8 ms·

This response is technical and appears a little naive to me. The reason why NFTs are currently hot is because there's a gold rush and people fear missing out. I

by bambax 5y ago

This response is technical and appears a little naive to me. The reason why NFTs are currently hot is because there's a gold rush and people fear missing out. I don't think anyone who buys an NFT wants that NFT; they just hope to flip it for more money than they spent, or maybe diversify their portfolio (use it as a store of value). I could be wrong of course, but I seriously doubt it. Which means, the technical solutions to the questions raised in the original article this responds to, will probably not have time to be implemented before the rush is over. Also, one of the main points of the first article, if not the main one (and certainly the first one) is that centralization is a feature, not a bug. People want a central authority and not bother themselves with running their own server/infrastructure. So the only way for OpenSea to "die" is if it's replaced by a different, but similar, central authority.

squabble 5y ago
A central authority can be advantageous, until it becomes dysfunctional or prioritizes its own interests over the interests of those it serves.
- oblio 5y ago
  Yeah, but real life doesn't really work efficiently with backup plans, that's the problem. For efficiency what we do is we centralize and wherever possible we add safeguards and controls to the central authority, as auditors call them, mitigations.
eqmvii 5y ago
Hey, I’m sure plenty of people are buying NFTs with their own money, too. Nice trick to take $X and turn it into 0.98$X and an asset “worth” 0.98$X.
- riffraff 5y ago
  The thing goes deeper: this gives you a big opportunity to launder money. It's the same with art, but at least in the art world there are some regulations.
  - samatman 5y ago
    If you consider the Free Port of Liechtenstein a regulation then ok, sure.
    - reaperducer 5y ago
      Which is probably why he wrote "some regulations," not "completely and entirely 100% perfectly regulated."
- rtkwe 5y ago
  The wild thing is going to be the moment the IRS comes around and starts asking people about their sales and it turns out many of the huge sales are wash trades inflating the value of tokens.
  - jakear 5y ago
    It won’t be that wild because we won’t know about it.
    - rtkwe 5y ago
      We'll see the after effects of the change though and I doubt the community will stay completely quiet about it.
fivea 5y ago
> (...) is that centralization is a feature, not a bug. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't centralization in blockchain-related applications a critical problem which defeats the whole purpose of said tech? I mean, if a Blockchain is controlled by a single entity, doesn't that entity have all it needs to rewrite it however they wish? And also, is there any difference between storing a record in a centrally-managed Blockchain or a record in plain old relational database managed by a third party?
- bambax 5y ago
  This is all discussed in the original article ("My first impressions of Web3"). The post here is a response to the article. My comment says that the response may have missed the point made in the article.
  - fivea 5y ago
    > This is all discussed in the original article I read both posts, and I still have this question. Is it possible to provide a clear and simple explanation? Is there any answer at all which is not the expected "you're right, centralized crypto is pointless at best and a scam at worse"? Otherwise this sort of reply feels like a blatant attempt to dismiss a concern through hand-waving for which there is no good answer without addressing any of it's points.
    - dmcgee 5y ago
      Is a blockchain strictly necessary for decentralization at all? If the issue with decentralization is control and governance rather than technology, why not have a cooperative model that still functions on a centralized database?
      - DarylZero 5y ago
        The cooperative model requires people to coordinate on choosing the same human authority figure. Blockchain only requires people to coordinate on choosing the same programmatic criteria for block validity (and then choosing the longest valid chain).
mikeodds 5y ago
I’m in it for the money if the prices goes up, I’m in it for the art if the price drops
- fivea 5y ago
  > I’m in it for the money if the prices goes up, I’m in it for the art if the price drops From the looks of it, if the price drops at best we're in it for that sweet sweet URL pointing to Google Drive/imgur.
nrjames 5y ago
You may be correct with OpenSea and Ethereum. The art/NFT scene on Tezos seems different, with maybe 80% of people focused on the art itself and collecting for the sake of holding for personal enjoyment. The prices are much lower, in general, and gas fees largely nonexistent. This makes it easier for people without significant resources to participate. Check out objkt.com, hicetnunc.art, fxhash, etc - the vibe is almost completely different than the Ethereum marketplaces.
- mmmeff 5y ago
  - dang 5y ago
    Posting like this is egregiously against HN's rules. Please read them and don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want more explanation, there's many years' worth at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... Edit: you've unfortunately been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments a lot. Could you please not? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
chrisco255 5y ago
