25 ms·

I have to disagree with you about Web3 (Cryptocurrencies, NFT's, Blockchains, that whole space), I think this is the next frontier of the internet and it's an i

I have to disagree with you about Web3 (Cryptocurrencies, NFT's, Blockchains, that whole space), I think this is the next frontier of the internet and it's an incredibly exciting time. NFT's and Crypocurrencies are just one of the earliest implementations of this new technology. The first implementation of NFT's is for artwork but that's just one implementation. When you step back and look at the actual technology, it's introduced a paradigm shift for how we think of objects on the internet. Before NFT's, everything on the internet was fungible, if it existed on the internet, you could copy it. Sure there are things like DRM, but that is just an abstraction on top of a fungible thing that tries to make that thing non-fungible. I don't know where the technology will take us, or what it will look like in 20, 30 or 40 years, but when you think about the idea that everything up until now on the internet has been copyable and we are just starting to figure out how to actually give a digital thing ownership, that will change how we look at just about everything on the internet, from DRM to authentication and many other aspects. I think when I'm your age (mid 20's now), NFT's will be everywhere and "NFT Artwork" will be looked back on as the very first implementation of the technology, and likely with many jokes about how bad it all was.

Gigachad 5y ago
I don’t think the vast majority of people care at all about “owning” a digital image or “verifying” it’s integrity. Furries pay lots of money to have custom work done of their character. They don’t pay to “own” some random pre-existing art. And basically everything that NFTs do, a database can do better.
lekevicius 5y ago
Looks like OP's post is out of the homepage, so I can reply without downvote avalanche incoming. I agree with your sentiment. It is probably the most exciting aspect of the internet, and digital ownership concept has a long and exciting road ahead. I am also utterly baffled by how this sentiment is met on HN. Thoughtful responses are downvoted, cheap shots against this sentiment rise up. I no longer want to participate in discussions about anything crypto on HN, negativity is too strong. And there is absolute irony that this is happening on a thread called "Jaded about the internet?".
- yuuu 5y ago
  I agree with both of you guys. It's clear to me that this sort of decentralization will prove to be revolutionary. People who immediately equate NFTs with JPEGs are idiots and don't get it. They won't get it until they're using them to buy and sell tickets to events, which is probably the next major use case.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >They won't get it until they're using them to buy and sell tickets to events I'm not really pro or anti-NFT. But, I will say that people frequently champion them by stating potential future use cases. I think it's unfair to do that as a basis for claiming current detractors have it wrong. Right now most enthusiasts are heavily promoting the primary use case as essentially digitized files (be it JPEG or whatever--but mainly art). So, that's the current argument, as opposed to some future wherein they supplant x or do y.
    - yuuu 5y ago
      I'm not saying that enthusiasts can't be idiots, too. But the naysayers arguing against strawmen enthusiasts is getting pretty annoying, and it's pretty clear most of those people don't even know the technical definition of an NFT. The parallels, here, with criticism of the early internet is so obvious.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >naysayers arguing against strawmen enthusiasts I hear you, but not sure who the "strawmen enthusiasts" are. The plain case that's being made for the accessible value of NFTs right now revolves around ownership of digital assets, full-stop. But, when detractors point out their critiques of this use case, some enthusiasts pivot to "well, that's not all an NFT can do or will ever be". It's kind of slippery, and seems to be the straw-manning here. >it's pretty clear most of those people don't even know the technical definition of an NFT It's fair enough to say that NFTs are in their infancy. But, enthusiasts are selling the current use case really, really hard. So, maybe they are undermining your arguments for the future use cases of NFTs more than anyone. And, really, technical definitions of NFTs (or anything) don't matter WRT adoption. What matters is what's been actually implemented of real value. You can't really fault people for not buying into NFTs based on the present-state. But, if other valuable use cases come to fruition, they'll come running. Thing is, their behavior could be considered rational now and then.
nkkar 5y ago
> when you think about the idea that everything up until now on the internet has been copyable and we are just starting to figure out how to actually give a digital thing ownership, that will change how we look at just about everything on the internet That everything has been copyable is the accident that keeps giving. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! Digital scarcity, albeit through a novel mechanism, seems antithetical. Very confusing.
- krapp 5y ago
  >That everything has been copyable is the accident that keeps giving. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! This must be the hacker culture version of hippies watching their children grow up to be Young Republicans and yuppies.
beej71 5y ago
> Sure there are things like DRM, but that is just an abstraction on top of a fungible thing that tries to make that thing non-fungible. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, here, but how is that any different from NFTs? It's weird because I understand the tech, but not what makes this application compelling. > we are just starting to figure out how to actually give a digital thing ownership Isn't copyright already doing that? Certainly the movie and music industries have a strong sense of digital ownership without NFTs. NFTs so provide an easy path to transfer ownership, but that does nothing to keep the material from being copied any more than copyright does. What am I missing?

