6 ms·

the crypto tech cycle was one of the stupidest things a bunch of supposedly smart people bought hook line and sinker in a REALLY long time. The sweaty FOMO was

the crypto tech cycle was one of the stupidest things a bunch of supposedly smart people bought hook line and sinker in a REALLY long time. The sweaty FOMO was incredibly real for something that never withstood an even cursory amount of scrutiny.

Gigachad 4y ago
NFTs didn't hold up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny. You'd have people say we will all be trading land as NFTs but can't answer what happens when hackers steal your land NFT. Obviously it makes no sense for the police and government to respect the stolen NFT but there is also no mechanism for correcting this mistake so the blockchain is now out of sync with reality. And in the end, people care about reality a lot more than they do about blockchain data.
- simonw 4y ago
  So you're telling me that this thing is going to have value because of artificial scarcity... but anyone can create their own new NFT (including one that links to the exact same image) at any time? Oh, and many of the people involved are going to stay anonymous, and attempting to prove the authenticity of one of these things by deferring to off-chain authorities goes against the intended spirit of the entire thing. Utterly baffling.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    There was a joke "It's obvious now in hindsight that NFTs are a scam, but to be fair, it was also obvious before, and in the middle too" I'm not sure anyone at any point thought they were legit, it was crypto chuds hyping their next scam, and the media willing to join in for extra clicks. The real losers were the the ones who bought in thinking they would find a greater fool to off load their magic beans to later.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      The baffaling part is it even sounds like someone making up an over the top scam. If you believe that ownership of a hash of the brooklyn bridge in a ledger is the same as the real thing. Well i have the brooklyn bridge to sell you.
    - politician 4y ago
      I think the media went bananas with NFTs because images are clickbait and NFTs are primarily a way of trading images. NFTs allowed news organizations to write a bunch of both positive and negative articles about cryptocurrency and include unique images. Entire narratives could be created and gained traction based on who the artist was and "why we do (or don't) like them". Previous articles about the weird cryptocurrency thing didn't have images or only had the same tired Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. logos or Getty stock images.
    - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
      I spent $15-20k on NFTs, still hold them and are still happy with them. I'm not sure what makes them "legit", but they are to me.
  - nailer 4y ago
    Anyone can create any signed document with any contents. What they cannot do is forge your signature. This is how asymmetric crypto works.
    - i_love_cookies 4y ago
      [dead]
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      The thing is though, no one cares about digital signatures. Tech bros can't even be bothered checking signatures for ISOs they are about to deploy to production. You think normies are going to check the NFT metadata, track down the original sale, find the artists public key and validate its legit so they can think "Oh no this NFT is a clone, I will now revoke my enjoyment of this picture"
      - DANmode 4y ago
        Pedantic correction: no one is aware of digital signatures. The people who are sometimes do not even fully understand them or the value.
        Gigachad 4y ago
        The people aware of them also don't care. If I see a NFT profile picture on twitter, I can't imagine why I would bother to validate the authenticity.
        DANmode 4y ago
        What if the NFT you saw wasn't a monkey jpeg, but a display of a token that represented equity ownership in a company you hated?, loved?
        saagarjha 4y ago
        Why would you want this?
  - xsmasher 4y ago
    In an "art market" context it makes sense. I can print a copy of Warhol's Campbell Soup labels, but that doesn't devalue the original, nor is my copy as valuable as the original. It's not about copying the pixels, it's about showing provenance.
    - qu4z-2 4y ago
      But if you can mint arbitrarily many NFTs of a given URL it doesn't show provenance of the linked image, just of that particular NFT of it.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      But surely, the thing that makes Warhol's soup cans more valuable than a copy is the fact that Warhol (or his studio, anyway) actually touched the original. Being able to show provenance isn't what makes it valuable, it only shows that the particular thing in question is the valuable one. I can paint something right now and show provenance for it, but that won't make my childish scrawl valuable. The problem with electronic art is that there's nothing special about the original over copies in this sense. You can't hold it and know that you're holding the very thing that the artist was working on.