> I don't think anyone who buys an NFT wants that NFT > I could be wrong of course, but I seriously doubt it. You're wrong. I hold many NFTs that I want just for the sake of the art. Sorry to disprove your theory. One of my favorites is the Bonsai collection by ZenFT: https://www.zenft.xyz/ https://www.zenft.xyz/ Some people use NFTs as simple mementos (free to claim, and collect): https://poap.gallery/ https://poap.gallery/ People enjoy collecting and displaying NFTs: https://oncyber.io/nawkzst https://oncyber.io/nawkzst People enjoy using their NFTs as avatars in Web3 games: https://www.webb.game/ https://www.webb.game/ People use NFTs to access exclusive areas on Decentraland (https://decentraland.org/ https://decentraland.org/) and Sandbox (https://medium.com/sandbox-game/cyberkongz-vx-partner-with-the-sandbox-d1025257b8e9O https://medium.com/sandbox-game/cyberkongz-vx-partner-with-t... People use NFTs for token-based access to websites or online services. People use them for real world events. People spend countless hours hanging out on Discord in various communities and servers and they build together. > People want a central authority and not bother themselves with running their own server/infrastructure. People don't want a central authority. Most people don't really understand the implications of the technology they use. Awareness is higher than it's ever been, however, in the age of censorship and deplatforming. It's not sustainable or desirable for all of humanity's communication and value exchange to be routed through a handful of trillion dollar tech monopolies. It's not desirable that so much of the web be dominated by these entities. It's not good for democracy, it's not good for humanity. > So the only way for OpenSea to "die" is if it's replaced by a different, but similar, central authority. Only those who lack imagination or skill would assert such a thing.
- bambax 5y ago
  > You're wrong. I hold many NFTs that I want just for the sake of the art. This is an old debate and not really the subject at hand, but I'll still bite (against my better judgement). You don't need to own an NFT to enjoy the art. That's the fundamental difference between art in the real world and digital art (NFT or not). When you own a piece of art you get to look at the original; this is a unique experience in the case of a painting, and sometimes a rare experience in the case of limited editions of photos. But the digital art is the same whether you "own it" or not. From an esthetic experience (not a financial one, obviously), it's pointless to "own" digital art. The only thing that would influence the esthetic experience of digital art is the medium. Buy a better screen. Better speakers. Etc. > People spend countless hours hanging out on Discord Sure. That I don't doubt.
zrm 5y ago
> centralization is a feature, not a bug This is not what the original article says. Here's the first conclusion: > We should accept the premise that people will not run their own servers by designing systems that can distribute trust without having to distribute infrastructure. In other words, centralized trust is a bug, but that's a different thing than centralized servers. The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. I would also point out that "centralized" isn't a binary thing. Having literally everyone run their servers is not really what anybody wants, but neither is having one company run a single server for everyone in the world, which isn't really what happens. Even with a "centralized service" like Facebook, they have multiple servers distributed all over the world. And if the servers didn't have to be trusted, they also wouldn't all have to be run by a single company. Having a billion servers for a billion users is not what anybody wants, but we already have a thousand servers for a billion users. And if the servers are not to be trusted anyway, why do we need them all to be run by the same entity? Full atomization rarely works. Federation works.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  >The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. This. And take away the techno-libertarian glamour, it becomes just another technology that might have useful applications, or might be a huge waste of time, resources, and increases complexity and decreases transparency.
- syntheweave 5y ago
  The fact that BitTorrent has worked for decades without centralizing, and likely never will centralize, stands in quiet opposition to the entire "centralization is inevitable" line of thinking. The trackers, the obvious centralizing force, have always remained content-focused, rather than making the transition to platform control. Trackers are roughly federated, as you note; there are a lot of nodes, but relatively few trackers. And I believe most blockchain style systems would shake out similarly. The authentic dev communities building blockchain tech are throwing their weight behind the idea that they will in time transition towards technical solutions, having already set a course for the social solution. So from their end, this criticism is always technical in nature. The initial source of trust is going to be in mathematical realities guaranteeing certain outcomes: if not cryptography, then tokenomics. Of course there are a huge number of "P.T. Barnums" who have jumped ahead to create solutions today, and these solutions tend to platformize. That's the discontinuity making it a circus.
Animats 5y ago