Gigachad 5y ago

I don’t think the vast majority of people care at all about “owning” a digital image or “verifying” it’s integrity. Furries pay lots of money to have custom work done of their character. They don’t pay to “own” some random pre-existing art. And basically everything that NFTs do, a database can do better.

lekevicius 5y ago

Looks like OP's post is out of the homepage, so I can reply without downvote avalanche incoming. I agree with your sentiment. It is probably the most exciting aspect of the internet, and digital ownership concept has a long and exciting road ahead. I am also utterly baffled by how this sentiment is met on HN. Thoughtful responses are downvoted, cheap shots against this sentiment rise up. I no longer want to participate in discussions about anything crypto on HN, negativity is too strong. And there is absolute irony that this is happening on a thread called "Jaded about the internet?".

yuuu 5y ago
I agree with both of you guys. It's clear to me that this sort of decentralization will prove to be revolutionary. People who immediately equate NFTs with JPEGs are idiots and don't get it. They won't get it until they're using them to buy and sell tickets to events, which is probably the next major use case.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >They won't get it until they're using them to buy and sell tickets to events I'm not really pro or anti-NFT. But, I will say that people frequently champion them by stating potential future use cases. I think it's unfair to do that as a basis for claiming current detractors have it wrong. Right now most enthusiasts are heavily promoting the primary use case as essentially digitized files (be it JPEG or whatever--but mainly art). So, that's the current argument, as opposed to some future wherein they supplant x or do y.
  - yuuu 5y ago
    I'm not saying that enthusiasts can't be idiots, too. But the naysayers arguing against strawmen enthusiasts is getting pretty annoying, and it's pretty clear most of those people don't even know the technical definition of an NFT. The parallels, here, with criticism of the early internet is so obvious.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >naysayers arguing against strawmen enthusiasts I hear you, but not sure who the "strawmen enthusiasts" are. The plain case that's being made for the accessible value of NFTs right now revolves around ownership of digital assets, full-stop. But, when detractors point out their critiques of this use case, some enthusiasts pivot to "well, that's not all an NFT can do or will ever be". It's kind of slippery, and seems to be the straw-manning here. >it's pretty clear most of those people don't even know the technical definition of an NFT It's fair enough to say that NFTs are in their infancy. But, enthusiasts are selling the current use case really, really hard. So, maybe they are undermining your arguments for the future use cases of NFTs more than anyone. And, really, technical definitions of NFTs (or anything) don't matter WRT adoption. What matters is what's been actually implemented of real value. You can't really fault people for not buying into NFTs based on the present-state. But, if other valuable use cases come to fruition, they'll come running. Thing is, their behavior could be considered rational now and then.

nkkar 5y ago

> when you think about the idea that everything up until now on the internet has been copyable and we are just starting to figure out how to actually give a digital thing ownership, that will change how we look at just about everything on the internet That everything has been copyable is the accident that keeps giving. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! Digital scarcity, albeit through a novel mechanism, seems antithetical. Very confusing.

krapp 5y ago
>That everything has been copyable is the accident that keeps giving. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature! This must be the hacker culture version of hippies watching their children grow up to be Young Republicans and yuppies.

beej71 5y ago

> Sure there are things like DRM, but that is just an abstraction on top of a fungible thing that tries to make that thing non-fungible. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, here, but how is that any different from NFTs? It's weird because I understand the tech, but not what makes this application compelling. > we are just starting to figure out how to actually give a digital thing ownership Isn't copyright already doing that? Certainly the movie and music industries have a strong sense of digital ownership without NFTs. NFTs so provide an easy path to transfer ownership, but that does nothing to keep the material from being copied any more than copyright does. What am I missing?