NFT (Non-Fungible Tokens) - Files as crypto currency

I spent a chunk of this morning looking into making and selling NFTs. It doesn't appear that hard or expensive to mint them on opensea or rarible.

I'm torn bros, should I go all in with shitty meme edits and crappy drawings? This looks like there might still be a window to be able to jump on the train and be able to be relevant, much like onlyfans was about a year ago when thots were scrambling aboard, and now that site's been oversaturated and you'll get lost in the shuffle.

I'm not even kidding. If there's a dumb enough rube to buy whatever I shit out why shouldn't I sell it? Am I missing some key detail?
Fools are always easily parted with their money. If you dont care about the arguments against NFTs, go for it. But don't have high expectations and cash out when you can, because at this point, it's a pyramid scheme that's just waiting to come tumbling down. Good luck.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 69ing Ur Mom
There's a lot of bad takes on NFTs recently so I congratulate you on getting the basics right. So many people don't get the fact that the NFT is not the ugly monkey picture itself, but rather a contract representing ownership of it. It's like how the title documents to a car represent ownership of a car but are not the car itself.
You seem to know what you are talking about, so I reckon you are the person to address such questions to. I would appreciate anybody else answering them, of course, and since this is quite a lot, I certainly do not insist anybody actually sates my curiosity. I may attempt to google the answers, but half of what I find reads like a sales pitch while the other half is too esoteric for me to figure out.

NFTs may represent ownership of a particular thing, but is that ‘ownership’ legally actionable in any way? If I buy an NFT of a drawing or a song, what are the practical implications of it?

If I have a deed to a car, it now means that I am to do with that car as I please: sell it, crash it, paint it, drive it. If I transfer copyright for an artwork from an artist to myself, I can then do with that artwork as I please: sell it, change it, use it as an asset for a game, issue takedown notices to everybody who reposts it. This all will be recognised by the courts should the question of whose thing it really is come up.

But, if I own an NFT, what do I actually have, other than bragging rights? The artist still has the copyright, and anybody can right-click and save whatever that NFT is pointing to. So far, this seems like a digital equivalent of ‘naming’ a star, which is quite an amusing scam enterprise on its own.

And, for that matter, where is this ‘proof of ownership’ actually stored, and can the infrastructure keeping records of it go down without any trace of my NFT ever existing or belonging to me left? How this actually is realised depends on the jurisdiction, of course, but a deed to a car or a copyright transfer agreement are represented in notarised paper documents and government bureau records. Thus, I have something tangible that holds the proof of my ownership, and my ownership is also registered elsewhere stable.

But, as far as I understand, the records of these NFTs are held on online platforms, so what I am to do if a platform goes down? How do I ‘hold’ an NFT then? And, how do I prove that it points to what I think it points to?
 
Last edited:
Like others have said this shit its unbelievably bad for the environment, at least the NFTs in the ethereum blockchain but no idea how more "green" the other NFT blockchains are or if those NFTs are worth less because its a less popular chain
Well this problem is being fixed. Currently there are a few blockchains that support NFT purchases. Many are already energy efficient. But the big one is Eth, which does require a lot of compute power to operate. That's being fixed by migrating to Eth2 next year which will move it from proof of work to proof of stake. Making it 99% more efficient than it currently is. So I feel like this argument is only good til next year then becomes moot.

In the meantime,

1636935735250.png
1636935842979.png





unknown.png
 
Last edited:
@Mikoyan
Yeah, I was going to bring up the essential philosophical problem about owning 'procedurally generated' art, but you nailed it. I will say that I don't think that thousands of procgen monkies or dogs were the intent of NFTs as a whole. It's the prevailing grift though.

Got a link to that fish code? Sounds cool.

One more thing, your point about people having to find violations of 'your NFT'. This is a problem that causes no end of drama in Furry, go look at AC threads, there just aren't enough people looking to make a difference. You could perhaps make/hire a bot that watches the marketplaces, but if they sell it anyway or before you notice, well. Non-Fungible Token is Non-Fungible. You could probably get the marketplace to take the asset URI down (kind of what happened in OP's Vice article), which IMO fixes it but not according to the bros.
Here you go. I've met him before as well. When it comes to writing code, his autism is unmatched. It's honestly a bit terrifying because you can throw a computational problem at this guy and he'll have it solved in a few weeks.

