Benefit of the hindsight
Benefit of the hindsight
209 comments
-
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
-
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
-
I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.
Yeah, that's possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.
And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.
-
I mean we use fiat currency
the issue isnt that it is virtual
-
There's not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry
-
Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.
-
I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.
In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).
-
Those would probably be a part of it.
Comparing a hashcode implies you have a verifiable source for the original footage.
You can do this manually and dig for the author but thats not always that simple.
A second step would be to build In a reference to the record in each media file, expressed as a small clickable logo.
You grandma deserves to be capable to verify.
-
-
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.
-
This is correct.
This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.
The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.
If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.
-
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that's very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I've searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn't look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn't be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
-
There are decentralized oracles. That's how DAI tracks the price of USD.
-
-
This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what's coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.
-
A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that's hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).
The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).
The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.
This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.
The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.
-
-
still a solution in search of a problem, unfortunately.
We can still tell when something is AI and it's not at a stage where it can fool mainstream news or the legal system.
-
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The problem is “misinformation” and has been since before nft/genai became a thing.
Gen Ai makes misinformation worse but the event that sparked this was a gop shared video of a democrat which was slightly speed up to seem more aggressive.
Also simple framing to cut off context from the original has been a very common form of misinformation for decades.
-
-
Had thoughts like that before, someone pointed that it already exists and is called C2PA - no blockchain necessary. It's not yet widespread, though.
As for NFT, when it came out I had thoughts that it could be used for completely transparent and automated businesses. Something like an AirBnB with a digital lock on the front door and you could buy an NFT for a daily stay that you could use to unlock said lock. But then if there's only one company that accepts said NFT's then there's zero reason for it to be on blockchain, they can just send you the code, and if they scam you there's no use for either NFT or the code. There could be real estate ownership certificates, but then again, there would always be only one authority issuing them - zero reason for blockchain. There could be like crowdfunding NFT, but then again, there could only one party managing the funds. There were tons of ideas for practical usage of NFT's, but all of them hinge on there being some party linking the zero-trust crypto and the real world, and if there's only a single trusted party then it always makes more sense for that party to deploy a normal database in place of blockchain and just provide an API endpoint to verify ownership.
EDIT: Fixed wrong link
-
The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.
If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they'd sign it and say "yes it's authentic".
Now maybe you can say "Canon genuine" to say it's not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.
Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it's of limited use.
Traditional signing is enough to say "If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed", no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.
-
I initially thought they were like numbered art prints, with a more robust way of guaranteeing authenticity.
-
That was the marketing hype.
They were actually selling numbered receipts of art prints.
-
-
Iain M. Banks had a similar idea in The Player of Games. In the book AI is so realistic that all real photos and videos have to be logged and timestamped for authenticity.
-
I had an idea sort of like that - media for your camera or cell-camera that was write once, could not be erased or changed, did not forget (you know ssd's and thumb drives forget as the stranded charge leaks away) - Each picture cryptographically signed with GPS and date and time and author/photographer.
-
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
-
One would assume that journalism would be more then motivated to proof authenticity of the images they show.
Of course such assumptions fail to consider the events at cern that fucked up any chance of reasonable reality.
-
-
Yes, people vehemently hate when you point this out because to the general public NFT = stupid overpriced digital art, and they don't care to be convinced otherwise. My personal conspiracy theory is that the two were purposefully conflated to keep the technology from ever being taken seriously.
-
I was actually going to note that i feel similar about this conspiracy but i left it out in the end.
Glad not to be the only person to conceive this. Kill it before people discover a good use.
-
-
-
It's so funny looking back at it (though it was funny while it was happening too), these new-flavor cryptobros tried so hard to convince themselves that they were in the right, they made "cartoons," games, I think they even planned like an island resort or something around their monkey pictures.
-
The national news media got behind it big, which I really don't understand.
It never made any sense.
-
Pump and dump deep state. It’s still happening. New sucker born every minute.
-
Explanation: Money.
Whenever you see a headline or article and don't understand why they're lying or pushing something. The answer is that it makes someone money. And a large chunk of modern media is owned by a handful of people who's goal is to make money, not tell the truth.
-
-
My coworker had a virtual NFT gallery full of Marvel NFTs, all laid out like a showroom. He literally spent thousands, now it's worth close to nothing.
-
-
-
When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded
-
Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it's pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.
I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.
-
The "next Bitcoin" has just been Bitcoin every time. Right now is its umpteenth bubble.
-
My one regret is that I will never be able to find all the really stubborn, dimwitted assholes on reddit who were screaming bloody death-threats at me for warning people that NFT's were a scam, and be able to just verbally ream them out, fucking rub their faces in their own shit.
I bet some of them are out there, reading this maybe, maybe they even recognize me.
