It’s not even the picture, it’s the promise you own a picture
Imagine waving the receipt of your brand new TV you don’t have in your home around in public for prestige
It’s more like you have a receipt for a link of where to get the manual for the TV.
And the picture itself is just a randomly generated picture of a money or a picture of Donald Trump photoshopped into something from the first page of Google images.
Holding an NFT can give you ownership of an image. If you have a bored ape NFT you own some legal rights to the image.
That’s because of contract law, and IP law. A contract assigns the copyright to the holder of the NFT, and governments enforce legal contracts.
The only thing that gives NFTs any claim to value is the fact that a centralized authority can enforce it. The entire concept behind the decentralized leaderless authority of the blockchain is a myth.
Yeah you can own an NFT but you can own any image through a license agreement with the owner.
Yes… That’s the point of my comment.
“You own the image“ functionally doesn’t mean anything in the context of NFT’s because the image component in an NFT is not actually exchanging hands so there’s nothing to truly enforce here. It doesn’t grant exclusive rights and all that comes with it, it just gives them ownership rights - an artist can’t say the owner can’t use it for their own purposes. People can screenshot it, make memes of that, etc. and you have no legal recourse because you do not have exclusive rights to the actual work. They did nothing that violates your ownership. The NFT is you have a receipt that nobody can dispute that says “I own this receipt associated with this image and can use it as such.”
When I shoot video and give people a screener, I watermark it and have legal rights to the image/video content itself. They cannot duplicate it or use it in any fashion without risking legal action by me against them. NFT’s do not have that same protection. I can screenshot a bored ape image that someone “owns,” barely augment it, and mint a new NFT with no repercussions from the person who bought the original NFT. The original artist could come after me potentially because they have the actual exclusive rights to the creation, which again does not transfer with an NFT purchase.
In addition, you don’t even own the means to protect the receipt. If the blockchain goes down, your receipt is meaningless and you don’t even have exclusive rights to the image to sell or license out.
To give one more example: if I buy a video game, I have certain ownership rights associated with that disk. This is assuming physical copies of course. I can do whatever I want with that physical copy within the bounds of ownership of a distributed IP. I can snap it in half, I can back it up to a drive, etc. What I cannot do is make copies and distribute it because I have no rights to the IP, it has not been transferred to me with the purchase. The developer/publisher still has exclusivity, they control the IP. And if somebody else makes copies of my gave to be distributed, I have no legal recourse. This is really the key factor here. That law they’re breaking is not about my ownership, it’s about the game developer and publisher’s rights to the IP. They are the only ones who have legal recourse. NFTs, it’s the same way. The artist has all of the legal protections that come with IP ownership. Not the person who bought an NFT of the artwork.
TL;DR: NFT’s are buying receipts. They’re roughly as useful as “a certificate of authenticity“ they comes bundled with collectors items that were sold on infomercials in the 90s and 2000s. Except you don’t even get to store the certificate yourself, you’re dependent on somebody else
Actually NFTs aren’t even pictures xD
Imagine buying a hyperlink 😭
Hey, domain names are a thing you know
That’s more of an address book provided by DNS.
Hey at least then you own a domain name and all of its subdomains and can make them point whatever you want and host whatever you want out of them. When you buy an NFT you own one URL on an image hosting site, whose content you don’t even control.
You rent domain names. Stop paying the fee and you don’t get to use them anymore.
fair enough, but $12/yr for something I can do whatever I want with vs several grand once for an immutable monkey JPEG that i cannot do anything with except sell to someone else…
Nope! Not even that. Just an agreement between the scam arti- sorry, seller and the dumbfuc- sorry, buyer, that the rights to something have changed hands. Nothing more, nothing less.
No they aren’t NFTs are recipts. That is all they are. They can have a connection to images or physical goods but they only proove that you bought a recipt and not actual ownership.
so a deed to a house only proves that you bought a piece of paper, right?
No a deed to a house has legal meaning. So it’s not at all like a deed to a house.
Sort of except it means nothing. It’s like having a deed with absolutely no legal weight.
If I buy a microwave and try and return it with only the receipt they won’t give me a refund because I only bought the receipt. I could sell the receipt, sure it says you bought it but I am keeping the microwave.
If the deed was scribbled with crayons by a hobo and the house would be imaginary. That would be comparable to NFTs.
You don’t even buy the photo, you buy the hyperlink to the photo. In a sense, your buying the treasure map to gold, but you can’t have the gold.
No, you buy a certificate of ownership. That’s what NFT is.
Its like buying gold on the stock market pretty much. You cant have it in your hands but you still own it and it has value
Shes right an nft is a hallway to the picture. You don’t even own to picture
I thought NFTs is the title to the car. Just a title without any law backing it up.
