5 ms·

You're doing everyone, including us who are against NFTs in general, a huge disservice by explaining it that way, as that's not what NFTs are... Edit: I should

You're doing everyone, including us who are against NFTs in general, a huge disservice by explaining it that way, as that's not what NFTs are... Edit: I should have added my own explanation as it's not as obvious to everyone else what an NFT is. If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). NFTs have nothing to do with URLs (although some NFTs do have URLs inside of them), the main point is to have something with a unique ID that is unique within that specific blockchain.

ceejayoz 5y ago
It's a little ironic to complain about a bad explanation without giving an explanation as to why it is one. (To be fair, a better analogy would involve OP setting fire to a rainforest somewhere as part of the process.)
- capableweb 5y ago
  Yes, I agree. Added a more truthful explanation to what an NFT actually is.
  - felixgallo 5y ago
    Your explanation is nonsensical. > If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). This is where the entire argument falls apart trivially. The problem is that NFTs are just random pieces of paper containing a pointer. They're not guaranteed to be the only pointer, the content on them can be copied, they're not actually scarce resources, and everyone can (and does) fool everyone else about whether or not they have the same paper and/or the same pointer. Additionally with NFTs, the pointer is often to some random centralized resource holder/single server in the 'centralized fiat' world of trust, and quite frequently that turns out to be a $5 VPS running apache that someone stops paying the bill for.
mds101 5y ago
From what little I know of NFTs, that piece of paper is most definitely an NFT. Curious as to why you think it's not. Could you explain?
- falcolas 5y ago
  Just a guess, but its missing the verifiable signature. Notarize it, and the analogy is back on track.
- teekert 5y ago
  Because the blockchain is distributed? So It’s more like you are giving your piece of paper to many people around the world who keep it safe for you but can’t change its contents.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Great. Now what? The person who owns the URL on the paper can change the contents of that URL. Legally, the paper may be a gift, but I'm now the proud owner of a piece of paper. I can similarly own a map to the Mona Lisa. Everyone in the world may even agree and attest to that fact! I don't own the Mona Lisa as a result. The Louvre can move it, take it off display, burn down, or do any number of other things.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      Nothing of what you're writing has anything to do with NFTs, did you perhaps write in the wrong thread?
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        I'm very much in the correct thread. NFTs have already gone dark in this fashion. https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1369802069729812483 https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1369802069729812483 Hell, Jack "sold" his first Tweet for nearly $3M as an NFT. You don't own it. You can't delete it, you can't do anything with it. Jack could delete it! Twitter could delete it! Twitter could make that URL host a page that says "NFTs are dumb". You own the NFT itself. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-tweet-ever-as-an-nft-for-over-2point9-million.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-... > According to “Valuables,” the tweet itself will “continue to live on Twitter,” but the winning bidder would own the NFT, “signed and verified by the creator,” like a virtual autograph.
gspr 5y ago
