5 ms·

I am glad we are talking about crypto pro/cons but this article was a huge miss imho. The arguments against are these beaten dead horses that many within crypt

by _57jb 5y ago

I am glad we are talking about crypto pro/cons but this article was a huge miss imho. The arguments against are these beaten dead horses that many within crypto know already and frankly not well versed. NFTs were an unenforceable joke, integrating the physical world and the digital world doesn't exist (yet?), there are alternatives to the PoW model in use, legal aspects and oracles in the Ethereum network need to be addressed still...what about the DAO reversing the hack which was essentially a loophole in the contract. When loopholes happen in current legal systems it's frowned upon and demands precedent. How about the ridiculous pump and dumps, the toxicity that is speculation amidst many other things. Governments didn't pop up in one day whole cloth and this will take iterations as well. There is some evolutionary approach to things where what "theoretically works" is tested in reality and deduction is provn out against induction. There is more transparency in some ways, a lot of confusion in regulation, and misinformation galore. Look no further than the current dealings in Wallstreet to see that existing systems are not currently solved with digital money having been tested for decades now. I think there are many deserved "good, bad, and ugly" articles to be written but this one was lacking in depth, context, and what I feel is missing most frequently...contrast

ls15 5y ago
> NFTs were an unenforceable joke "NFT Art" is a stupid implementation of NFTs that probably mostly exists for money laundering. I always thought of NFTs as a good backend for things like concert tickets or other kinds of "club memberships". This would not really have the enforceability problem, at least not more than traditional tickets, while some new features are added.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  If there is no way to enforce the NFTs, then they are useless. If someone is enforcing the NFTs then that someone could just as well store the data in some SQL table, since there is exactly 0 decentralisation in that case
  - ls15 5y ago
    There is also not really a way to enforce a physical concert ticket, but with a NFT, the owner can prove ownership and authenticity of the ticket (for example when re-selling a ticket), without relying on collaboration of the issuer of the ticket. The issuer can show that they created a fixed number of tickets and are not over-selling the event.
    - creeble 5y ago
      >The issuer can show that they created a fixed number of tickets and are not over-selling the event. But there is no way to prove that the issuer is actually the person who "owns" the event. This all goes back to the oracle problem: Unless the proof exists on-chain (like the currency value of a public key), it is useless; there is still an "oracle" outside the chain that must provide the proof. This is why NFTs are not useful.
- _57jb 5y ago
  I agree with you. NFTs in their current hype cycle with art is a shallowly thought out implementation. It requires a governing body to source the originals but then you essentially have a coin at this point.

by _57jb 5y ago

ls15 5y ago

> NFTs were an unenforceable joke "NFT Art" is a stupid implementation of NFTs that probably mostly exists for money laundering. I always thought of NFTs as a good backend for things like concert tickets or other kinds of "club memberships". This would not really have the enforceability problem, at least not more than traditional tickets, while some new features are added.

cuteboy19 5y ago
If there is no way to enforce the NFTs, then they are useless. If someone is enforcing the NFTs then that someone could just as well store the data in some SQL table, since there is exactly 0 decentralisation in that case
- ls15 5y ago
  There is also not really a way to enforce a physical concert ticket, but with a NFT, the owner can prove ownership and authenticity of the ticket (for example when re-selling a ticket), without relying on collaboration of the issuer of the ticket. The issuer can show that they created a fixed number of tickets and are not over-selling the event.
  - creeble 5y ago
    >The issuer can show that they created a fixed number of tickets and are not over-selling the event. But there is no way to prove that the issuer is actually the person who "owns" the event. This all goes back to the oracle problem: Unless the proof exists on-chain (like the currency value of a public key), it is useless; there is still an "oracle" outside the chain that must provide the proof. This is why NFTs are not useful.
_57jb 5y ago
I agree with you. NFTs in their current hype cycle with art is a shallowly thought out implementation. It requires a governing body to source the originals but then you essentially have a coin at this point.