No, because an NFT just tells you were the picture is on the block chain. In theory If you had access to the block chain and another picture you can just change the picture stored at that point
In theory If you had access to the block chain and another picture you can just change the picture stored at that point
In theory if you had access to your bank’s safe you could just take out money.
Well, you dont.
In the US money is insured. You will get your money back
The point was that if you had access to it, you could do some bad stuff but you wont ever have access to it.
You cant have access to the blockchain so you couldnt change anything. Saying “if i had access to the blockchain,…” is like saying “if I had access to your stuff, I could steal it”. Yeah, thats right but that doesnt mean anything…
Some hacker needs to make it a mission to replace every Bored Ape and Trump Card NFT with Goatse.
NFT’S
Stay in school, kids.
I twitch every time I see a basic English error in a meme.
NFTs are just USED for pictures. They actually had potential to solve real world problems, but jetzt isch d Katz de Bååm nuff as we say in hohenlohe.
NFTs
Note: this is how you spell it. Apostrophes are for possession & contraction …not making words plural.
That’s not true, clearly an apostrophe means: “watch out, here comes an s!”
Correction:
That’s not true, clearly an apo’strophe mean’s: “watch out, here come’s an 's!”
You forgot /'s
What about for the Goa’uld?
That’s not true. Apostrophes can be used to make acronyms plural, and there are cases where not doing so is clearly wrong (e.g. Oakland A’s)
No style guide says this. The only exception I have ever seen is single letters, and even that is up to interpretation.
deleted by creator
We’ve had gpg signatures for ages. No block chain needed.
Bold statement.
I would argue that just because something that could work doesn’t mean it is the best fit for the job for one reason or another.
We have multiple programming languages, database, filesystem, media formats etc…etc… Those also generally perform the same thing but some do certain things better and you pick whatever one best fits your needs.
why can block chain and go both existing and fit whatever role best fits them?
Not saying block chain / NFTs are the answer to ownership tracking just saying we shouldn’t write them off just because something else might work.
New technologies are great but sometimes you’re just reinventing the wheel by creating a more complicated and energy expensive wheel.
can these be held and traded in a verifiable way?
Yes. Old signatures can be included in a new signature.
I personally view crypto and the crypto boom as an experiment in unfettered capitalism - it’s still a new technology, the governments haven’t caught up to it yet so no regulations, yet quite literally 99% of crypto usage was in trying to take advantage of others (scams) and speculation.
The only thing with actual value that came out of crypto was probably Monero, which allowed for completely anonymous payments, something that crypto, when paired with crypto exchanges, is bad at.
That being if you can get yourself some Monero anonymously. I can see valid use cases for that, for example in the drug busines…
Maybe I’m not very knowledgable, but even Monero seems sketchy to me. I’ve clicked into what I thought were blogs about privacy that ended up being sites that exist only to promote Monero, once you look into them. That and the way certain accounts will do nothing but praise Monero just seems very greasy to me. I also wonder how it solves some of the other problems inherent to crypto, such as the environmental concerns.
For things like drugs like the person mentioned below, I don’t think I’d trust someone who didn’t just use cash.
The level of the NFT craze was kind of wild though. I remember watching this Hot Ones interview with Mila Kunis where she mentioned “connecting with the audience through NFTs” and “the audience owns the art to the show”.
https://youtu.be/NAeOzDhL6tc?t=1m55s
At the time I remember thinking that I don’t really understand how that would work in practice or what value NFTs really bring to this situation. I just assumed I didn’t understand. Turns out…nobody did. It’s just a bunch of bullshit.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/NAeOzDhL6tc?si=it3vFINprPvt8ExV?t=115s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Onion routing (like Tor) is the default for the Lightning Network. Every crypto that supports it already has private payments, including Bitcoin.
There’s no way to validate the total supply of Monero. So if it ever has a supply bug (like Bitcoin’s value overflow incident), then it won’t be detected and patched.
Monero has mechanisms for validating supply:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vW9H6VIONWM&t=174s
If you’re going to repeat this argument ad nauseam then at least don’t do it in a misleading absolutist way.
I don’t 100% disagree with him. Like he said, it is an additional risk. Assuming no supply bugs, you can validate what is published.
I just disagree with him that it’s “near zero probability”. This already did happen with Bitcoin and we only caught it because we weren’t assuming zero supply bugs. Bugs happen and we’re talking about the future money supply for all humans.
Edit to add: and BTW it’s not just cryptography bugs (rare), but anything related to validation (like value overflow)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=vW9H6VIONWM&t=174s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I was pretty shocked when I found out that NFT pictures aren’t even stored in the block chain. NFTs are just records on the block chain with links to images stored on ordinary servers.
This is because you (in theory) need the whole blockchain to validate an NFT, so you want to keep it as small as possible.