If so... hi. How you doin? 😊
-
-
Near the peak of the NFT craze I was gifted (as part of an initial mint) an NFT, which I turned around and immediately sold for $3k. Last I looked it was worth about $200. That's the extent of my experience with NFTs.
-
a Mitch Hedberg variant
-
NFT's used to be stupid.
They still are, but they used to be, too.
-
-
You know, I feel bad for the people who were conned by the Super Bowl commercials. Celebs added legitimacy to the con. Everyone else who actually got into it because of whatever other reason, I don't give a fuck about. And SBF? Fuck that guy. I'm glad he's in prison. (I know he was selling a crypto-currency, not NFTs. Don't correct me.)
Oh, and the late night guy and the celeb blond lady who had an awkward conversation about it (was it the hotel sex tape lady?) can also fuck right off. Someone paid them to shill and they went for it. Assholes.
But, all that being said, I'll sell you a jpeg for $1000. Or two for $1999.
Edit: Paris Hilton, don't @ me. Edit: missing "the"
-
I feel bad for people who are duped by the scam artists. But on the other hand, scam is such an integral part of the US life, recognising it is an essential skill by now. So if you have enough money to be scammed, but didn't learn how not to get scammed, it's at least a little bit on you at this point.
That being said, nobody is safe, unfortunately, you can be as smart and as informed as possible, they still can invent a scam that will work on you specifically. -
-
-
How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is "yes". It's always "yes".
The only question is, can you hold the tiger's tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren't the last one holding it.-
can you hold the tiger’s tail just long enough
The answer to this is also usually "no" because the people who set up the scamcoin usually don't like to leave things to chance and have a plan for when to time their rug-pull.
Trying to get in on these grifts is like spotting a bank-robbery in-progress and trying to join the crew and get paid. Sure it can happen, but you're not exactly playing with the best odds of success.
-
That’s the big question: do you recognize the scam in time to take advantage of it, and have the awareness to get out in time when there are still suckers?
I know a few people who made money on crypto in the early stages this way: recognize the scam but take advantage.
It was probably possible to take similar advantage of the Trump bribe laundering crypto scam, even without the benefit of the insider trading and market manipulation
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
-
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
Ya, one of the best pieces of advice I got was, "never gamble money you can't afford to lose". This is what keeps me out of trying to chase that tiger. Sure, it could be possible to make some money by jumping on one of these scams early and trying to ride sell the bump. But, it's also likely that be the sucker losing out in the end. I'd rather not waste my money that way.
-
-
I get the impression that most of the people who are swindled by crypto nowadays are aware of the scam and jump into it thinking they're going to make money by finding a greater fool to dump their participation the scheme on for a profit.
Such people are really trying to be scammers in the scam.
That explains them invariably rushing to defend whatever scam token they're holding whenever it gets criticized in social media: if outsider are generally made to suspect the true nature of the scam and hence become unwilling to jump in, these wannabe scammers aren't going to find a greater fool to take those tokens out of their hands and give them a nice profit.
Of course as @ameancow@lemmy.world pointed out, these scams are done from the very start for maximum profitability of those starting the scam, not for the profit of the first ones to buy into it, so often those wannabe scammers end up being the greater fools of that scam themselves.
-
You are absolutely right, just look at the popular investment subreddits, they don't talk about long-term goals and successful investment strategies for retirement, etc. They talk about what the latest fast-buck is going to be, what the newest short or pump-and-dump is doing, they report on when a rug gets pulled or a bubble bursts so that their buddies can stop working in inflating it.
It's an entire industry of scams and cons, from crypto to the stock-market broadly, it's all about short-term rewards at any cost.
-
That’s a big part of knowing when to get out. They don’t. ….. or maybe they do: I don’t know if that scam is still finding enough suckers.
-
-
Unfortunately for them that ship has sailed. It's not hard to get in on a scam like this of you do it early enough, i probably would have done it if i had enough money when this started (don't judge, much, money is important when you don't have it) and i probably would have gotten out like a bandit. Now though, it's mostly targeting them.
-
Scam or not some of them are very useful to pay for some not so legal things
Investing in currency is already dumb, in cryptocurrency? Doubly so
-
-
When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I'll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn't mean shit, it's just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.
-
When I first heard of NFTs I thought the media was encoded within the blockchain - in that case sure, I wouldn't necessarily buy one but I understand how that'd be interesting.
Ten minutes later when I was told they are just proof of purchase that points to a URL hosting your monkey image somewhere, I knew they were a total scam
-
-
Is it over? I stopped watching.
-
Fifa is selling world cup nfts right now...
-
Fifa is pretty fucked up and behind the times. I am not surprised.
-
-
-
I remember seeing the monkeys and thinking, "heck I can draw that maybe I can make NFTs to sell to people who are sucked in by this."
