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

[Easterling]

given this strange new trend do you an artist could just make a fuck tonne of premade assests and hit randomize to make a near endless amount of these low-value retard coins?

 

[kūhaku]

given this strange new trend do you an artist could just make a fuck tonne of premade assests and hit randomize to make a near endless amount of these low-value exceptional individual coins?

Isn’t that what the monkeys/lions are? Just a bunch of premade images randomized and sold en masse?

 

[Easterling]

Isn’t that what the monkeys/lions are? Just a bunch of premade images randomized and sold en masse?

I think they sketched over a template? At least thats my asumption since ive only seen a few floating around, I talking a picrew tranny avatar emulator tier randomizer

 

[Akashic Retard]

given this strange new trend do you an artist could just make a fuck tonne of premade assests and hit randomize to make a near endless amount of these low-value exceptional individual coins?

Yes, and you can create infinite shitcoins all by yourself. Getting people to buy it is another story.

 

[Secret Messages]

copying and pasting my reply from another NFT thread because I think it's good.

NFTs are like regular tokens, except they aren't interchangeable, hence "non-fungible." On Ethereum, they are issued under the ERC-721 standard, unlike normal tokens which are designated ERC-20. NFTs can be transacted like any other token or Ether itself, the only difference is that they can't be divided into parts, and there's only one. Whatever the NFT "represents" is attached in metadata to the token when it is deployed. This metadata is usually a link to a file uploaded to IPFS, a protocol that allows files to be stored online in a decentralized way, similarly to a torrent. The uploaded file is usually an image, gif, or mp3. However, NFTs could theoretically represent and act as a "proof-of-ownership" for anything, as long as it can be made digital.

This article is alright, but the author clearly doesn't know that much about crypto besides a basic surface-level knowledge. This whole passage is just stupid, and shows he doesn't really understand how crypto mining works.

Despite big democratisation talks, creating an NFT isn’t cheap. You have to “mint” it (put them on the blockchain), which costs a noticeable amount because of the “gas fee”, which is the amount you give the person whose computer is solving cryptographic puzzles. Solving these puzzles takes a lot of energy, which in turn can create astronomically high electricity bills. It’s only fair then, that this person be rewarded.

But the gas fee costs tend to be hidden during transactions. And they’re not small. I spent 50$ to make the NFT I created for research purposes. It set its price for 1.99$, but purchasing will also set you back 100$ in gas fees. When all is said and done, I get 2$ cents for my asset, and the crypto-millionaires who run the network get 150$. So much for decentralisation.

I don't know if he intentionally ignores that Ethereum isn't the only smart contract platform, or if he just doesn't know that. Also, calling miners "crypto-millionaires who run the network," and implying that high gas fees = centralization is lunacy. If Ethereum was more centralized, the fees would be cheaper, dude. Also, gas fees are not at all hidden. I don't know how you could think that, unless you interacted with the contract and then clicked through every metamask popup telling you how much everything will cost without reading it.

Anyway I wouldn't buy NFTs but I really dislike how misinformation about them is propagated everywhere. Suddenly every zoomer on earth is screaming about how they destroy the environment and why would you buy a jpg and all this bullshit. It's obvious that they're all just swallowing this from whatever cool influencer said it, and they're just parrots, but it's still annoying.

 

[OfficerBagget]

I'm ahead of the curve.
Behold my Gunt NFT

 

[0 0]

 

[Govt. Shitposting Machine]

Another player in the NFT game is YAT. A service where you can buy an nft string of emojiis which will serve as a permanent digital identity with the devs hoping it to be a universal username across every site and crypto wallet. Itis made by Tari labs and already has opera and monroe integration.

Spoiler: Yat explained by its creators

Here are some sample YATs that sold for thousands

Spoiler

View attachment 2718971

Spoiler: An average YAT made from the website

View attachment 2718923

To anyone with half a brain this should be cause for concern. Buying an NFT product under the assumption it will be mass adopted by most sites is already a bad idea but who the hell wants their username for a site to be a bunch of emojis. The idea of trading these too seems counterintuitive to setting up an online identity with one. Who knows maybe in the future all of out usernames will be.

Finally, a way to monetize emoji spells!

 

[Swingletonthesimpleton]

This is just as much of a scam as an art auction. You take a picture of literal shit and say its an nft. Worst part is someone will probably buy it.

 

[Klaptrap]

NFTs need an epic crash before they can take their rightful place as genuine item authenticators, concert tickets, and CSGO skins. I can't wait to taste the salt when the big one hits.

 

[Terrifik]

https://twitter.com/CoinersTakingLs/status/1460374081262407685/photo/3

https://twitter.com/Vince_Van_Dough/status/1460017352293109767

 

[Sir Joahim Browinson III]

As a person who ocasionally does character design and art, I feel really confused about this whole thing.

1. As far as I am concerned, blockchain can trace where token was assigned, but I am not sure how it proves that you initially have a right to own it. You can just take someone's stuff, asign token to it and sell it and system will assume it's yours. Does this mean authors are soon gonna be forced to copyright or convert all their stuff to NFT to protect it from the same NFT grifters (assuming this buble won't burst any time soon) ?

2. Is NFT even = full copyright? Because if no, and it's just cost in money attached to a file you can literally change one pixel and technically it's a different file and there is no legal grounds to claim it's stealing. And you can resell it as NFT too...

3. Physical paintings and art pieces are sold for rediculous prices mostly because there can only exist one original copy (Unless artist himself makes more of them). Making it somewhat valueble exactly because it's unique and other copies are visually simmilar reproductions. With fully digital art it's kind of hard to understand where the line between original and reproduction exists, mostly because digital images can be copied 1 to 1 as simple as pressing a few buttons.