      - pictureofabear 4y ago
        And the fact that a painting is not reproducible. The best you can get is close to the original, but it will still be different because its the real world. Copies of digital assets are exact replicas. Thus, the only real value is, as you say, provenance, but I think much fewer people care about that than we all seem to think.
- politician 4y ago
  Also, that there was any value in the JSON `{url: "imgur.com/1234"}`. Several NFT contracts did not even bother to include a hash of the image data.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Or that the average person would care about these internal details beyond their understanding. Sure, you can't copy an NFT with the creators signature, but the average user has no idea how to validate this let alone even cares to validate your shitty profile pic isn't a clone.
Melatonic 4y ago
Personally I think the only one that really makes sense is Monero - and thats only becuse it has a solid use case (and is being used a TON). And interestingly enough its not really used as a speculative currency (the price is not nearly as volatile - meaning you will probably never get rich form it either). NFT's I think potentially had SOME initial interesting tech (mainly the early talk about being able to track photo copyright for photographers for example) but quickly evolved into the crypto BS investment crap.
unity1001 4y ago
> the crypto tech cycle was one of the stupidest things Same was said for the user-generated content that lived in the community forums on the fringes of the web back in 2000s. Big sites and 6-figure columnists even suggested that these were 'littering' the Internet. 15 years later, content is user-generated, and now there is even something that is called the 'creator economy'. And even those 6-figure, out-of-touch elite columnists who derided it are jumping on the bandwagon. ... Crypto is a technology. It does things. We observe that it is able to do things and it works. Its just missing a widescale use-case. The moment someone finds that use-case, it will explode like how the actual web exploded back then. Solely the DAO concept is revolutionary by itself, enabling large-scale, democratic economic organization for the masses, which was not possible or difficult and totally non-transparent before. That a few people here and there used it for dumb reasons or failed in accomplishing various objectives like buying the constitution etc does not change what potential DAOs provide. Of course, there is also the problem of crypto space and all the features and applications within them being WAY too out of the average user's league in terms of user friendliness. Just like how it required knowing what a 'forum' was, knowing how to 'register', and then even knowing the right people who could refer you to the forum so that the administration would approve your membership back in early 2000s.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > The moment someone finds that use-case, it will explode True, but it's entirely possible that such a use case will never materialize. People haven't even been able think of plausible theoretical ones except in niche applications. That's not to say none are possible, but they're hiding pretty well. My personal hypothesis is that the interesting tech in crypto will eventually find a real, solid use -- but it won't be one resembling what anyone thinks, and won't be sexy.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > True, but it's entirely possible that such a use case will never materialize Hard disagree. DAOs already exist, for example, and they are widely used even if the phenomenon is unknown to who doesnt have an interest in it or who is not technical enough. They are still way too technical for the average user, and even solely this use case could easily explode the moment everything is simplified and presented to the users with an intuitive and easy to use interface by a new service. A lot also depends on the infrastructure improving - IPFS is great, for example. But its not as fast as a server, forcing you to store very little data using it. For the moment, any use case that will involve IPFS must fit into those narrow confines. Actually, same goes for most of crypto - Ethereum is a framework that you can literally, actually program on. But you wont be compiling any complex modern app code and serving it from there. One reason why the use cases still revolve around financial things, NFTs and other things that are built on the ledger functionality. > but it won't be one resembling what anyone thinks That's entirely possible. > and won't be sexy. And that totally depends. Anything that gets mass adoption ends up 'sexy'...
polio 4y ago
As a former "Metamate", I was surprised to see Mark Zuckerberg buy into this bullshit. At least he doesn't seem to be wedded to the idea.
- luckydata 4y ago
  as another former metamate I agree, Mark is not dumb and I strongly suspect it was just playing whatever was popular at the time tbh.
LegitShady 4y ago
a lot of people have gotten rich in the meantime and many tokens still have non zero value.
dorkwood 4y ago
Did they buy it hook line and sinker, or were they just trying to get in on the scam?

