to? The alternatives is a much worse browser Firefox, a botnet Google Chrome, or some weird chinese spy Opera. What are you going to use?
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >a much worse browser Firefox How do you figure?
  - faeyanpiraat 5y ago
    FF devtools is a pain to use compared to Chrome. Apart from that from a user perspective FF is just as good as Chrome.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >FF devtools is a pain to use compared to Chrome. How so?
    - nightski 5y ago
      I actually find FF devtools better in some ways. I definitely don't miss Chrome's at all.
  - gunapologist99 5y ago
    Firefox has turned anti-privacy, and aside from any technical issues, it seems it is being driven entirely by Google's agenda. It just seems to be wandering around and doesn't lead in any appreciable way anymore.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >Firefox has turned anti-privacy, and aside from any technical issues, it seems it is being driven entirely by Google's agenda. >It just seems to be wandering around and doesn't lead in any appreciable way anymore. OK, but this is all speculation. How is Firefox a much worse browser?
- 5y ago
nathias 5y ago
They just gained me as an user. Haven't used it as primary browser for a couple of years, but adding this NFT stuff and crypto has forced me on it.
- loceng 5y ago
  What use case and/or value do you see useful to you/others and why can't that be achieved with existing/other technology?
  - nathias 5y ago
    My use case is not to have BigTech rule planet Earth. Its good to have backup in case Firefox becomes unusable (again).
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    Have a skim over the high level points covered in the post I linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29244992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29244992 There is something really novel unfolding right now and HN seems blissfully unaware.
evergrande 5y ago
Why would an optional feature force you off? That sounds like a purity test an anti-technology cult would come up with.
ozten 5y ago
Agreed. I recently tried to adopt Brave on iOS. There in-app marketing messages are cringe-worthy[1] and there isn't a way to opt-out as far as I have found. This seems unethical, as I consider these messages as unwanted advertisements for MLM crypto projects. Brave removes paid ads from the internet, but subjects me to in-app advertisements for pyramid schemes (Sorry, I mean ground floor crypto investment opportunities). Background: I think BAT is fine and have no problem with it if it is communicated in a user centered way. Trying to fix the web's business model is an interesting experiment. [1] "Upland: Blockchain Metaverse - Flip virtual properties. Earn UPX. Sell for $. Signup Bonus" https://twitter.com/ozten/status/1459578272094720000 https://twitter.com/ozten/status/1459578272094720000
- bbondy 5y ago
  > there isn't a way to opt-out as far as I have found. Navigate to: brave://settings/wallet Set Default cyrptocurrency wallet to None, and set Show Brave Wallet icon on toolbar to off
  - 533474 5y ago
    hn readers not knowing how to navigate settings, sigh...
    - ozten 5y ago
      I am aware of about:kitchensink and related config from the mozilla codebase. I've used about:config on desktop many, many times. Blaming the user isn't the best path to ADUs. Brave's settings have many options and I wasn't sure which one would disable in-app advertisements. I think it is "Brave Rewards".
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      Workflow isn’t the same on iOS, which is what GP was talking about.
  - ozten 5y ago
    Thank you for your help. 1) I'm probably dumb, but on iOS putting brave://settings/wallet into the address bar puts me into Brave search results. No leading or trailing spaces. 2) This setting will disable in-app marketing messages? I'm interested in disabling the "Brave Rewards" in app notifications.
fourstar 5y ago
>downloads and installs crypto browser OH NO TOO MUCH CRYPTO FOR ME
rattlesnakedave 5y ago
This kind of comment strikes me as nonproductive. HN seems majority anti-crypto and anti-NFT, and that’s fine, but when every crypto adjacent thread winds up littered with these kinds of comments (not addressing the feature specifically, but instead expressing non-pointed distaste for the ecosystem) it seriously degrades the quality of discussion possible.
- loceng 5y ago
  Your comment is arguably less useful, no? Arguably their comment is useful to Brave developers, assuming they care about user feedback.
  - WithinReason 5y ago
    Where was the user feedback?
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    Is there a proper forum for HN metadiscussion? My beef isn't with this comment specifically, but rather the low quality discussion that regularly occurs in crypto threads. In the best possible light, yes, it could be interpreted as criticism for the devs. As I read it, it seems like "I don't like crypto or NFTs so I'm leaving." Which again: perfectly reasonable sentiment. That's fine if it's how you feel. However, I feel a more meaningful comment would have included what specifically about this feature was over the line and why (especially given the presence of BAT).
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Maybe it's not low-quality discussion in crypto threads, but rather a lack of high-quality discussion. Despite it's popularity, there are only a handful of people who are intimately familiar with how the blockchain works, the rest is mostly hype and Twitter campaigns for buying Bored Apes.
- joeberon 5y ago
  This thread isn't "crypto adjacent" it's directly crypto related lol
knownjorbist 5y ago
The high level points in this blog post do a pretty good job of explaining why web3 is worth paying attention to instead of dismissing as "NFT scam stuff and crypto". https://mirror.xyz/theodorachu.eth/TJU1w2Z49KvzcrKnPEwJodTvBDWLLyjtWKXvhrFz1Rs https://mirror.xyz/theodorachu.eth/TJU1w2Z49KvzcrKnPEwJodTvB...
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I doubt that's OP's concern. Personally I also removed the browser when I couldn't de-install the wallet. I don't need crypto bloatware that I can't remove in my browser. It's fine if they like it but I don't and I have no idea why I don't get a say in that matter on my own machine. kind of defeats the purpose of promising more control for the user.
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    Disabling the wallet doesn't satisfy your needs there? I can't imagine it sitting idle on a modern machine would give you the same issues as 'bloatware' does. I do agree in principle though.
    - Barrin92 5y ago
      >Disabling the wallet doesn't satisfy your needs there? if it was the only thing maybe. But all crypto related settings are also the only thing the browser does not sync. every time you use it on a new machine, you have all those crypto card spam on the new tab section. You attempt to use the video conference feature, suggestion to turn on Brave Rewards. I am 100% certain that is deliberate and I'm extremely allergic to these dark patterns.
- dzader 5y ago
  lol everything in that blog posts screams "NFT scam stuff and crypto" - web3 == Amway for tech nerds who think they are really cool
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
kerng 5y ago
Interesting. Were you not aware that Brave has always been the "crypto" browser? Having tight crypto integration has been one of the core features used to distinguish themselves. So this is not really new nor surprising to me.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  Honestly I'd like to see a fork of Firefox go this way with their own token. Might be a good way to fund Firefox development and allow a system of micropayments to content providers while still allowing adblocking.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  As an early user of brave, it did not always have crypto functionality. That was bolted on later.