-
I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I'm sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.
-
I'm sure you could do it without nfts
Yup! There were no technical problems that weren’t already solved, but NFT bros made grand claims unrelated to reality.
-
Techbros are still doing it. In this thread even, and people are still falling for it judging by their upvotes.
-
-
Every ticket scheme for NFTs fails because of a simple reason: contract law. Venues don't stick with TicketMaster because they like it. TicketMaster's store front doesn't have any magic technology; a room of overcaffinated fresh CS grads could recreate it in a weekend of binge coding.
Venues stick with TicketMaster because they are contractually obliged to do so. NFTs do not and cannot change that legal reality.
-
-
Pretty much all crypto bro stuff, honestly
-
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.
Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: "selling their book" as they say in Finance.
People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the "investment" assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.
Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers' talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, "the grifters grift" - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.
-
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla
Seems like a resurgence now, plus I’m seeing a lot more misleading videos.
This time it’s worse: all scam and manipulation.
Before there were a lot of true believers and the bubble went on too long to be just a scam
-
-
-
For me it's usually the Bitcoin guy from the "If Google was a guy" sketches
-
-
I actually would say it’s harder to say now.
It was easy at first because it was obvious.
But NFTs are still a thing… so even though it’s still a scam, it now makes you question humanity.
-
Hahaha
-
NFTs are great, the stupid fucking pictures that everyone calls NFTs are not
-
Honestly provides basically no benefits that existing token systems don't already handle. Games have been tracking completely unique items as commodities in a large market for a long time - the only benefit new to NFT was decentralization, which basically nobody peddling them understands anyway.
-
The only thing it opens up is that as a game developer I can make a contract that turns NFT items from another game into NFT items of my game. Like HyperDragons that you level up by feeding them CryptoKitties, without consent or approval from CryptoKitties devs.
But why on earth, as a game developer, would you ever do that... Well, other than as a PR stunt.
-
-
I'm not saying it doesn't have real use cases. But I'm not aware of any useful application of that concept.
-
-
I had too much money once. I bought some nft Reddit avatars for like 2k and it is still there somewhere but I am too lazy to even check on that
It’s somewhere there some kind of nft safe they have or something like that. It’s all very clunky.
I think I had to note down some access code at some point or something like that, it’s all too tiring to remember and unclear if there is anything you can do with it
-
what the fuck
-
It’s just money right, it’s not like there’s a shortage.
At some point it only goes up and up, multiplicating like some kind of sex starved horny rabbits. Population of which you are informed monthly by some clean but boring site: -0.67%, 2.27%, -1.23%… which for some reason is trying hard to appeal to you and that fake tone seeps through every second word on their butt licking reports.
Please use our services, oh maam please. We are here for you please use us
-
-
-
i smoked a joint with an one of those ape drawings on the jar last night, that was a Nice Fuckin Toke
-
NFTs are just beanie babies for millenials and gen z
-
Beanie babies were beanie babies for millennials. I still have some.
-
Sure, but millennials weren't the generation that brought us things like this. They thought they could horde them to fund their kids college. I know firsthand, my mom spent hundreds of thousands on them claiming they would only go up. Now she's got nothing. God forbid she buy a fucking savings bond.
-
-
Don't forget Funko pops
-
A plague upon humanity.
-
I really hate these things and can’t believe I wasted money on some my kids wanted.
But you do buy something. It’s not imaginary
-
-
Uh oh, you've offended the people who are prone to falling for scams and grifts. Across multiple generations.
-
I think it's also the younger users here don't know/remember the time when all Boomers flipped their shit and thought Beanie Babies were THE ONE TRUE investment strategy. They didn't watch their parents blow their entire retirement fund on a scam. Instead they were the ones that actually got to play with them, so naturally they look back on them fondly.
-
-
Millenials had beanie babied wut
-
I could buy a beanie baby at an auction and then drive across town and sell the beanie baby at a different auction. I'd get around the same estimated price on the toy buying and selling, unless I found a particularly friendly/disappointing market.
By contrast, the NFT auction houses are all owned and operated by the same assholes trying to sell the digital merch. The prices are set arbitrarily, many of the sales are wash sales or straw purchases, with the same individual/cartel running multiple accounts to create the illusion of a market. Once you've bought your NFT, there's no real way to off-load it onto anyone else. It's purely a scam.
Tack on to the tail end, at the absolute worst you get a cute little stuffed animal out of Beanie Babies. With NFTs, you're not even buying the artwork itself. You're buying a link to artwork with no guarantee of continued costing. Quite a few NFTs are the victims of Link Rot, leading to the owner having gone out of pocket for some absurd fee in exchange for what amounts to a stall bit.ly URL.
