No there isn’t. There’s lots of ways you can shoehorn NFTs in, but it’s always a poor fit. People always try and claim that NFTs will solve some sort of problem that is already solved with existing technology.
There is no problem NFTs can solve that can’t also be implemented much more cheaply and effectively with an SQL database from the 90s.
Proves ownership that is much more difficult for scammers to steal. Banks and insurance companies can use them(contracts…etc). Reduces costs in proving ownership as well. Unfortunately art seems to be the only thing anyone knows about but it should honestly be a very secure but ultra boring technology.
We already have mechanisms for all of that. Any security it provides you can have without it, the only difference it had going for it was “it has blockchain” and that was the Arbitrary Magic Hype Word at the time - like “AI” is now and “cloud” was before. In reality that means it’s a huge unwieldy system that wastes tons of resources for what’s often really poor reasons.
We do have existing mechanisms in place. More expensive and less safe options. This is definitely not a huge and unwieldy system. Very simple and streamlined and much cheaper. Nothing amazing or world changing… just some minor technological advances.
You don’t get it. It’s on the block chain, it’s a chain of blocks man, like it’s decentralized finance man, we’re calling it defi, like hifi but defi, it’s gonna be huge.
Proves ownership that is much more difficult for scammers to steal.
How is it more difficult? A scam almost by definition makes the current owner perform some action to unwillingly give something away, why would it be harder for scammers to make victims perform actions that give away an NFT than any other electronic good?
You know how when you get scammed or defrauded there are systems in place to roll back the fraudulent transactions? By using NFTs (or anything else based on a blockchain) you throw away those systems and make it literally impossible to bring them back. For what gain exactly?
Banks and insurance companies can use them.
Why would they? It might maybe be slightly cheaper, because some infrastructure costs are externalized, but that does not come anywhere near being worth the headache of all your confidential customer data being public. Sure, they could anonymize it and have an internal infrastructure translating it back. That would negate the cost advantage and make the whole system more complex for no gain at all.
Reduces costs in proving ownership as well.
Please elaborate, because that it not anywhere near detailed enough to discuss it seriously.
I don’t know all the tech details. I just know they use the technology. I’m not the only source of info you could search it yourself and see. There are even event ticketing systems that use it. I’m yawning just talking about this.
I’ve sold some photos as NFTs 🤷♀️, and I’ve bought some art from well known people like sabet and ame72.
It’s not as ridiculous as people make it sound. It’s just these headlines of the most ridiculous examples sets people’s perception of the tech. It’s really not much different than patreon or something, except the creator doesn’t get totally screwed.
In your opinion, how is that functionally different than when I sold photos on DeviantArt, and they got an email instead of a token? Are NFT-haters upset that art is being sold at all? Or are they upset about the delivery system?
bought art and also given out/received pointers to the receipts as NFTs.
I have NFTs with assets on chain as well, so in fact those ones aren’t just “pointers”.
Are NFT-haters upset that art is being sold at all? Or are they upset about the delivery system?
I don’t have a problem with selling art. I don’t have a problem with people using NFTs if it really makes sense for them.
I do have a problem with people claiming NFTs will solve this or that problem and without fail, every single time when you ask for details about how that is supposed to work and be better than established ways to solve the problem you get either more nebulous claims that don’t mean anything or some variation of “I don’t understand it, but it will somehow still work, just trust me bro”.
You did not say anything nebulous, someone else in this thread did. Sorry that got mixed up.
Also, looking at another one of your comments I guess I have to take back the part where I claimed “every single time, without fail” people would not deliver an actual explanation of their point.
Isn’t that like owning an original photo? There are 10 million copies of the photo and you have the original but if anyone wanted one they could just copy an online image of it and print a copy.