Which means, the technical solutions to the questions raised in the original article this responds to, will probably not have time to be implemented before the rush is over. Especially since those solutions would reduce the influence and revenue of the biggest players. It's like trying to replace Facebook with Diaspora. It's technically possible, and going nowhere. The article lists success stories for NFTs: "Axie Infinity and how it’s bringing entire nations out of poverty"[1] Axie Infinity is a play-to-earn game. It's like Pokemon, with breeding and training and fighting, for real money. Players need about US$1500 to play, and earn Smooth Love Potion Tokens. This really caught on in the Philippines, and people were quitting their day job to play. The article was from June 2021, when Axie was on the way up and Smooth Love Token was peaking around $0.35. Axie is now a Ponzi on the way down. This morning, Smooth Love Potion Token is down to $0.01897 and dropping.[2] Since all revenue came from new players, this was inevitable. The NFT market is Axie Infinity, OpenSea, CryptoPunks, and the little guys. As with most things online, the top 3 have most of the market share.[3] Axie is crashing. OpenSea is stalling. Profitable NFT resales aren't happening much, and there's a glut of new issuers. By the time the problems Moxie points out are fixed, this is going to be over. Especially since for US players there's a 28% capital gains tax rate on collectables resold within 12 months. [1] https://www.notboring.co/p/infinity-revenue-infinity-possibilities https://www.notboring.co/p/infinity-revenue-infinity-possibi... [2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/smooth-love-potion/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/smooth-love-potion/ [3] https://bitcoinke.io/2022/01/the-nft-market-in-2021/ https://bitcoinke.io/2022/01/the-nft-market-in-2021/
dade 5y ago
> I don't think anyone who buys an NFT wants that NFT; they just hope to flip it for more money than they spent. Is this not just how financial assets in general works? Anyone buying Amazon's share are not buying it because they want that share. They buy it because they hope some time down the line (weeks, months, years) they can flip it for more money than they spent.
- piaste 5y ago
  NFTs cannot pay dividends and do not have boards of governance. A share without votes and without dividends would be worth $0. (Also, many NFT shills and/or shovel salesmen fervently insist that they're selfless patrons of the arts, rather than simply trying to make ponzi cash)
- suzzer99 5y ago
  Yes. But the intrinsic value of a piece of art is tied to someone wanting to own that art for the enjoyment of it. The intrinsic value of a stock is tied to the earning power of the company you own a small piece of. NFTs have no earning power.
- AlexCoventry 5y ago
  In theory, an Amazon share is a share in future profits of a productive business.
doopy1 5y ago
You're right that there's a gold rush / land grab happening, but I disagree that there are people who buy NFTs that don't actually want the NFT and see it purely as a speculative asset. I think that the internet world is struggling to define what "digital ownership" means and looks like in the future and there are a bunch of people that are attracted to the idea of NFTs as the answer to that. I think there are lots of motivations for being involved with NFTs, but of course speculation is the most common.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  NFTs don't give you ownership of anything. They're simply a public record saying someone was dumb enough to trade something valuable for something worthless. Someone posted a link yesterday to an NFT they "own". I saved it to my computer, changed the file name, and uploaded it to a server. They had and have zero agency to stop me from doing so. Their NFT "purchase" didn't transfer any copyrights to them recognized by any entity with means to enforce copyrights. I can do whatever I want with those bytes I downloaded and the owner can't do a damned thing to me. So what "ownership" do they have? They don't control redistribution. They don't physically possess a thing. They can't assert some sort of exclusionary control over who gets to see a thing. Some record in a slow expensive database just says a wallet to which they have the private key transferred Geoffrey dollars to another wallet for the contents pointed to by an IPFS identifier. That's one of the more complicated ways I've seen to throw money away but it's not ownership.
  - doopy1 5y ago
    The ownership is of the NFT itself, not the asset that's linked to in the metadata. I agree with some of the issues you point out, but in this case ownership is a construct built on social consensus, and these people are trying to define what "digital ownership" might mean, which you are conflating with physical ownership. "They don't control redistribution". - They very much control it for the NFT itself. Yes, you can right-click and save an image all you want, but that doesn't mean you own the NFT. In fact, you can right-click and save the most valuable NFT in the world, and re-mint it as an NFT... but that NFT would be worthless, because it would be missing the social consensus and provenance that gave the original NFT value. Copyright and ownership are divorced from each other already, so this argument feels like a straw man when folks point to it as a failure of NFTs. For example, you can buy an oil painting from an artist, but that doesn't come with a copyright either. Same for almost all physical goods. NFTs though, can have a license attached. A lot of what you are saying is true today, but it might not be tomorrow if enough people agree otherwise. In that respect, this is very much an experiment in speculation, but all it takes is for a community of people to agree to honor the data on a particular blockchain and that can support a thriving economy like NFTs have for the last couple of years.
shrimpx 5y ago
The huge gap between aspirations and technology continues to be the core problem for the crypto space. I keep seeing the excuse “it’s still early days”, but it’s been 14 years since the inception of proof of work blockchains. 14 years is the gap between the founding of Netscape and millions of people using iPhones.