Gigachad 4y ago

NFTs didn't hold up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny. You'd have people say we will all be trading land as NFTs but can't answer what happens when hackers steal your land NFT. Obviously it makes no sense for the police and government to respect the stolen NFT but there is also no mechanism for correcting this mistake so the blockchain is now out of sync with reality. And in the end, people care about reality a lot more than they do about blockchain data.

simonw 4y ago
So you're telling me that this thing is going to have value because of artificial scarcity... but anyone can create their own new NFT (including one that links to the exact same image) at any time? Oh, and many of the people involved are going to stay anonymous, and attempting to prove the authenticity of one of these things by deferring to off-chain authorities goes against the intended spirit of the entire thing. Utterly baffling.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  There was a joke "It's obvious now in hindsight that NFTs are a scam, but to be fair, it was also obvious before, and in the middle too" I'm not sure anyone at any point thought they were legit, it was crypto chuds hyping their next scam, and the media willing to join in for extra clicks. The real losers were the the ones who bought in thinking they would find a greater fool to off load their magic beans to later.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    The baffaling part is it even sounds like someone making up an over the top scam. If you believe that ownership of a hash of the brooklyn bridge in a ledger is the same as the real thing. Well i have the brooklyn bridge to sell you.
  - politician 4y ago
    I think the media went bananas with NFTs because images are clickbait and NFTs are primarily a way of trading images. NFTs allowed news organizations to write a bunch of both positive and negative articles about cryptocurrency and include unique images. Entire narratives could be created and gained traction based on who the artist was and "why we do (or don't) like them". Previous articles about the weird cryptocurrency thing didn't have images or only had the same tired Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. logos or Getty stock images.
  - TheHappyOddish 4y ago
    I spent $15-20k on NFTs, still hold them and are still happy with them. I'm not sure what makes them "legit", but they are to me.
- nailer 4y ago
  Anyone can create any signed document with any contents. What they cannot do is forge your signature. This is how asymmetric crypto works.
  - i_love_cookies 4y ago
    [dead]
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    The thing is though, no one cares about digital signatures. Tech bros can't even be bothered checking signatures for ISOs they are about to deploy to production. You think normies are going to check the NFT metadata, track down the original sale, find the artists public key and validate its legit so they can think "Oh no this NFT is a clone, I will now revoke my enjoyment of this picture"
    - DANmode 4y ago
      Pedantic correction: no one is aware of digital signatures. The people who are sometimes do not even fully understand them or the value.
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        The people aware of them also don't care. If I see a NFT profile picture on twitter, I can't imagine why I would bother to validate the authenticity.
        DANmode 4y ago
        What if the NFT you saw wasn't a monkey jpeg, but a display of a token that represented equity ownership in a company you hated?, loved?
        saagarjha 4y ago
        Why would you want this?
- xsmasher 4y ago
  In an "art market" context it makes sense. I can print a copy of Warhol's Campbell Soup labels, but that doesn't devalue the original, nor is my copy as valuable as the original. It's not about copying the pixels, it's about showing provenance.
  - qu4z-2 4y ago
    But if you can mint arbitrarily many NFTs of a given URL it doesn't show provenance of the linked image, just of that particular NFT of it.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    But surely, the thing that makes Warhol's soup cans more valuable than a copy is the fact that Warhol (or his studio, anyway) actually touched the original. Being able to show provenance isn't what makes it valuable, it only shows that the particular thing in question is the valuable one. I can paint something right now and show provenance for it, but that won't make my childish scrawl valuable. The problem with electronic art is that there's nothing special about the original over copies in this sense. You can't hold it and know that you're holding the very thing that the artist was working on.
    - pictureofabear 4y ago
      And the fact that a painting is not reproducible. The best you can get is close to the original, but it will still be different because its the real world. Copies of digital assets are exact replicas. Thus, the only real value is, as you say, provenance, but I think much fewer people care about that than we all seem to think.
politician 4y ago
Also, that there was any value in the JSON `{url: "imgur.com/1234"}`. Several NFT contracts did not even bother to include a hash of the image data.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Or that the average person would care about these internal details beyond their understanding. Sure, you can't copy an NFT with the creators signature, but the average user has no idea how to validate this let alone even cares to validate your shitty profile pic isn't a clone.