NFT-haters love to point out that the thing you ‘own’ is the blockchain token, not the actual art asset itself. I always find this argument silly since:
the token is the whole point. The NFT revolution (or mania, if you want to call it that) is because the tokens are the enabling technology. Where the art itself actually lives is just secondary. Nobody is getting excited about the JPEGs themselves, not really (let’s be real, most of the “art” is dogshit). People got excited about what the tokens enabled. Just one example, I can send all owners of my photos (the tokens) additional art as a bonus thank you. I know exactly who has my tokens. I can also gate premium features (similar to Patreon) to token holders. This functionality is how Ticketmaster is exploring NFTs
If I buy my digital wedding photos, or something on DeviantArt, or wherever, and if I lose that asset (computer wiped, whatever), I can just go and redownload it. It’s a copy. Of course it is. We live in a digital age. I don’t really understand why NFT-haters rave all the time about owning copies of the assets. Of course it’s a copy. Even onchain art assets are just ‘copies’ since it’s decentralized over 1000s of computers
Isn’t that like owning an original photo?
Anybody who’s ever used the technology will understand this immediately. Anybody who has actually bought/used NFTs understand how silly these ‘well technically…’ arguments are.
What a good argument would be would be the distinct between ownership and possession:
ownership = rights (human law, rulings/opinions, enforced top down. i.e. titles)
possession = control (physics laws, math, enforced bottom up i.e. car keys)
crypto IMHO was never about the former. “Ownership” will always live in the layer of social agreement. What crypto gives is “possession”: control above the TOS and paper rights that web 2 gave us. The first time the user can possess the keys to his stuff on a database that’s shared with other people (and not just the illusion of). This distinction is the reason why even though you do “own” your digital song/videos/game loot on amazon or PS5 via their TOS, you cannot trade it, swap it with a friend, resell it… The key never left your digital landlord, they just let you in to play. You had the papers for your car, but not the key. You never possessed what you owned.
There are lots of legitimate but boring uses of NFTs, just not the kind that make the news like pictures of monkeys.
No there isn’t. There’s lots of ways you can shoehorn NFTs in, but it’s always a poor fit. People always try and claim that NFTs will solve some sort of problem that is already solved with existing technology.
There is no problem NFTs can solve that can’t also be implemented much more cheaply and effectively with an SQL database from the 90s.
Name one… 😅
How Walmart Canada Uses Blockchain to Solve Supply-Chain Challenges
Proves ownership that is much more difficult for scammers to steal. Banks and insurance companies can use them(contracts…etc). Reduces costs in proving ownership as well. Unfortunately art seems to be the only thing anyone knows about but it should honestly be a very secure but ultra boring technology.
We already have mechanisms for all of that. Any security it provides you can have without it, the only difference it had going for it was “it has blockchain” and that was the Arbitrary Magic Hype Word at the time - like “AI” is now and “cloud” was before. In reality that means it’s a huge unwieldy system that wastes tons of resources for what’s often really poor reasons.
We do have existing mechanisms in place. More expensive and less safe options. This is definitely not a huge and unwieldy system. Very simple and streamlined and much cheaper. Nothing amazing or world changing… just some minor technological advances.
I don’t see how it’s more expensive or less safe for authentication to be signing with a private key and publishing the public key…
You don’t get it. It’s on the block chain, it’s a chain of blocks man, like it’s decentralized finance man, we’re calling it defi, like hifi but defi, it’s gonna be huge.
That’s… really just wrong
How is it more difficult? A scam almost by definition makes the current owner perform some action to unwillingly give something away, why would it be harder for scammers to make victims perform actions that give away an NFT than any other electronic good?
You know how when you get scammed or defrauded there are systems in place to roll back the fraudulent transactions? By using NFTs (or anything else based on a blockchain) you throw away those systems and make it literally impossible to bring them back. For what gain exactly?
Why would they? It might maybe be slightly cheaper, because some infrastructure costs are externalized, but that does not come anywhere near being worth the headache of all your confidential customer data being public. Sure, they could anonymize it and have an internal infrastructure translating it back. That would negate the cost advantage and make the whole system more complex for no gain at all.
