5 ms·

> [4] Just use your brain for 5 min and realize that NFTs don't work. Nothing says low-effort group think than the claim that "NFTs don't work". It is a certif

> [4] Just use your brain for 5 min and realize that NFTs don't work. Nothing says low-effort group think than the claim that "NFTs don't work". It is a certificate of authenticity (we know those work as the art world has been using them to sell intangible art for decades) in a spreadsheet (we know spreadsheets work). There is literally nothing there that could possible "not work".

Ygg2 5y ago
> Nothing says low-effort group think than the claim that "NFTs don't work". NFTs are based on crypto currency - a scam. * You get a mined crypto, one with body that's essentially a fancy IOU. - Alarm bells begin to ring. Who enforces the IOU? The anarchist collective? * You download the funny art, by clicking the link. - Air sirens start to blast. How do you know link is secure? Could someone else already got there and download the picture? Is there a way to limit the download number. If no, they can't guarantee a single owner. If yes, can you authenticate. What if link expired? Etc. * You proudly display your art. Someone right click and save as. They now have your art for $0. Or for hell they might steal your real asset or even the NFT used to verify you own it. - What is your recourse? Who will believe you own right to online pictures? What court considers NFTs real asset?
- ogogmad 5y ago
  I'm about to shoot the shit. Oh well, here goes nothing! * You proudly display your art. Someone right click and save as. They now have your art for $0. Is this any different from owning a picture now, in the sense that pictures have always been a bundle of bits, which you could freely share across the interwebs since around 1995? People still buy pictures because there's some sensation in "owning" something. You can copy-and-paste a picture without legitimately "owning" it, but you've been able to do that since ~1995. I don't buy art, so perhaps I shouldn't be the one speculating about these things. Maybe I buy CDs? But those have nice posters and concept drawings -- it feels premium. I think NFTs lead one to ask what it means to own media in an age where the physical cost of media is $0. Or for hell they might steal your real asset or even the NFT used to verify you own it. - What is your recourse? This is a serious objection. Maybe there's some mechanism you can build on top to deal with it. But that mechanism would be a human court, and we're back to where we started.
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    - rl3 5y ago
      >... all without wasting energy, burning coal, polluting the atmosphere, causing lung disease and cancer, or shilling discussion forums on the internet to prop up the fictional value of your worthless get-rich-quick pyramid schemes. I agree. Lots of people push back on this point saying it's overblown, and without delving into those weeds I think it's fair to say the energy use is significant enough that people are getting cancer and dying from it somewhere. That's before you consider the increased demand for GPUs which in turn leads to increased demand in rare earth materials, which in turn are often mined in awful conditions that also kill people. Including kids, who are mining in some cases.[0] However, all of that considered—I think there's even more damage done by the frenzied adoption of this technology from a sociological perspective, and the prevailing attitudes towards it. It's hard to fully elucidate, but a good description might be that of western society having its head selfishly stuck up its own asshole. There's many arguments against this line of reasoning, one might say free societies are inherently inefficient and that trying new things often comes at a cost. That said, I view this more as a deleterious social contagion with little point, fueled by a sort of faux-intellectual buying frenzy that social media is all too good at serving as a conduit for. Then you look at social media itself, its deleterious effects across the entire sociological spectrum, chipping away at any semblance of attention (and thus critical thinking) that people once had—in addition to skyrocketing demand for devices, with carriers and device manufacturers playing right along in the form of planned obsolescence of perfectly good hardware—and you quickly realize this shit's rotten to the core. I think it's reasonable to view the NFT craze as a second-order effect of modern information platforms failing on a fundamental level. They are bullshit-reinforcing systems. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/c...
      - DonHopkins 5y ago
        It's giving people financial incentives to be anti-environmental.
kordlessagain 5y ago
Ssh keys are also certificates of authority, except they don't allow anyone to steal your 1/3 of a billion dollars because some dev thought they were "smart enough".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Ygg2 5y ago

> Nothing says low-effort group think than the claim that "NFTs don't work". NFTs are based on crypto currency - a scam. * You get a mined crypto, one with body that's essentially a fancy IOU. - Alarm bells begin to ring. Who enforces the IOU? The anarchist collective? * You download the funny art, by clicking the link. - Air sirens start to blast. How do you know link is secure? Could someone else already got there and download the picture? Is there a way to limit the download number. If no, they can't guarantee a single owner. If yes, can you authenticate. What if link expired? Etc. * You proudly display your art. Someone right click and save as. They now have your art for $0. Or for hell they might steal your real asset or even the NFT used to verify you own it. - What is your recourse? Who will believe you own right to online pictures? What court considers NFTs real asset?

ogogmad 5y ago
I'm about to shoot the shit. Oh well, here goes nothing! * You proudly display your art. Someone right click and save as. They now have your art for $0. Is this any different from owning a picture now, in the sense that pictures have always been a bundle of bits, which you could freely share across the interwebs since around 1995? People still buy pictures because there's some sensation in "owning" something. You can copy-and-paste a picture without legitimately "owning" it, but you've been able to do that since ~1995. I don't buy art, so perhaps I shouldn't be the one speculating about these things. Maybe I buy CDs? But those have nice posters and concept drawings -- it feels premium. I think NFTs lead one to ask what it means to own media in an age where the physical cost of media is $0. Or for hell they might steal your real asset or even the NFT used to verify you own it. - What is your recourse? This is a serious objection. Maybe there's some mechanism you can build on top to deal with it. But that mechanism would be a human court, and we're back to where we started.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  - rl3 5y ago
    >... all without wasting energy, burning coal, polluting the atmosphere, causing lung disease and cancer, or shilling discussion forums on the internet to prop up the fictional value of your worthless get-rich-quick pyramid schemes. I agree. Lots of people push back on this point saying it's overblown, and without delving into those weeds I think it's fair to say the energy use is significant enough that people are getting cancer and dying from it somewhere. That's before you consider the increased demand for GPUs which in turn leads to increased demand in rare earth materials, which in turn are often mined in awful conditions that also kill people. Including kids, who are mining in some cases.[0] However, all of that considered—I think there's even more damage done by the frenzied adoption of this technology from a sociological perspective, and the prevailing attitudes towards it. It's hard to fully elucidate, but a good description might be that of western society having its head selfishly stuck up its own asshole. There's many arguments against this line of reasoning, one might say free societies are inherently inefficient and that trying new things often comes at a cost. That said, I view this more as a deleterious social contagion with little point, fueled by a sort of faux-intellectual buying frenzy that social media is all too good at serving as a conduit for. Then you look at social media itself, its deleterious effects across the entire sociological spectrum, chipping away at any semblance of attention (and thus critical thinking) that people once had—in addition to skyrocketing demand for devices, with carriers and device manufacturers playing right along in the form of planned obsolescence of perfectly good hardware—and you quickly realize this shit's rotten to the core. I think it's reasonable to view the NFT craze as a second-order effect of modern information platforms failing on a fundamental level. They are bullshit-reinforcing systems. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/children-as-young-as-seven-mining-cobalt-for-use-in-smartphones-says-amnesty https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/19/c...
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      It's giving people financial incentives to be anti-environmental.

kordlessagain 5y ago

Ssh keys are also certificates of authority, except they don't allow anyone to steal your 1/3 of a billion dollars because some dev thought they were "smart enough".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]