yrral 5y ago

I'm hearing this a lot, but why do you think NFTs are a scam?

evergrande 5y ago
Some are and they are overfitting those cases to an entire technology. It's understandable to see that nuance get lost on Twitter, but disappointing to see on a tech forum. It's like discounting email because it enables nigerian prince scams.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  No, NFTs seem like a scam on the order of "buying a star". https://www.wired.com/2001/12/buy-a-star-but-its-not-yours/ https://www.wired.com/2001/12/buy-a-star-but-its-not-yours/ But good news! You can also get your star registered on the blockchain now. Whether that's any better than the ISR's legacy offering (a certificate and an entry in their own ledger) is up to you. https://nftevening.com/star-naming-registry-gets-an-nft-twist/ https://nftevening.com/star-naming-registry-gets-an-nft-twis... Really, both products are just selling a story- a physical ledger in a vault in Geneva in the first instance, now updated to be an entry on a distributed ledger. These blockchain NFTs just make it easier for people who don't have the infrastructure of a company like the ISR to share one big ledger and dump whatever they want on there and call it an NFT. The equivalent of email here is the blockchain ledger technology, the equivalent of Nigerian email scams are NFTs. I suppose there might be some genuinely useful or interesting non-fungible blockchain tokens, but entries on a ledger that say you own a jpeg or whatever are not any more interesting than entries in ISR's Genevan vault.
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    NFTs are just a standard. They can be a part of scams as much as they can function as an authorization scheme in dapps.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      Sure, they can be, but they aren't. "NFT" has become synonymous with "selling a jpeg", and that's what the big NFT marketplaces are doing. That's where all the money is. Nobody would care about NFTs if all they were being used for was as "an authorization scheme in dapps". Like, imagine if JWTs were 99% part of an MLM scheme and 1% used for authentication. People would be skeptical!
      - anon9001 5y ago
        > Nobody would care about NFTs if all they were being used for was as "an authorization scheme in dapps". Tell that to Uniswap: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/ https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/
        roywiggins 5y ago
        By "nobody" I meant "nobody not deeply invested in the technical guts of how Uniswap works". In the same way nobody really cares about JWTs, people care about the stuff they enable. Solving problems inside the crypto ecosystem isn't per se useful or important unless the actual thing it's enabling (in this case Uniswap) is important. Which, okay, maybe it is. But NFTs are a technical detail. It's when people started hyping up NFTs as their own thing that stuff got weird and stupid. Like, phone numbers are useful, but vanity phone numbers definitely aren't solving any problems other than proving you have one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/02/13/feature/trade-a-lexus-for-a-prestigious-phone-number-in-iraq-the-best-digits-cost-a-mint/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/02/13/feat...
        anon9001 5y ago
- neither_color 5y ago
  Recently heard Tim Ferriss/Naval discussing NFTs on a podcast and while I'm open minded to its potential, I haven't seen any useful ones yet. That said I don't think they're any worse than trading for video game skins or MMORPG collectibles. For whatever reason humans can invent a scarcity free environment in video games/metaverses but feel compelled to create scarcity anyway.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    I don't get it, because of course the company running the MMO has total control over who gets to wear what hats, there's no decentralization introduced by NFTs beyond perhaps making it easier for people to use it for a bit of money laundering.
  - mikeiz404 5y ago
    > For whatever reason humans can invent a scarcity free environment in video games/metaverses but feel compelled to create scarcity anyway. I would encourage you to try turning on no clip or “god mode” for a game and see how much fun you have and for how long. It was my experience that it’s fun at first but then gets boring real quick. There is value in constraints as it gives you something you can work at and achieve.
  - kybernetikos 5y ago
    ENS domains follow the nft interface.
kranke155 5y ago
They aren’t. HN is super crypto resistant
faeyanpiraat 5y ago
Maybe not in a literal sense, but in a way that it’s a useless distraction wasting everyone’s time.
joeberon 5y ago
They actually facilitate no transfer of ownership of copyright, which is something that isn't even possible in many countries, and further most are sold even without explicit licensing. The NFT also does not contain the art, but mostly just a link to the art on a centralised server, and therefore is still reliant on that centralised server being up and pointing to the correct piece of art. This means that a vast majority of NFTs do not have any real meaning, and are basically just a digital coin with a fancy colour. So the vast majority of NFTs have no real meaning, then add on top of this that a vast majority of blockchains still use the insanely inefficient and environmentally damaging proof of work (a single Ethereum transaction uses 48.14 kWh of energy!!!), that the platform is used for money laundering, that many people are pressuring others into getting into it so that they buy their NFTs (it's also a Ponzi scheme), and finally that a lot of legitimate artists are having their art stolen (there's nothing stopping you from minting an NFT of someone else's art)