by bambax 5y ago

squabble 5y ago

A central authority can be advantageous, until it becomes dysfunctional or prioritizes its own interests over the interests of those it serves.

oblio 5y ago
Yeah, but real life doesn't really work efficiently with backup plans, that's the problem. For efficiency what we do is we centralize and wherever possible we add safeguards and controls to the central authority, as auditors call them, mitigations.

eqmvii 5y ago

Hey, I’m sure plenty of people are buying NFTs with their own money, too. Nice trick to take $X and turn it into 0.98$X and an asset “worth” 0.98$X.

riffraff 5y ago
The thing goes deeper: this gives you a big opportunity to launder money. It's the same with art, but at least in the art world there are some regulations.
- samatman 5y ago
  If you consider the Free Port of Liechtenstein a regulation then ok, sure.
  - reaperducer 5y ago
    Which is probably why he wrote "some regulations," not "completely and entirely 100% perfectly regulated."
rtkwe 5y ago
The wild thing is going to be the moment the IRS comes around and starts asking people about their sales and it turns out many of the huge sales are wash trades inflating the value of tokens.
- jakear 5y ago
  It won’t be that wild because we won’t know about it.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    We'll see the after effects of the change though and I doubt the community will stay completely quiet about it.

fivea 5y ago

> (...) is that centralization is a feature, not a bug. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't centralization in blockchain-related applications a critical problem which defeats the whole purpose of said tech? I mean, if a Blockchain is controlled by a single entity, doesn't that entity have all it needs to rewrite it however they wish? And also, is there any difference between storing a record in a centrally-managed Blockchain or a record in plain old relational database managed by a third party?

bambax 5y ago
This is all discussed in the original article ("My first impressions of Web3"). The post here is a response to the article. My comment says that the response may have missed the point made in the article.
- fivea 5y ago
  > This is all discussed in the original article I read both posts, and I still have this question. Is it possible to provide a clear and simple explanation? Is there any answer at all which is not the expected "you're right, centralized crypto is pointless at best and a scam at worse"? Otherwise this sort of reply feels like a blatant attempt to dismiss a concern through hand-waving for which there is no good answer without addressing any of it's points.
  - dmcgee 5y ago
    Is a blockchain strictly necessary for decentralization at all? If the issue with decentralization is control and governance rather than technology, why not have a cooperative model that still functions on a centralized database?
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      The cooperative model requires people to coordinate on choosing the same human authority figure. Blockchain only requires people to coordinate on choosing the same programmatic criteria for block validity (and then choosing the longest valid chain).

mikeodds 5y ago

I’m in it for the money if the prices goes up, I’m in it for the art if the price drops

fivea 5y ago
> I’m in it for the money if the prices goes up, I’m in it for the art if the price drops From the looks of it, if the price drops at best we're in it for that sweet sweet URL pointing to Google Drive/imgur.

nrjames 5y ago

You may be correct with OpenSea and Ethereum. The art/NFT scene on Tezos seems different, with maybe 80% of people focused on the art itself and collecting for the sake of holding for personal enjoyment. The prices are much lower, in general, and gas fees largely nonexistent. This makes it easier for people without significant resources to participate. Check out objkt.com, hicetnunc.art, fxhash, etc - the vibe is almost completely different than the Ethereum marketplaces.

mmmeff 5y ago
- dang 5y ago
  Posting like this is egregiously against HN's rules. Please read them and don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you want more explanation, there's many years' worth at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... Edit: you've unfortunately been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments a lot. Could you please not? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

