5 ms·

I really don't want to be a downer but all I read in pro cryptocurrency posts are: It's still new! It needs time! You need to follow the latest developments! I

I really don't want to be a downer but all I read in pro cryptocurrency posts are: It's still new! It needs time! You need to follow the latest developments! It has a lot of potential! It's time already that someone shows some of that potential and it better not be something like NFTs!

invasivemullet 4y ago
[dead]
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  Hilariously sad to see this, where crypto has gone from an idea of economic freedom to economic handcuffs. Imagine the even more nightmarish world where a person on welfare has their entire economic life controlled by a completely faceless, heartless algorithm.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Despite the rhetoric, most of crypto subtly pushes for handcuffs of some kind. Consider how during the NFT craze some crypto proponents were claiming that, in the future, browsers will enforce NFT ownership so you can't copy/paste their apes. A lot of crypto seems to be about taking resources that are abundant and making them scarce. This even bleeds over into the real world, where crypto helped keep graphics cards a scarce commodity for years now. Crypto seems like a financial industry wet dream that pretends it exists to help the little guy.
  - invasivemullet 4y ago
    I understand your point from a politically liberal perspective. However, in a social market system, earmarked funds and appropriated money is already flowing through the financial system, e.g., agricultural EU funding or even donations: not using them for the assigned purpose may be considered fraud, which can be legally punishable. So some parts of society seem to have agreed that under certain circumstances using money not for the assigned purpose is not desirable. And programmable money could support that.
2442267934sv 4y ago
jpgvm 4y ago
The last 2 years IMO was "put up or shut up" time for crypto and IMO it just didn't manage to do it.
nftbuy 4y ago
NFT is quite a novel and interesting application on its own. For an application of NFT, see Tezos Domains and ENS (Ethereum). Aside from NFT, stablecoins like USDC and DAI are also quite novel and interesting applications. These applications are providing value and utility to those using them, and could potentially improve other parts of the world’s payment systems by providing a decentralized option alongside centralized processors. Crypto will be eternally new, because we will keep finding new ways to build on top of it. A few years ago zkSNARKs we’re not feasible on a blockchain. Now they are becoming widespread and being put into use. A few years in the future, we will likely have new cryptographic primitives that will provide new applications and areas to build and develop.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  None of your examples are good ideas though. DNS requires proof of identity and a mechanism for settling disputes (e.g. so you can't buy google.com if you're not named Google; and also can't buy g0ogle.com, gooogle.com, gOogle.com etc) to be a useful system. Minting NFTs simply can't give you that, and once you involve a party that can settle disputes, all advantages of NFTs disappear. Not to mention, most NFTs as used in reality are 100% vapourware. As the owner of an NFT, you sometimes don't even have the right to reproduce the thing the NFT signs yourself (as in the case of the NBA moments NFTs). Even when you do, you typically have no official ownership of the thing - for example, if you buy a Bored Ape NFT from someone else (not Yuga Labs directly), you'll likely have no legal standing to sue Yuga Labs if they later decide to delete the Ape you bought the NFT for (sinec you have no commercial relationship with them, and the NFT itself is just an NFT, it's not a contract).
  - nftbuy 4y ago
    > DNS requires proof of identity and a mechanism for settling disputes Hah. Like giving Meta the ability to create legal disputes against long-standing companies that happen to share its new name. This is a system that rewards those with the funds to pay the legal fees, or settle disputes outside of court with large lump sums. Not all users want a system where Meta can take a domain you own simply because they now have a trademark that loosely correlates with it. > Not to mention, most NFTs as used in reality are 100% vapourware. As the owner of an NFT, you sometimes don't even have the right to reproduce the thing the NFT signs yourself (as in the case of the NBA moments NFTs). I am talking about ENS, not NBA moments or apes. NFT is permissionless tech, so there will be a lot of dumb and stupid ideas built on top of it.

invasivemullet 4y ago

[dead]

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
Hilariously sad to see this, where crypto has gone from an idea of economic freedom to economic handcuffs. Imagine the even more nightmarish world where a person on welfare has their entire economic life controlled by a completely faceless, heartless algorithm.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Despite the rhetoric, most of crypto subtly pushes for handcuffs of some kind. Consider how during the NFT craze some crypto proponents were claiming that, in the future, browsers will enforce NFT ownership so you can't copy/paste their apes. A lot of crypto seems to be about taking resources that are abundant and making them scarce. This even bleeds over into the real world, where crypto helped keep graphics cards a scarce commodity for years now. Crypto seems like a financial industry wet dream that pretends it exists to help the little guy.
- invasivemullet 4y ago
  I understand your point from a politically liberal perspective. However, in a social market system, earmarked funds and appropriated money is already flowing through the financial system, e.g., agricultural EU funding or even donations: not using them for the assigned purpose may be considered fraud, which can be legally punishable. So some parts of society seem to have agreed that under certain circumstances using money not for the assigned purpose is not desirable. And programmable money could support that.

2442267934sv 4y ago

jpgvm 4y ago

The last 2 years IMO was "put up or shut up" time for crypto and IMO it just didn't manage to do it.

nftbuy 4y ago

NFT is quite a novel and interesting application on its own. For an application of NFT, see Tezos Domains and ENS (Ethereum). Aside from NFT, stablecoins like USDC and DAI are also quite novel and interesting applications. These applications are providing value and utility to those using them, and could potentially improve other parts of the world’s payment systems by providing a decentralized option alongside centralized processors. Crypto will be eternally new, because we will keep finding new ways to build on top of it. A few years ago zkSNARKs we’re not feasible on a blockchain. Now they are becoming widespread and being put into use. A few years in the future, we will likely have new cryptographic primitives that will provide new applications and areas to build and develop.

tsimionescu 4y ago
None of your examples are good ideas though. DNS requires proof of identity and a mechanism for settling disputes (e.g. so you can't buy google.com if you're not named Google; and also can't buy g0ogle.com, gooogle.com, gOogle.com etc) to be a useful system. Minting NFTs simply can't give you that, and once you involve a party that can settle disputes, all advantages of NFTs disappear. Not to mention, most NFTs as used in reality are 100% vapourware. As the owner of an NFT, you sometimes don't even have the right to reproduce the thing the NFT signs yourself (as in the case of the NBA moments NFTs). Even when you do, you typically have no official ownership of the thing - for example, if you buy a Bored Ape NFT from someone else (not Yuga Labs directly), you'll likely have no legal standing to sue Yuga Labs if they later decide to delete the Ape you bought the NFT for (sinec you have no commercial relationship with them, and the NFT itself is just an NFT, it's not a contract).
- nftbuy 4y ago
  > DNS requires proof of identity and a mechanism for settling disputes Hah. Like giving Meta the ability to create legal disputes against long-standing companies that happen to share its new name. This is a system that rewards those with the funds to pay the legal fees, or settle disputes outside of court with large lump sums. Not all users want a system where Meta can take a domain you own simply because they now have a trademark that loosely correlates with it. > Not to mention, most NFTs as used in reality are 100% vapourware. As the owner of an NFT, you sometimes don't even have the right to reproduce the thing the NFT signs yourself (as in the case of the NBA moments NFTs). I am talking about ENS, not NBA moments or apes. NFT is permissionless tech, so there will be a lot of dumb and stupid ideas built on top of it.