mikeiz404 5y ago
I’m not the parent but I have some thoughts on this. I’m of the opinion that tokens when applied to digital art typically aren’t providing much value, aside from say bragging rights / social status since digital art can be copied and viewed without owning the token. One might argue that these tokens help pay artists but 1) if that’s all one cares about then donating to them directly will give them more money since transaction fees are cheaper and 2), I haven’t looked into this directly, but it would seem token resale fees given to artists are not enforceable since they could be worked around by having a holding contract that gets traded instead. It just doesn’t seem like digital art tokens are providing much value. Now if they start to be used in some enforceable way such as in a DRMd display then this would be a form of underlying value but why not use a non DRMd display? If it’s anything like movies and music then the answer probably revolves around convenience and risk. Then there is the more general trend of treating tokens like these as investments where the value gets driven up and, appears to me, detached from any sense of underlying value. So the only way for the sale value of these tokens to hold is to have some one else willing to buy it. But if there is no underlying value then it’s not clear to me how this can continue indefinitely. But if a token is providing some underlying value like when it is exchangeable for a service or currency and the token’s value is close to it’s underlying value then I don’t think they are scams or at least less likely to be so. What are your thoughts on this yrral? For context: I was initially quite interested in the whole distributed ledger stuff from a technical perspective but stopped keeping up with it for the past couple of years or so.
- anon9001 5y ago
  > aside from say bragging rights / social status since digital art can be copied and viewed without owning the token https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Mona_Lis... This is a pretty high resolution copy of the Mona Lisa. If I went to see it at the Louvre in person, I wouldn't be able to see this level of detail. I've never even seen the thing with my own eyes, but I know it's a pretty big flex by the French that they own it. The most common reaction I've heard from people that have seen it is that it's surprisingly small. It was insured in 2021 for $870M. > 1) if that’s all one cares about then donating to them directly will give them more money since transaction fees are cheaper It's not about donating to the artist directly, exactly. It's about putting a value on their work, which is likely more valuable to the artist than a direction donation. > 2), I haven’t looked into this directly, but it would seem token resale fees given to artists are not enforceable since they could be worked around by having a holding contract that gets traded instead. Maybe, but if you ever need to "really" own the piece for some reason, you'd have to reconcile to mainnet anyway, and the artist would get paid then. Everything else is just a promise. For example, even today, you may need a previous NFT by an artist to get in on a new drop from that artist. > Now if they start to be used in some enforceable way such as in a DRMd display then this would be a form of underlying value but why not use a non DRMd display? Actually, most artists want their work to be widely seen. This creates a virtuous cycle. You buy an artist's work, which increases the value of that work, which increase the artist's exposure, which increase the artist's perceived value, which increases the value of the work you purchased, which leads to more sales for the artist, etc. Instead of a one-time donation, the fan becomes quite literally invested in the artist. It's the same reason a musician might want to trend on TikTok by giving away 60 seconds of their song "for free" in the hopes to make it up on streaming, merch, ticket sales, and influence later. > Then there is the more general trend of treating tokens like these as investments where the value gets driven up and, appears to me, detached from any sense of underlying value. So the only way for the sale value of these tokens to hold is to have some one else willing to buy it. But if there is no underlying value then it’s not clear to me how this can continue indefinitely. I remember being much younger and seeing people buy toys, instruments, and curiosities "as an investment". Most of these didn't work out, but occasionally I see something from my childhood on ebay and think "oh, well, obviously that was going to be important, i should have bought a couple of those and put it away". Time causes some things to crystalize and other things to fade into obscurity. I suspect the same will happen with these "original" era NFTs.