chrisco255 5y ago

> I don't think anyone who buys an NFT wants that NFT > I could be wrong of course, but I seriously doubt it. You're wrong. I hold many NFTs that I want just for the sake of the art. Sorry to disprove your theory. One of my favorites is the Bonsai collection by ZenFT: https://www.zenft.xyz/ https://www.zenft.xyz/ Some people use NFTs as simple mementos (free to claim, and collect): https://poap.gallery/ https://poap.gallery/ People enjoy collecting and displaying NFTs: https://oncyber.io/nawkzst https://oncyber.io/nawkzst People enjoy using their NFTs as avatars in Web3 games: https://www.webb.game/ https://www.webb.game/ People use NFTs to access exclusive areas on Decentraland (https://decentraland.org/ https://decentraland.org/) and Sandbox (https://medium.com/sandbox-game/cyberkongz-vx-partner-with-the-sandbox-d1025257b8e9O https://medium.com/sandbox-game/cyberkongz-vx-partner-with-t... People use NFTs for token-based access to websites or online services. People use them for real world events. People spend countless hours hanging out on Discord in various communities and servers and they build together. > People want a central authority and not bother themselves with running their own server/infrastructure. People don't want a central authority. Most people don't really understand the implications of the technology they use. Awareness is higher than it's ever been, however, in the age of censorship and deplatforming. It's not sustainable or desirable for all of humanity's communication and value exchange to be routed through a handful of trillion dollar tech monopolies. It's not desirable that so much of the web be dominated by these entities. It's not good for democracy, it's not good for humanity. > So the only way for OpenSea to "die" is if it's replaced by a different, but similar, central authority. Only those who lack imagination or skill would assert such a thing.

bambax 5y ago
> You're wrong. I hold many NFTs that I want just for the sake of the art. This is an old debate and not really the subject at hand, but I'll still bite (against my better judgement). You don't need to own an NFT to enjoy the art. That's the fundamental difference between art in the real world and digital art (NFT or not). When you own a piece of art you get to look at the original; this is a unique experience in the case of a painting, and sometimes a rare experience in the case of limited editions of photos. But the digital art is the same whether you "own it" or not. From an esthetic experience (not a financial one, obviously), it's pointless to "own" digital art. The only thing that would influence the esthetic experience of digital art is the medium. Buy a better screen. Better speakers. Etc. > People spend countless hours hanging out on Discord Sure. That I don't doubt.

zrm 5y ago

> centralization is a feature, not a bug This is not what the original article says. Here's the first conclusion: > We should accept the premise that people will not run their own servers by designing systems that can distribute trust without having to distribute infrastructure. In other words, centralized trust is a bug, but that's a different thing than centralized servers. The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. I would also point out that "centralized" isn't a binary thing. Having literally everyone run their servers is not really what anybody wants, but neither is having one company run a single server for everyone in the world, which isn't really what happens. Even with a "centralized service" like Facebook, they have multiple servers distributed all over the world. And if the servers didn't have to be trusted, they also wouldn't all have to be run by a single company. Having a billion servers for a billion users is not what anybody wants, but we already have a thousand servers for a billion users. And if the servers are not to be trusted anyway, why do we need them all to be run by the same entity? Full atomization rarely works. Federation works.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
>The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. This. And take away the techno-libertarian glamour, it becomes just another technology that might have useful applications, or might be a huge waste of time, resources, and increases complexity and decreases transparency.
syntheweave 5y ago
The fact that BitTorrent has worked for decades without centralizing, and likely never will centralize, stands in quiet opposition to the entire "centralization is inevitable" line of thinking. The trackers, the obvious centralizing force, have always remained content-focused, rather than making the transition to platform control. Trackers are roughly federated, as you note; there are a lot of nodes, but relatively few trackers. And I believe most blockchain style systems would shake out similarly. The authentic dev communities building blockchain tech are throwing their weight behind the idea that they will in time transition towards technical solutions, having already set a course for the social solution. So from their end, this criticism is always technical in nature. The initial source of trust is going to be in mathematical realities guaranteeing certain outcomes: if not cryptography, then tokenomics. Of course there are a huge number of "P.T. Barnums" who have jumped ahead to create solutions today, and these solutions tend to platformize. That's the discontinuity making it a circus.