Are you hinting at the fact that we're missing a giant ledger in which the paper is documented as being Really Really The Really Most Real And Authentic Paper? Since that ledger isn't rooted in anything else than a bunch of people's feelings about it, I think it's fine to leave it out of the analogy. So yeah, NFTs are like the parent comment explains. Plus that ledger that has no actual meaning. Edit: I'm not underestimating that giant ledger's technical solution for verifying the piece of paper. All I'm saying is that it doesn't fucking matter.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Apparently it matters enough for you to voice your concerns against it? And no, NFTs are not required to have any URLs in them, that's a separate concern, and parents whole argument is NFT === piece of paper with a URL, so how is that accurate? But again, "it doesn't fucking matter" so no need to reply me, in fact, if you don't care you probably shouldn't, because replying would signal you do actually care.
  - tonguez 5y ago
    I think he’s saying that NFTs don’t matter, not that you don’t matter. You don’t need to get upset.
jollybean 5y ago
You're missing the forest through the trees. The technical mechanism of 'Blockchain' might be a novel artifact of the definition of an NFT - but it does not matter. You're talking about the 'type of paper the deed to the house was written on'. We don't care about the 'technology used to make the deed' - we care about the implications, i.e. ownership of what, how, when etc.. An NFT is indirectly implied to be 'ownership' of something, but in reality, it's simply 'ownership of the NFT' itself really. Any legal or popular control over the 'digital content' has nothing to do with NFTs, it's just 'by implication' and has no real social or legal basis. As such, the 'piece of paper' is a decent analogy. "It's a record, that references something; you own the record itself, but it means absolutely nothing beyond that". If you want to think you're cool from owning that, that's cool, or not, or whatever. It's a good analogy.
Izkata 5y ago
> No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper You seem to have missed what the analogy is: The piece of paper is the blockchain record, the thing that can be exchanged with other people, not the art or whatever at the end of it (hence why a URL on the paper was mentioned). It's a great explanation for non-technical people.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Misleading explanations are never great. Sure, abstract it a bit to make it easier to understand, yes that makes it great for non-technical people. But misleading them to "prove" your point? Never great. Anyone with a basic understanding of NFTs will immediately see that you don't understand what you're talking about if you use that explanation, as NFTs have nothing to do with URLs, art or whatever. It's simply a currency with the total supply being 1. Nothing less, nothing more. Confusing that with the whole "NFT Art" space is just doing everyone a disservice, as there are people who actually understand NFTs, and are against them, but based on their actual capabilities, not some fake thing you've made it.
  - dark-star 5y ago
    > It's simply a currency with the total supply being 1. Nothing less, nothing more. Yes, exactly like that unique scrap of paper, of which there is only 1 in existence. The fact that OP wrote an URL on it is not important, it could have been a sticker, or a coffee mug stain, or even nothing at all. The scrap of paper is guaranteed to be unique since you can never rip out the same piece of paper again, the fringes would be all different I find it a good analogy
pintxo 5y ago
funny enough, you just described paper money. a) they have a serial number making each unique b) they are purposefully designed to make it easy to identify forgeries