Please elaborate, because that it not anywhere near detailed enough to discuss it seriously.
I don’t know all the tech details. I just know they use the technology. I’m not the only source of info you could search it yourself and see. There are even event ticketing systems that use it. I’m yawning just talking about this.
You’re yawning? You’re the one that brought it up.
I still think we could’ve used then to provide game ownership rather than just rentals
I’ve sold some photos as NFTs 🤷♀️, and I’ve bought some art from well known people like sabet and ame72.
It’s not as ridiculous as people make it sound. It’s just these headlines of the most ridiculous examples sets people’s perception of the tech. It’s really not much different than patreon or something, except the creator doesn’t get totally screwed.
You did not sell photos or buy art as NFTs. You might have sold photos and bought art and also given out/received pointers to the receipts as NFTs.
In your opinion, how is that functionally different than when I sold photos on DeviantArt, and they got an email instead of a token? Are NFT-haters upset that art is being sold at all? Or are they upset about the delivery system?
I have NFTs with assets on chain as well, so in fact those ones aren’t just “pointers”.
I don’t have a problem with selling art. I don’t have a problem with people using NFTs if it really makes sense for them.
I do have a problem with people claiming NFTs will solve this or that problem and without fail, every single time when you ask for details about how that is supposed to work and be better than established ways to solve the problem you get either more nebulous claims that don’t mean anything or some variation of “I don’t understand it, but it will somehow still work, just trust me bro”.
What did I say that was nebulous?
You did not say anything nebulous, someone else in this thread did. Sorry that got mixed up.
Also, looking at another one of your comments I guess I have to take back the part where I claimed “every single time, without fail” people would not deliver an actual explanation of their point.
Isn’t that like owning an original photo? There are 10 million copies of the photo and you have the original but if anyone wanted one they could just copy an online image of it and print a copy.
NFT-haters love to point out that the thing you ‘own’ is the blockchain token, not the actual art asset itself. I always find this argument silly since:
the token is the whole point. The NFT revolution (or mania, if you want to call it that) is because the tokens are the enabling technology. Where the art itself actually lives is just secondary. Nobody is getting excited about the JPEGs themselves, not really (let’s be real, most of the “art” is dogshit). People got excited about what the tokens enabled. Just one example, I can send all owners of my photos (the tokens) additional art as a bonus thank you. I know exactly who has my tokens. I can also gate premium features (similar to Patreon) to token holders. This functionality is how Ticketmaster is exploring NFTs
If I buy my digital wedding photos, or something on DeviantArt, or wherever, and if I lose that asset (computer wiped, whatever), I can just go and redownload it. It’s a copy. Of course it is. We live in a digital age. I don’t really understand why NFT-haters rave all the time about owning copies of the assets. Of course it’s a copy. Even onchain art assets are just ‘copies’ since it’s decentralized over 1000s of computers
Anybody who’s ever used the technology will understand this immediately. Anybody who has actually bought/used NFTs understand how silly these ‘well technically…’ arguments are.
What a good argument would be would be the distinct between ownership and possession:
ownership = rights (human law, rulings/opinions, enforced top down. i.e. titles)
possession = control (physics laws, math, enforced bottom up i.e. car keys)
crypto IMHO was never about the former. “Ownership” will always live in the layer of social agreement. What crypto gives is “possession”: control above the TOS and paper rights that web 2 gave us. The first time the user can possess the keys to his stuff on a database that’s shared with other people (and not just the illusion of). This distinction is the reason why even though you do “own” your digital song/videos/game loot on amazon or PS5 via their TOS, you cannot trade it, swap it with a friend, resell it… The key never left your digital landlord, they just let you in to play. You had the papers for your car, but not the key. You never possessed what you owned.
Yeeeah… No.
Great response. Blocked
Lmao “oh no”
Sometimes I need a blank piece of paper so I hit the START button on my copier without something in the tray.
But what I get is a copy of a blank piece of paper. It looks blank, but it’s just a copy