Animats 5y ago

Which means, the technical solutions to the questions raised in the original article this responds to, will probably not have time to be implemented before the rush is over. Especially since those solutions would reduce the influence and revenue of the biggest players. It's like trying to replace Facebook with Diaspora. It's technically possible, and going nowhere. The article lists success stories for NFTs: "Axie Infinity and how it’s bringing entire nations out of poverty"[1] Axie Infinity is a play-to-earn game. It's like Pokemon, with breeding and training and fighting, for real money. Players need about US$1500 to play, and earn Smooth Love Potion Tokens. This really caught on in the Philippines, and people were quitting their day job to play. The article was from June 2021, when Axie was on the way up and Smooth Love Token was peaking around $0.35. Axie is now a Ponzi on the way down. This morning, Smooth Love Potion Token is down to $0.01897 and dropping.[2] Since all revenue came from new players, this was inevitable. The NFT market is Axie Infinity, OpenSea, CryptoPunks, and the little guys. As with most things online, the top 3 have most of the market share.[3] Axie is crashing. OpenSea is stalling. Profitable NFT resales aren't happening much, and there's a glut of new issuers. By the time the problems Moxie points out are fixed, this is going to be over. Especially since for US players there's a 28% capital gains tax rate on collectables resold within 12 months. [1] https://www.notboring.co/p/infinity-revenue-infinity-possibilities https://www.notboring.co/p/infinity-revenue-infinity-possibi... [2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/smooth-love-potion/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/smooth-love-potion/ [3] https://bitcoinke.io/2022/01/the-nft-market-in-2021/ https://bitcoinke.io/2022/01/the-nft-market-in-2021/

dade 5y ago

> I don't think anyone who buys an NFT wants that NFT; they just hope to flip it for more money than they spent. Is this not just how financial assets in general works? Anyone buying Amazon's share are not buying it because they want that share. They buy it because they hope some time down the line (weeks, months, years) they can flip it for more money than they spent.

piaste 5y ago
NFTs cannot pay dividends and do not have boards of governance. A share without votes and without dividends would be worth $0. (Also, many NFT shills and/or shovel salesmen fervently insist that they're selfless patrons of the arts, rather than simply trying to make ponzi cash)
suzzer99 5y ago
Yes. But the intrinsic value of a piece of art is tied to someone wanting to own that art for the enjoyment of it. The intrinsic value of a stock is tied to the earning power of the company you own a small piece of. NFTs have no earning power.
AlexCoventry 5y ago
In theory, an Amazon share is a share in future profits of a productive business.

doopy1 5y ago

You're right that there's a gold rush / land grab happening, but I disagree that there are people who buy NFTs that don't actually want the NFT and see it purely as a speculative asset. I think that the internet world is struggling to define what "digital ownership" means and looks like in the future and there are a bunch of people that are attracted to the idea of NFTs as the answer to that. I think there are lots of motivations for being involved with NFTs, but of course speculation is the most common.

giantrobot 5y ago
NFTs don't give you ownership of anything. They're simply a public record saying someone was dumb enough to trade something valuable for something worthless. Someone posted a link yesterday to an NFT they "own". I saved it to my computer, changed the file name, and uploaded it to a server. They had and have zero agency to stop me from doing so. Their NFT "purchase" didn't transfer any copyrights to them recognized by any entity with means to enforce copyrights. I can do whatever I want with those bytes I downloaded and the owner can't do a damned thing to me. So what "ownership" do they have? They don't control redistribution. They don't physically possess a thing. They can't assert some sort of exclusionary control over who gets to see a thing. Some record in a slow expensive database just says a wallet to which they have the private key transferred Geoffrey dollars to another wallet for the contents pointed to by an IPFS identifier. That's one of the more complicated ways I've seen to throw money away but it's not ownership.
- doopy1 5y ago
  The ownership is of the NFT itself, not the asset that's linked to in the metadata. I agree with some of the issues you point out, but in this case ownership is a construct built on social consensus, and these people are trying to define what "digital ownership" might mean, which you are conflating with physical ownership. "They don't control redistribution". - They very much control it for the NFT itself. Yes, you can right-click and save an image all you want, but that doesn't mean you own the NFT. In fact, you can right-click and save the most valuable NFT in the world, and re-mint it as an NFT... but that NFT would be worthless, because it would be missing the social consensus and provenance that gave the original NFT value. Copyright and ownership are divorced from each other already, so this argument feels like a straw man when folks point to it as a failure of NFTs. For example, you can buy an oil painting from an artist, but that doesn't come with a copyright either. Same for almost all physical goods. NFTs though, can have a license attached. A lot of what you are saying is true today, but it might not be tomorrow if enough people agree otherwise. In that respect, this is very much an experiment in speculation, but all it takes is for a community of people to agree to honor the data on a particular blockchain and that can support a thriving economy like NFTs have for the last couple of years.

shrimpx 5y ago

The huge gap between aspirations and technology continues to be the core problem for the crypto space. I keep seeing the excuse “it’s still early days”, but it’s been 14 years since the inception of proof of work blockchains. 14 years is the gap between the founding of Netscape and millions of people using iPhones.