qqii

20 ms·

181.
by qqii 6y ago
Blockchain like structures use consensus to uniqueness. A protocol that attempts to replicate this meets the loose definition of blockchain. As the other commenter explained, concensus doesn't require CO2, but most of these have been r
182.
by qqii 6y ago
The unique expression of ownership is novel, it really depends on how they're legally interpreted to conclude if they're bad. If you interpret them literally they're a better form of copyright that what currently exists. It a
183.
by qqii 6y ago
This idea that we need to be perfect optimisers is foolish and pure whataboutism . You could say the same for any recreational, non productive activity.
184.
by qqii 6y ago
A new medium requires reinventing and making explicit "real world" constructs. The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems without making clear the explicit tradeoffs. I could retort and point to compa
185.
by qqii 6y ago
For a more technical definition following the citations: > NFTs are distinguishable and you must track the ownership of each one separately. > The pair (contract address, uint256 tokenId) will then be a globally unique and fully-quali
186.
by qqii 6y ago
> the problem with most ~NFTs~ art at the moment is that you can't actually do anything with them, apart from trade them. I dot agree with this statement but perhaps it'll help you expand why you think this way. As the article
187.
by qqii 6y ago
Why would that be so? My understanding is that they want to discourage scalping. Digital tickets tied to digital identities that can only be transfered at market price. That's not a difficult smart contact to create.
188.
by qqii 6y ago
> "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are perfectly identical". Which the ARTIST has decided is a digital c
189.
by qqii 6y ago
> People can look at images of the Mona Lisa all day long without compensating you, because you simply own the original trophy, not the idea… Your ownership isn't stamped or an inhenrant part of the Mona Lisa, your ownership comes f
190.
by qqii 6y ago
Ownership relies on asymmetric cryptography, at a basic level the tuple (nft token, public key) is unique and enforced to be unique by the rules of the blockchain.
191.
by qqii 6y ago
Legally, who knows? Technically yes. As for my take, the NFT is just a data, accepted to represent the idea of that Jack minted and is now selling the tweet. Contractually he hasn't agreed to give you rights to editing or deleting the
192.
by qqii 6y ago
Your screenshot of the tweet hasn't been "signed genuine #1 of #1" by Jack Dorsey.
193.
by qqii 6y ago
Here's an artist talking about this: https://youtu.be/1ERt4BTBbDk I find his analogy more apt - nothing prevented an artists from making another painting and claiming it to be genuine #1 of #1 either. It's just wi
194.
by qqii 6y ago
The sale is done in via smart contract, a buyer essentially sends tokens (commonly Ethereum) to the smart contact. Under commissioned scheme the smart contact will create transactions that split the Ethereum between the relevant parties (co
195.
by qqii 6y ago
Art NFTs are a great way to launder money, but they're not unique in that aspect. There are plenty of ways to launder money with smart contacts and art NFTs aren't special. Not all NFTs are art NFTs either, it is becuase it is art
196.
by qqii 6y ago
On ramping cash is the most difficult as regulations are tighter. If your money is clear and you can obtain crypto with a paper trail then there are possibilities to break the paper train once on chain. NFTs don't help here but investi
197.
by qqii 6y ago
All it takes is a mixer with a large enough anonymity set.
198.
by qqii 6y ago
That can easy be explained by their adoption by the rich and famous. Art NFTs were only made by niche artists until recently. Now that they're somewhat mainstream yet not well understood by the public I would be more suprised if people
199.
by qqii 6y ago
Since one of the people who's implicitly agreeing is the owner of the tweet and CEO of the platform, I find that gives it a decent amount of credence.
200.
by qqii 6y ago
The digital already has the concept of ownership (like DMCA?). What's new is that the enforcement is also digital.
201.
by qqii 6y ago
Since Ethereum's price is a moving target that's 1630 Eth.
202.
by qqii 6y ago
You're required to link your Web3 wallet to use it. I've not inspected their smart contact but it's probably safe to say these bets are real.
203.
by qqii 6y ago
The offer is done through a smart contact and cannot be placed if you don't have the money. 1630 Ethereum isn't that unlikely, Ethereum was worth ~$120 last March so that's only ~$200k. That's probably nothing for the CE
204.
by qqii 6y ago
Dissuade other people from bidding?
205.
by qqii 6y ago
Each and every output of `uuidgen` doesn't have meaning. "Value" is a human construct that requires interpretation of information to form a narrative and meaning. In contrast vanity tor addresses are valuable.
206.
by qqii 6y ago
Digital redundancy requires replication, which means a global network. Redundancy isn't enough as it also requires consensus and security. Sprinkle some ownership via asymmetric cryptography and oh look, we've described destribute
207.
by qqii 6y ago
It's important to note that digital collectables ( https://www.nbatopshot.com/ ) and in game items ( https://axieinfinity.com/aave ) are NFTs are already quite common. They don't dominate the news cyc
208.
by qqii 6y ago
NFT art pieces have an associated file that can be copied but the (nft token, public key) pair on the blockchain is unique, where the NFT token is created with a public key associated with the artist. Your copy of the associated file is jus
209.
by qqii 6y ago
This is really the problem, digital ownership outside of asymmetric cryptography is not well defined in law. Digitally, it is perfectly clear: You own the NFT. Through what is written on a tweet and a website it can be interpreted as the re
210.
by qqii 6y ago
There's nuance to what it mean to "sell one of your tweets". What does it mean to own a tweet? What rights are you selling? Ignoring NFTs you could define selling your tweet as: * Selling the copyright to your tweet * Selling

More ›