Making a bot to detect possible plagiarized art would be a good step but there are bots that would buy art as soon as they are minutes. The best way of implementing it would be to have the bot analyze the NFT before it is available to buy, but NFTs come in many different formats so it would be tricky to handle them all. Even if an plagiarized NFT happens to get sold and the thief profits off the first exchange, once word gets around that the NFT is fake, the thief will most likely not profit from royalties from future exchanges as no one wants to purchase a fake and would be blacklisted as a seller. And as you said, the marketplace can also just remove it from their site, ensuring that it no longer has a platform.
 
igor-bogdanov-s-telefonom-1.jpg
"'Rug eet."

I hate crypto bros, especially people who buy this garbage.
I say that knowing full well that the NFT bubble is going to get massive and those same crypto bros are going to pump the market cap for this to hundreds of billions of dollars.
 
I spent a chunk of this morning looking into making and selling NFTs. It doesn't appear that hard or expensive to mint them on opensea or rarible.

I'm torn bros, should I go all in with shitty meme edits and crappy drawings? This looks like there might still be a window to be able to jump on the train and be able to be relevant, much like onlyfans was about a year ago when thots were scrambling aboard, and now that site's been oversaturated and you'll get lost in the shuffle.

I'm not even kidding. If there's a dumb enough rube to buy whatever I shit out why shouldn't I sell it? Am I missing some key detail?
Do not bother.
Even cryptocurrency is way, WAY better.
 
Wealth =/= tokens that represent wealth. We just use tokens like gold because they look nice, they're scarce, they're impossible to duplicate and very hard to fake, and they have few practical uses otherwise. NFTs seem like an attempt to hack this and declare - in art world money laundering style - that they're valuable because everyone thinks they're valuable.
Well, why is gold valuable? Because everyone thinks it's valuable - it's the same thing. We could crash governments and financial markets across the world if we somehow got everyone in the world around the market to decide that gold shouldn't be worth more than a penny a gram and refuse to buy it for anything more.

NFTs may represent ownership of a particular thing, but is that ‘ownership’ legally actionable in any way? If I buy an NFT of a drawing or a song, what are the practical implications of it?
That's a good question. I know more about the tech than I do the legalities and culture around this stuff. I'm sure it's inevitable a case involving an NFT contract goes to court at some point, and whether the court decides it's a valid contract or not might be something we can't know until it happens - and it's also quite likely different jurisdictions will have wildly different decisions. But the libertarians that tend to be most into this crypto stuff don't have much regard for government institutions in the first place…

Maybe @1440p Curved Monitor has some info along these lines?

And, for that matter, where is this ‘proof of ownership’ actually stored, and can the infrastructure keeping records of it go down without any trace of my NFT ever existing or belonging to me left?
A blockchain is a form of distributed database; a database that can exist on multiple computers, with some methods for making sure the data in the database is coherent and trustworthy even when we know we can't trust some of the people who are storing that database. Thus, so long as at least one computer has a copy of this database, and we can trust the operators of the majority of the existing copies of the database (or at least trust that the majority won't be able to be dishonest in the same ways), the database will remain up. Any crypto-related web sites like Coinbase are basically just web-based graphical interfaces for the broader blockchain databases which actually exists on thousands and thousands of computers across the Internet and around the world.

NFTs based on the Etherium blockchain will be about as reliable and permanent as you can get since Etherium has achieved enough broad popularity that it will take an apocalyptic calamity for the database to no longer exist.
 
Last edited:
You seem to know what you are talking about, so I reckon you are the person to address such questions to. I would appreciate anybody else answering them, of course, and since this is quite a lot, I certainly do not insist anybody actually sates my curiosity. I may attempt to google the answers, but half of what I find reads like a sales pitch while the other half is too esoteric for me to figure out.

NFTs may represent ownership of a particular thing, but is that ‘ownership’ legally actionable in any way? If I buy an NFT of a drawing or a song, what are the practical implications of it?