Melatonic 4y ago

Personally I think the only one that really makes sense is Monero - and thats only becuse it has a solid use case (and is being used a TON). And interestingly enough its not really used as a speculative currency (the price is not nearly as volatile - meaning you will probably never get rich form it either). NFT's I think potentially had SOME initial interesting tech (mainly the early talk about being able to track photo copyright for photographers for example) but quickly evolved into the crypto BS investment crap.

unity1001 4y ago

> the crypto tech cycle was one of the stupidest things Same was said for the user-generated content that lived in the community forums on the fringes of the web back in 2000s. Big sites and 6-figure columnists even suggested that these were 'littering' the Internet. 15 years later, content is user-generated, and now there is even something that is called the 'creator economy'. And even those 6-figure, out-of-touch elite columnists who derided it are jumping on the bandwagon. ... Crypto is a technology. It does things. We observe that it is able to do things and it works. Its just missing a widescale use-case. The moment someone finds that use-case, it will explode like how the actual web exploded back then. Solely the DAO concept is revolutionary by itself, enabling large-scale, democratic economic organization for the masses, which was not possible or difficult and totally non-transparent before. That a few people here and there used it for dumb reasons or failed in accomplishing various objectives like buying the constitution etc does not change what potential DAOs provide. Of course, there is also the problem of crypto space and all the features and applications within them being WAY too out of the average user's league in terms of user friendliness. Just like how it required knowing what a 'forum' was, knowing how to 'register', and then even knowing the right people who could refer you to the forum so that the administration would approve your membership back in early 2000s.

JohnFen 4y ago
> The moment someone finds that use-case, it will explode True, but it's entirely possible that such a use case will never materialize. People haven't even been able think of plausible theoretical ones except in niche applications. That's not to say none are possible, but they're hiding pretty well. My personal hypothesis is that the interesting tech in crypto will eventually find a real, solid use -- but it won't be one resembling what anyone thinks, and won't be sexy.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > True, but it's entirely possible that such a use case will never materialize Hard disagree. DAOs already exist, for example, and they are widely used even if the phenomenon is unknown to who doesnt have an interest in it or who is not technical enough. They are still way too technical for the average user, and even solely this use case could easily explode the moment everything is simplified and presented to the users with an intuitive and easy to use interface by a new service. A lot also depends on the infrastructure improving - IPFS is great, for example. But its not as fast as a server, forcing you to store very little data using it. For the moment, any use case that will involve IPFS must fit into those narrow confines. Actually, same goes for most of crypto - Ethereum is a framework that you can literally, actually program on. But you wont be compiling any complex modern app code and serving it from there. One reason why the use cases still revolve around financial things, NFTs and other things that are built on the ledger functionality. > but it won't be one resembling what anyone thinks That's entirely possible. > and won't be sexy. And that totally depends. Anything that gets mass adoption ends up 'sexy'...

polio 4y ago

As a former "Metamate", I was surprised to see Mark Zuckerberg buy into this bullshit. At least he doesn't seem to be wedded to the idea.

luckydata 4y ago
as another former metamate I agree, Mark is not dumb and I strongly suspect it was just playing whatever was popular at the time tbh.

LegitShady 4y ago

a lot of people have gotten rich in the meantime and many tokens still have non zero value.

dorkwood 4y ago

Did they buy it hook line and sinker, or were they just trying to get in on the scam?