 

[Punished Brent]

Oh yeah! I like to follow all the crypto scams so I have been seeing alot of this nonsense.
fookin proper retarded

 

[Itterasshai]

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…

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.

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...

NFTs are like regular tokens, except they aren't interchangeable, hence "non-fungible." On Ethereum, they are issued under the ERC-721 standard, unlike normal tokens which are designated ERC-20. NFTs can be transacted like any other token or Ether itself, the only difference is that they can't be divided into parts, and there's only one. Whatever the NFT "represents" is attached in metadata to the token when it is deployed. This metadata is usually a link to a file uploaded to IPFS, a protocol that allows files to be stored online in a decentralized way, similarly to a torrent. The uploaded file is usually an image, gif, or mp3. However, NFTs could theoretically represent and act as a "proof-of-ownership" for anything, as long as it can be made digital.

Appreciate your explanations. I surmise that the legal weight of NFTs will eventually be decided with regulation, the same way cryptocurrencies are becoming regulated now that they have become more widely used. And so, I have another question. Can NFT metadata be used to store not only a link to the file it is connected to but also a description of what exactly that connection implies? Contractual terms of sorts. Otherwise, I gather that an NFT grants its owner not much else but a right to interact with one copy of a file stored in a particular place, which seems like an inferior, more convoluted alternative to just buying it the way it is done now with music, films, and the like.

And, while I do agree that NFTs are currently useful as a means of speculation, I do not find it a particularly meaningful point to discuss, as quite about anything can be speculated on. I could write ‘Certificate of Ownership — 1 l of air’ on a piece of paper in crayons, find a sucker willing to buy it, and thus that piece of paper would technically acquire value, but this is not the kind of value people refer to when they call something ‘worthless’ or enquire about the use of something.

...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...

I am not savvy about the terminology, unfortunately. NFT exchanges that you refer to, are those the online marketplaces where people can sell and buy their Picrew avatar NFTs?

 

[Five or Six Stores]

As a person who ocasionally does character design and art, I feel really confused about this whole thing.

1. As far as I am concerned, blockchain can trace where token was assigned, but I am not sure how it proves that you initially have a right to own it. You can just take someone's stuff, asign token to it and sell it and system will assume it's yours. Does this mean authors are soon gonna be forced to copyright or convert all their stuff to NFT to protect it from the same NFT grifters (assuming this buble won't burst any time soon) ?

2. Is NFT even = full copyright? Because if no, and it's just cost in money attached to a file you can literally change one pixel and technically it's a different file and there is no legal grounds to claim it's stealing. And you can resell it as NFT too...

3. Physical paintings and art pieces are sold for rediculous prices mostly because there can only exist one original copy (Unless artist himself makes more of them). Making it somewhat valueble exactly because it's unique and other copies are visually simmilar reproductions. With fully digital art it's kind of hard to understand where the line between original and reproduction exists, mostly because digital images can be copied 1 to 1 as simple as pressing a few buttons.

Making an NFT in no way prevents someone from making an NFT from the same image, or even the same URL I believe. NFT has nothing to do with copyright either, and wallets can be stolen so if you used an NFT as evidence of copyright ownership then the ownership rights could literally be stolen from you.

I think it may have been said earlier in the thread but I think NFTs will eventually be used for some completely different use. Right now they've rose to prominence as a way of collecting art but they're really bad for that. It's just a bubble

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

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?

Nobody will buy your stuff if you don't have a following. Think about it: everyone and their grandma is making NFTs now. Build a twitter fanbase and make some connections in the NFT world, then you might see some profit.

 

[Fastest Hand In The East]

The whole idea of NFTS seems to be exceptional. And when I see an exceptional idea that could not be created by sane or non-exceptional person- I start thinking of the double meaning.
Money laundering, corruption schemes, rackets, that sorts of thing.
So far I can't see anything for the NFTS, except for, maybe, money laundering if you use the real money, but that's true for all over-hyper "counter-culture" art.
Also the fact that other, even more exceptional people, say it damages muh environment, makes me want to support NFTS just out of spite.

 

[Easterling]

The whole idea of NFTS seems to be exceptional. And when I see an exceptional idea that could not be created by sane or non-exceptional person- I start thinking of the double meaning.
Money laundering, corruption schemes, rackets, that sorts of thing.
So far I can't see anything for the NFTS, except for, maybe, money laundering if you use the real money, but that's true for all over-hyper "counter-culture" art.

Turn back the clock to 2009 and you can easily apply the same arguements to bitcoin or crypto in general and here we are in 2021 with fuckers using pitsburgh as thier personal powerbank and abandoned mineshafts being used to host graphics cards and processors.

im not saying monkey jpegs will be the new crypto, but what i am saying is that what ever the result is, i'll still be laughing at the sheer absurdity of it

 

[Fastest Hand In The East]

Turn back the clock to 2009 and you can easily apply the same arguements to bitcoin or crypto in general and here we are in 2021 with fuckers using pitsburgh as thier personal powerbank and abandoned mineshafts being used to host graphics cards and processors.

I never thought that, it was obvious crypto will stay around for at least one simple reason- you can buy drugs with them via dead drops. Even if everything else about crypto shatters- it did wonders for that market.
And since my country has unlimited nuclear energy, I've got myself dedicated miners running on my little own little farm. Makes me 250-400$ per month. What a time to be alive.

 

[Serin Spaghetti]

Why yes, I would download a car and nobody can stop me!!!