If I have a deed to a car, it now means that I am to do with that car as I please: sell it, crash it, paint it, drive it. If I transfer copyright for an artwork from an artist to myself, I can then do with that artwork as I please: sell it, change it, use it as an asset for a game, issue takedown notices to everybody who reposts it. This all will be recognised by the courts should the question of whose thing it really is come up.

But, if I own an NFT, what do I actually have, other than bragging rights? The artist still has the copyright, and anybody can right-click and save whatever that NFT is pointing to. So far, this seems like a digital equivalent of ‘naming’ a star, which is quite an amusing scam enterprise on its own.

And, for that matter, where is this ‘proof of ownership’ actually stored, and can the infrastructure keeping records of it go down without any trace of my NFT ever existing or belonging to me left? How this actually is realised depends on the jurisdiction, of course, but a deed to a car or a copyright transfer agreement are represented in notarised paper documents and government bureau records. Thus, I have something tangible that holds the proof of my ownership, and my ownership is also registered elsewhere stable.

But, as far as I understand, the records of these NFTs are held on online platforms, so what I am to do if a platform goes down? How do I ‘hold’ an NFT then? And, how do I prove that it points to what I think it points to?
Trying to be succinct. I'm also not a legal expert.

Most of your question boils down to "What legal right does an NFT confer" and I'm going to flat out tell you *nobody* knows that yet. There is little if any case law about NFTs or the technology they're built on (Etherium Smart Contracts and from thence the blockchain) to determine their legal status in pretty much any jurisdiction. If I were to venture a guess, I think that 'purchasing a thing through a crypto contract" has a pretty good shot of being legally valid. The loose binding of an NFT to an actual asset is... somewhat more iffy, in the ways I talked about previously and legally. If push came to shove, I'd bet the use of an NFT to buy a digital asset would be accepted by a court. There's a -lot- of corner cases that need to be ironed out though. Including 'how do you proceed if someone steals the asset and mints a new NFT of it'.

de facto , right now, if you have an NFT you have a fairly widely accepted "asset" (i.e. 'ownership' of the thing you bought) that if you're pretty good or pretty lucky or both you can make a lot of money (crypto or not) in speculating on. Or lose a lot if you're not.

...looks like the rest got answered while I was typing this and I agree: It's stored in the Etherium blockchain and that's not going anywhere anytime soon. And it's too distributed for a random disaster to take it out. That part's totally safe. Now the NFT exchanges that NFTs (but not Etherium) depend on...
 
Now I understand why scummy video game companies are suddenly heralding NFTs as some new era of gaming. They've cut out and monetized the everloving fuck out of everything they could without players revolting, now they're going to start monetizing fake shit and selling that.

EDIT: Well, no, they're going to monetize fake ownership of something that they own anyway that you can't do anything with and anyone can take. I hate Silicon Valley so much,.
 
Last edited:
Well, why is gold valuable? Because everyone thinks it's valuable - it's the same thing. We could crash governments and financial markets across the world if we somehow got everyone in the world around the market to decide that gold shouldn't be worth more than a penny a gram and refuse to buy it for anything more.
The difference is there's a tradition of gold being valuable, and it looks valuable. Everyone justs knows it. NFTs are a forced meme compared to that.
 
The difference is there's a tradition of gold being valuable, and it looks valuable. Everyone justs knows it. NFTs are a forced meme compared to that.
People buy sneakers worth thousands of dollars and never wear them. Are they made of gold, do they give you magic powers? No. They're just told those shoes are worth that much.
 
Well this problem is being fixed. Currently there are a few blockchains that support NFT purchases. Many are already energy efficient. But the big one is Eth, which does require a lot of compute power to operate. That's being fixed by migrating to Eth2 next year which will move it from proof of work to proof of stake. Making it 99% more efficient than it currently is. So I feel like this argument is only good til next year then becomes moot.

In the meantime,

View attachment 2716923 View attachment 2716930


View attachment 2716938

unknown.png
Last time I was told ETH2 was coming september this year, now its next year, is this going to be like fusion power which has been just 5 years away since the 1960s?

Anyway, is that fat faggot the one making these shitty lions or one of the dumb fucks/future bagholders who bought this?
 
Back