tcoff91 5y ago

Brave was all about crypto from the beginning: Basic Attention Token

chipotle_coyote 5y ago
Yeah, I always found that...let's say "curious." Programmer/typographer Matthew Butterick summed up my feelings relatively well with "It's just substituting one set of ads for another... for publishers, it's the same old shakedown, but run by Brave instead of Google or Facebook; for users, Brave is still going to collect data about you." That Brendan Eich himself went around crankily responding to anyone who linked to Butterick's article on Twitter added an extra layer of weird.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  The article in question. https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html
- BrendanEich 5y ago
  Yeah, I get cranky at sloppy hit pieces. Your bias is showing, as Butterick was at least as cranky, and what's more important, wrong on material facts.
iszomer 5y ago
What they don't tell you about BAT is that you cannot extract or trade the ERC20 without first going through their authorized 3rd-party custodial wallet service with KYC and your "earnings" don't accrue in your native Brave wallet either.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  That killed it for me. What’s the point of a wallet if I have to do a shuffle to use it? Blockchain is hard enough
  - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sergiotapia 5y ago

What are you switching to? The alternatives is a much worse browser Firefox, a botnet Google Chrome, or some weird chinese spy Opera. What are you going to use?

Nicksil 5y ago
>a much worse browser Firefox How do you figure?
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  FF devtools is a pain to use compared to Chrome. Apart from that from a user perspective FF is just as good as Chrome.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >FF devtools is a pain to use compared to Chrome. How so?
  - nightski 5y ago
    I actually find FF devtools better in some ways. I definitely don't miss Chrome's at all.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  Firefox has turned anti-privacy, and aside from any technical issues, it seems it is being driven entirely by Google's agenda. It just seems to be wandering around and doesn't lead in any appreciable way anymore.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >Firefox has turned anti-privacy, and aside from any technical issues, it seems it is being driven entirely by Google's agenda. >It just seems to be wandering around and doesn't lead in any appreciable way anymore. OK, but this is all speculation. How is Firefox a much worse browser?
5y ago

nathias 5y ago

They just gained me as an user. Haven't used it as primary browser for a couple of years, but adding this NFT stuff and crypto has forced me on it.

loceng 5y ago
What use case and/or value do you see useful to you/others and why can't that be achieved with existing/other technology?
- nathias 5y ago
  My use case is not to have BigTech rule planet Earth. Its good to have backup in case Firefox becomes unusable (again).
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  Have a skim over the high level points covered in the post I linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29244992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29244992 There is something really novel unfolding right now and HN seems blissfully unaware.

evergrande 5y ago

Why would an optional feature force you off? That sounds like a purity test an anti-technology cult would come up with.