ceejayoz 5y ago

It's a little ironic to complain about a bad explanation without giving an explanation as to why it is one. (To be fair, a better analogy would involve OP setting fire to a rainforest somewhere as part of the process.)

capableweb 5y ago
Yes, I agree. Added a more truthful explanation to what an NFT actually is.
- felixgallo 5y ago
  Your explanation is nonsensical. > If we continue the analogy with paper, then a NFT is a piece of paper with a unique identifier that cannot be copied. If you have that piece of paper you know that A) No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper and B) no one can fool someone else they have that same paper (based on the ID). This is where the entire argument falls apart trivially. The problem is that NFTs are just random pieces of paper containing a pointer. They're not guaranteed to be the only pointer, the content on them can be copied, they're not actually scarce resources, and everyone can (and does) fool everyone else about whether or not they have the same paper and/or the same pointer. Additionally with NFTs, the pointer is often to some random centralized resource holder/single server in the 'centralized fiat' world of trust, and quite frequently that turns out to be a $5 VPS running apache that someone stops paying the bill for.

mds101 5y ago

From what little I know of NFTs, that piece of paper is most definitely an NFT. Curious as to why you think it's not. Could you explain?

falcolas 5y ago
Just a guess, but its missing the verifiable signature. Notarize it, and the analogy is back on track.
teekert 5y ago
Because the blockchain is distributed? So It’s more like you are giving your piece of paper to many people around the world who keep it safe for you but can’t change its contents.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Great. Now what? The person who owns the URL on the paper can change the contents of that URL. Legally, the paper may be a gift, but I'm now the proud owner of a piece of paper. I can similarly own a map to the Mona Lisa. Everyone in the world may even agree and attest to that fact! I don't own the Mona Lisa as a result. The Louvre can move it, take it off display, burn down, or do any number of other things.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Nothing of what you're writing has anything to do with NFTs, did you perhaps write in the wrong thread?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      I'm very much in the correct thread. NFTs have already gone dark in this fashion. https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1369802069729812483 https://twitter.com/CheckMyNFT/status/1369802069729812483 Hell, Jack "sold" his first Tweet for nearly $3M as an NFT. You don't own it. You can't delete it, you can't do anything with it. Jack could delete it! Twitter could delete it! Twitter could make that URL host a page that says "NFTs are dumb". You own the NFT itself. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-tweet-ever-as-an-nft-for-over-2point9-million.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-... > According to “Valuables,” the tweet itself will “continue to live on Twitter,” but the winning bidder would own the NFT, “signed and verified by the creator,” like a virtual autograph.

gspr 5y ago

Are you hinting at the fact that we're missing a giant ledger in which the paper is documented as being Really Really The Really Most Real And Authentic Paper? Since that ledger isn't rooted in anything else than a bunch of people's feelings about it, I think it's fine to leave it out of the analogy. So yeah, NFTs are like the parent comment explains. Plus that ledger that has no actual meaning. Edit: I'm not underestimating that giant ledger's technical solution for verifying the piece of paper. All I'm saying is that it doesn't fucking matter.

capableweb 5y ago
Apparently it matters enough for you to voice your concerns against it? And no, NFTs are not required to have any URLs in them, that's a separate concern, and parents whole argument is NFT === piece of paper with a URL, so how is that accurate? But again, "it doesn't fucking matter" so no need to reply me, in fact, if you don't care you probably shouldn't, because replying would signal you do actually care.
- tonguez 5y ago
  I think he’s saying that NFTs don’t matter, not that you don’t matter. You don’t need to get upset.

jollybean 5y ago

You're missing the forest through the trees. The technical mechanism of 'Blockchain' might be a novel artifact of the definition of an NFT - but it does not matter. You're talking about the 'type of paper the deed to the house was written on'. We don't care about the 'technology used to make the deed' - we care about the implications, i.e. ownership of what, how, when etc.. An NFT is indirectly implied to be 'ownership' of something, but in reality, it's simply 'ownership of the NFT' itself really. Any legal or popular control over the 'digital content' has nothing to do with NFTs, it's just 'by implication' and has no real social or legal basis. As such, the 'piece of paper' is a decent analogy. "It's a record, that references something; you own the record itself, but it means absolutely nothing beyond that". If you want to think you're cool from owning that, that's cool, or not, or whatever. It's a good analogy.

Izkata 5y ago

> No one can have the same piece of paper without having that actual paper You seem to have missed what the analogy is: The piece of paper is the blockchain record, the thing that can be exchanged with other people, not the art or whatever at the end of it (hence why a URL on the paper was mentioned). It's a great explanation for non-technical people.

capableweb 5y ago
Misleading explanations are never great. Sure, abstract it a bit to make it easier to understand, yes that makes it great for non-technical people. But misleading them to "prove" your point? Never great. Anyone with a basic understanding of NFTs will immediately see that you don't understand what you're talking about if you use that explanation, as NFTs have nothing to do with URLs, art or whatever. It's simply a currency with the total supply being 1. Nothing less, nothing more. Confusing that with the whole "NFT Art" space is just doing everyone a disservice, as there are people who actually understand NFTs, and are against them, but based on their actual capabilities, not some fake thing you've made it.
- dark-star 5y ago
  > It's simply a currency with the total supply being 1. Nothing less, nothing more. Yes, exactly like that unique scrap of paper, of which there is only 1 in existence. The fact that OP wrote an URL on it is not important, it could have been a sticker, or a coffee mug stain, or even nothing at all. The scrap of paper is guaranteed to be unique since you can never rip out the same piece of paper again, the fringes would be all different I find it a good analogy

pintxo 5y ago

funny enough, you just described paper money. a) they have a serial number making each unique b) they are purposefully designed to make it easy to identify forgeries