-
-
We will need an immutable signature for content at some point moving forward since AI is going to be so prevalent and it will be easy to make fraudulent clips, podcasts etc. NFTs would be perfect for this.
-
What would be the advantage over current digital signatures?
The idea of NFT was not as much a proof of authenticity, but more like a way to sell and but those signatures.
In the context of AI I don't see an advantage to having a easy way to sell your private key sort of speaking.
-
Not any moreso than any other signature verification method, and we already have several better than NFTs.
-
-
The amount of ignorance regarding crypto is too damn high. I agree that NFT's are stupid, always felt that way, but when people just say a "all crypto is a scam" really don't understand what they are saying. There's a plenty of legit crypto products out there, but yes, the vast majority are just garbage. Invest in the blue chips, the REAL industry of crypto, not memes or things no ones ever heard of before. (Bitcoin, Solana, Ethereum, etc..)
-
It's a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments' enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It's good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it's the parties with the majority of the "proof of XYZ" creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there's the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn't invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it's incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
-
it’s the parties with the majority of the “proof of XYZ” creation hardware. Which are not normal people.
Originally the idea was that it WOULD be normal people using their own CPU cycle time to secure the chain and mint new blocks. Even then, as long as no one party holds the majority of hash power, the incentive is to support the security of the coin rather than subvert it. The moment that changes is the moment that Bitcoin dies, because no one will be able to trust it any more - which also means there is an incentive to make sure there are enough competing BTC farms.
there’s the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits.
The blockchain is upheld by the combination of the developers and the miners. If the developers aren't acting in good faith and the miners don't like it, they don't move to the new chain. Sure, you get a split, but odds are one of them is going to die.
-
-
Solana and Ethereum are both centralized scams that have been going down vs Bitcoin for the last year, despite the bull market.
-
Scams with ETFs regulated by the government, audited by the government through MANY lawsuits, multiple bills being proposed to regulate the indusy.... so scammy right? Legit products. Both of them. Centralization isn't a make or break for any crypto really, they don't have to be decentralized to be a valid product.
And price doesn't matter at all, not sure why you even mention it. It bears nothing on the conversation at all.
-
-
-
It's remains sad that the name NFT is tainted by scams. In business, we start using NFTs more in various other contexts than "art". NFT technology, without the scam marketplace, has many use cases that we only now start to see benefits from. It's a very good way to digitize assets and use them in business processes.
-
Explain to me one such benefit please
-
For you as a user, this example can be interesting: event tickets.
Today, the market is dominated by companies like Ticketmasters and scalpers. Artists have very little control over their ticket price. Here in The Netherlands, some prominent artists started using GET to issue their event tickets on (these are technically NFTs). This gives them the assurance that the audience pays a fair price for the tickets and that scalpers cannot trade it for a higher price. Both the audience and the artist are better of using this technology, than issuing their tickets via Ticketmasters.
https://guts.tickets/ E.g. Dutch article with prominent artists starting sales via GUTS in 2018, and they still use that platform today: https://www.parool.nl/kunst-media/jochem-myjer-en-youp-van-t-hek-pakken-ticketfraude-aan~bc419f5c/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
-
-
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork. 🤷♀️
I don't see how it's much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
-
You didnd't purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven't figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
-
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn't "purchase my photos"? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
-
-
yeah exactly I still haven't heard a single explanation of what makes NFTs a "scam". People just shout that word and expect you to accept it. Seriously, which part of a consensual transaction between two well-informed parties qualifies as a "scam"?
-
There is undoubtedly a huge number of rugpulls, vaporware, empty promises, and outright scams with NFTs. But this is true of any nascent technology, any sort of project like this. The reason so many people know about it and are aware about it is because of the permissionless and open nature of crypto which allows people to see these projects in realtime.
IMO it's neither good nor bad. It's just nascent tech. For an artist like Sabet, it's obviously good! It gets people exposed to his art, with a low entry barrier, and allows people to support him. For people like Trump, it's pretty clearly bad, and it just allows him to scam/rugpull people easier and faster.
-
-
-
made money and got out so cant rlly complain tbh
-
damn those 17 downvotes are so salty it's making my monitor bezels corrode
-
Well its fine, I understand where it comes from. But like NFTs were obviously gambling and for anyone making money someone had to lose it. Since the whole concept was and is pretty degenerate tho pretty much everyone knew what they signed up for so its not like I made anyone grandmas lifesavings. U can call me an idiot for having done that but at most I took some bigger idiots money so the ur part of the problem talk is a stretch imo. I wasnt doing it on eth either which at the time was the most inefficient chain when it comes to using energy to run. Tbf tho. I wasnt part of any solution to any problem either, that much is clear. (obviously Im just talking about having bought and sold NFTs btw, never made one never sold one to a first buyer I was just trading them for a time)
-
-
209 comments