ozten 5y ago

Agreed. I recently tried to adopt Brave on iOS. There in-app marketing messages are cringe-worthy[1] and there isn't a way to opt-out as far as I have found. This seems unethical, as I consider these messages as unwanted advertisements for MLM crypto projects. Brave removes paid ads from the internet, but subjects me to in-app advertisements for pyramid schemes (Sorry, I mean ground floor crypto investment opportunities). Background: I think BAT is fine and have no problem with it if it is communicated in a user centered way. Trying to fix the web's business model is an interesting experiment. [1] "Upland: Blockchain Metaverse - Flip virtual properties. Earn UPX. Sell for $. Signup Bonus" https://twitter.com/ozten/status/1459578272094720000 https://twitter.com/ozten/status/1459578272094720000

bbondy 5y ago
> there isn't a way to opt-out as far as I have found. Navigate to: brave://settings/wallet Set Default cyrptocurrency wallet to None, and set Show Brave Wallet icon on toolbar to off
- 533474 5y ago
  hn readers not knowing how to navigate settings, sigh...
  - ozten 5y ago
    I am aware of about:kitchensink and related config from the mozilla codebase. I've used about:config on desktop many, many times. Blaming the user isn't the best path to ADUs. Brave's settings have many options and I wasn't sure which one would disable in-app advertisements. I think it is "Brave Rewards".
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Workflow isn’t the same on iOS, which is what GP was talking about.
- ozten 5y ago
  Thank you for your help. 1) I'm probably dumb, but on iOS putting brave://settings/wallet into the address bar puts me into Brave search results. No leading or trailing spaces. 2) This setting will disable in-app marketing messages? I'm interested in disabling the "Brave Rewards" in app notifications.

fourstar 5y ago

>downloads and installs crypto browser OH NO TOO MUCH CRYPTO FOR ME

rattlesnakedave 5y ago

This kind of comment strikes me as nonproductive. HN seems majority anti-crypto and anti-NFT, and that’s fine, but when every crypto adjacent thread winds up littered with these kinds of comments (not addressing the feature specifically, but instead expressing non-pointed distaste for the ecosystem) it seriously degrades the quality of discussion possible.

loceng 5y ago
Your comment is arguably less useful, no? Arguably their comment is useful to Brave developers, assuming they care about user feedback.
- WithinReason 5y ago
  Where was the user feedback?
- rattlesnakedave 5y ago
  Is there a proper forum for HN metadiscussion? My beef isn't with this comment specifically, but rather the low quality discussion that regularly occurs in crypto threads. In the best possible light, yes, it could be interpreted as criticism for the devs. As I read it, it seems like "I don't like crypto or NFTs so I'm leaving." Which again: perfectly reasonable sentiment. That's fine if it's how you feel. However, I feel a more meaningful comment would have included what specifically about this feature was over the line and why (especially given the presence of BAT).
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Maybe it's not low-quality discussion in crypto threads, but rather a lack of high-quality discussion. Despite it's popularity, there are only a handful of people who are intimately familiar with how the blockchain works, the rest is mostly hype and Twitter campaigns for buying Bored Apes.
joeberon 5y ago
This thread isn't "crypto adjacent" it's directly crypto related lol

knownjorbist 5y ago

The high level points in this blog post do a pretty good job of explaining why web3 is worth paying attention to instead of dismissing as "NFT scam stuff and crypto". https://mirror.xyz/theodorachu.eth/TJU1w2Z49KvzcrKnPEwJodTvBDWLLyjtWKXvhrFz1Rs https://mirror.xyz/theodorachu.eth/TJU1w2Z49KvzcrKnPEwJodTvB...

Barrin92 5y ago
I doubt that's OP's concern. Personally I also removed the browser when I couldn't de-install the wallet. I don't need crypto bloatware that I can't remove in my browser. It's fine if they like it but I don't and I have no idea why I don't get a say in that matter on my own machine. kind of defeats the purpose of promising more control for the user.
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  Disabling the wallet doesn't satisfy your needs there? I can't imagine it sitting idle on a modern machine would give you the same issues as 'bloatware' does. I do agree in principle though.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    >Disabling the wallet doesn't satisfy your needs there? if it was the only thing maybe. But all crypto related settings are also the only thing the browser does not sync. every time you use it on a new machine, you have all those crypto card spam on the new tab section. You attempt to use the video conference feature, suggestion to turn on Brave Rewards. I am 100% certain that is deliberate and I'm extremely allergic to these dark patterns.
dzader 5y ago
lol everything in that blog posts screams "NFT scam stuff and crypto" - web3 == Amway for tech nerds who think they are really cool
- imwillofficial 5y ago

kerng 5y ago

Interesting. Were you not aware that Brave has always been the "crypto" browser? Having tight crypto integration has been one of the core features used to distinguish themselves. So this is not really new nor surprising to me.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
Honestly I'd like to see a fork of Firefox go this way with their own token. Might be a good way to fund Firefox development and allow a system of micropayments to content providers while still allowing adblocking.
imwillofficial 5y ago
As an early user of brave, it did not always have crypto functionality. That was bolted on later.