But since you store the Cryptographic Hash of the image too, you can validate that the image on the server is actually the same one referenced by the blockchain. You could even move it to another server, but it will break the link obviously
Except you don’t own that server and have no control over it, and if the server owner takes the image offline you’re screwed
It does not really matter. You’ve still got the JPEG (or whatever else). Just calculate the hash and you can proof that it’s the one referenced.
There are now Bitcoin Ordinals, which are similar to NFTs but with a sufficient size limit to actually store the media itself.
I’m pretty sure you could always store a full image in an NFT on ethereum, it’d just cost stupid high transaction fees.
Interesting, but the scarcity this is trying to manufacture still doesn’t apply to the image itself which can be easily and endlessly copied.
FWIW nobody who is actually knowledgeable about crypto ever thought anything positive about NFTs. It’s all just wallstreetbets types who read one article and think they’re economists now. The tech is interesting and has applications but monkey jpegs are what idiots spent millions on for some reason.
The tech is interesting and has applications
I used to say that, but I’ve given up on that idea. I’ve never seen a use of blockchain yet that didn’t boil down to being virtual money. NFTs could have had potential as a method of trade if they were tied to real ownership of things instead of just receipts saying you bought a cartoon monkey jpeg.
But every time I think something would be a problem blockchain solves, I can always think of an existing, typically better, solution to that same problem. I think that space is too infested with grifters to attract anyone with a truly novel idea.
You’re getting downvoted by cryptobros, but you are absolutely correct, there is no good use for block chain and never will be
It’s a fully public database among trustless parties. To the first point, there’s no reason any database can’t be made public if so desired. To the second point, for the block chain to have any meaning or value beyond itself, some authority eventually needs to interpret its contents. That authority might as well hold the database or, in trustless cases, a third party trustee. Nothing about it makes sense at a very base level, you don’t even need to explain the tech because it just doesn’t hold up logically.
I’ve never seen a use of blockchain yet that didn’t boil down to being virtual money.
A classic bitcoin article agrees with you: It’s Not About the Technology, It’s About the Money
People who are knowledgeable about crypto spent real money on a thing called dogecoin.
Nobody who is knowledgeable about crypto ever thought dogecoin was anything but a meme coin or pump and dump scheme. They would have known it offered zero benefits technologically over existing cryptos. Some may have bought it to cash in on the crazy market surrounding it, but they never thought doge was the future or anything. The people who thought that were the “i read one article and I’m a crypto expert now” crowd referenced in my original comment.
I viewed it as more of a donation to see the stupid meme on Nascar or other dumb sponsorships.
I think the entire boom it had was from regular people, people who specifically weren’t knowledgeable about crypto.
Exactly. Same with NFTs
The same will happen any time a “get rich quick” scheme comes around. People saw things going up 100% in price from one day to the next, compared to a 2% per year savings account. That’s very enticing for anyone.
This one was at an impressive scale though. Probably because it was so accessible. I’d have my BIL in South America telling me he’s playing a game that mines some random coin. Can’t really say much other than to be sceptical and never risk more than you can afford to lose.
People saw things going up 100% in price from one day to the next, compared to a 2% per year savings account. That’s very enticing for anyone.
And that’s the entire problem…by the time things go up in price by 100%, the people that will make money have already made it. Getting in at that point is useless, and will likely lose money.
Physical money is just metal, plastic and paper.
The problem is the virtual value we give certain things.
Cryptobros incoming to tell us all the real-world problems blockchain’s going to solve any day now in 3… 2…
I got 99 problems, but a blockchain solves none
The point of blockchains is decentralization, and as Lemmy users we know that decentralized services are difficult to make popular, even if they’re an improvement over their competitors.
deleted by creator
My desire for drugs
They can’t read because they burned their eyes.
Crypto
BrosLosers would be really mad at reading that, if they weren’t busy fellating the owners of BoredApes after they made them blind.…
What? No, that’s not a joke.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/6/23948464/bored-ape-nft-event-eye-injury-sunburn-uv-exposure
“Had a good time with the homies who also got their eyes burned”. These people are unbelievably down there in the pathetic human scale.
What the fuck. I’ve been to many, many clubs and shows with creative lighting, and never once heard of or experienced a problem like this. This had to be reckless ignorance on the event planners to result in something like this. Holy shit.
“This comment is an NFT and if you screenshot this I will sue your ass without hesitation. Please paypal me 4500 USD if you would like this comment, and don’t mess with me. I got my whole crypto gang on my side. We will fuck you up if you try stealing this comment, so don’t fuck with us.”
Oops
Why are they asking for fiat currency?
“This comment is an NFT and if you screenshot this I will sue your ass without hesitation. Please paypal me 4500 USD if you would like this comment, and don’t mess with me. I got my whole crypto gang on my side. We will fuck you up if you try stealing this comment, so don’t fuck with us.”
