3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > 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. Agreed, yet the government won't care and will make sure enforcement happens anyway. If your NFT based domain system is used by a dozen hardcore nerds, then nobody will care, sure. But if it somehow managed to overtake DNS and become the de-facto standard, the government would just come up with a way to regulate it anyway. Eg, they'd demand that web browsers not implement ENS, or consult some sort of additional blacklist.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Trademark law is an important component of having a market that actually functions. If I go to a site that my registrar says is Spotify.ro, but I can't be sure that it's not some scam company that is squatting a domain with their name, I as a consumer have a problem. Similarly, if I mistyped and arrive at Spotifyi.com and nothing shows me this is not a different entity than Spotify, it's still a problem for me. That the trademark system can itself be abused to take out other legitimate companies with similar sounding names, as happened with Meta, Apple and many others (even worse with McDonald's vs many family restaurants in Scotland) is a different problem altogether, that ENS won't solve either way.

by nftbuy 4y ago

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.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > 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. Agreed, yet the government won't care and will make sure enforcement happens anyway. If your NFT based domain system is used by a dozen hardcore nerds, then nobody will care, sure. But if it somehow managed to overtake DNS and become the de-facto standard, the government would just come up with a way to regulate it anyway. Eg, they'd demand that web browsers not implement ENS, or consult some sort of additional blacklist.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Trademark law is an important component of having a market that actually functions. If I go to a site that my registrar says is Spotify.ro, but I can't be sure that it's not some scam company that is squatting a domain with their name, I as a consumer have a problem. Similarly, if I mistyped and arrive at Spotifyi.com and nothing shows me this is not a different entity than Spotify, it's still a problem for me. That the trademark system can itself be abused to take out other legitimate companies with similar sounding names, as happened with Meta, Apple and many others (even worse with McDonald's vs many family restaurants in Scotland) is a different problem altogether, that ENS won't solve either way.