- Joined
- Jul 6, 2015
So, let's say I have a physical piece of fin art I've made: who do I talk to to become confusingly rich?
NFT (Non-Fungible Tokens) - Files as crypto currency
- Thread starter Spergerella
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
I can’t hate this if someone found a way to get rich off lonely mouth breathers that fall in love with cartoon women.
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a giant smokescreen to facilitate money laundering or am I just retarded?
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
No, you're pretty much right on the money, pun intended.
There was even an attempt to get disney involved by deliberately nfting disney things like how they dealt with the dumbass twitter tshirt bots but that panned out to a big fat nothing. People are going to gnash their teeth about the environment and how it's intellectual theft and whatever but at the end of the day it's here to stay because it's a rich person's game.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Its not too late to buy Ethereum. All the normie media is talking about NFT's and use Bitcoin for reference as "the crypto" part of it. But this is all being done on the Ethereum network, not the Bitcoin network. Right now ETH is hamstrung by high transaction fees which is what is weighing on its price and preventing this stuff from really blasting off. However, that should change if the ETH 2.0 upgrade goes off without a hitch, tentatively set for June or July. Moving from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake will reduce (In theory) electrical costs bigly, making the network massively more efficient and cheaper to use. Light years ahead of Bitcoin it should be noted.
The problem is that Proof of Stake is far less secure to Proof of Work, meaning a bad actor could in theory hijack the network given a sufficient in. The security aspect of it is why the upgrade is taking so fucking long, even as Gas fees continue to increase and prevent using ETH in a meaningful way. There is some big money behind the program now though. The fact that the Billionaires have started using it to launder their taxable income should tell you that much. There is almost a code of omerta in the media over mentioning the word "Ethereum" right now. They always just say "Bitcoin", so in my unlearned opinion this means they don't want the normies to know about it right now while they and their buddies stock up on ETH. That is just speculation though.
Put together, the explosion of the NFT market using Ethereum, the planned London Hard Fork in the summer, and the massive institutional interest in it means if you want in on the scam, buy some ETH. Just remember if their 2.0 upgrade fails, the price will crater harder then the Dinosaurs.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
After sperging to my employers directors about this and being told they aren’t interested, they now are hosting a webinar all about NFTs with a CEO of an NFT co. Suddenly their big money clientele and brokers must be getting a whiff.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Its an exciting time, but also super duper risky time for Crypto as it finally enters the mainstream. I know I have been skeptic for years. I have Nulls chosen browser Brave to thank for really turning me onto the idea and actually looking into this stuff more closely. I can get paid for looking at ads directly? How? Why? WTF is a BAT? Seeing this explosion of utility on the Ethereum blockchain also shows which way the wind is starting to blow, and its not into Bitcoin, its into ETH. Bitcoin was first in, best dressed, but there is no way that Network could support the transaction load that is in the offering here. There is also the HUGE issue of the millions of unaccounted for BTC out in the wild that the market has priced in as lost. No guarantee that that is true. Some of which are believed to held by the networks creator(s), who have still not been revealed. ETH does not have this particular Volcano that may or may not erupt sitting on its ledger sheet.
If the ETH 2.0 goes off well, I expect we will start to see ETH begin to eclipse BTC, possibly even start a cycle of creative destruction where ETH eats BTC's value and things invert. Like what happened between Netflix and Blockbuster where the newer, sleeker, more easier to use product took the old dinosaur to the cleaners. Of course, if the ETH upgrade fails, which it can for a variety of reasons, be it poor security, a miner revolt of sufficient size to prevent the Hard Fork getting approved, etc, then Ethereum is fucked and its on to the next thing and back into the safety of BTC's store of value.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2020
Does this mean i can make my rare pepes worth something!?
Selling for $100000 DO NOT STEAL
Selling for $100000 DO NOT STEAL
jje100010001
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2020
Physical artwork I can understand- no matter how stupid and talentless it is, it still physically *exists* in meatspace, has a physical history, and cannot be perfectly replicated (your copy of the Mona Lisa will always be different from the original one).
IMO there is really no direct value in a piece of digital artwork, especially when you can effortlessly download a near-perfect copy of it and upscale it with waifu2x- you're essentially owning just a bit of code.
Instead, I do think that NFTs have value in other areas (i.e. boosting land deeds), but this artwork scheme is really just another case of Dutch Tulip Mania and/or money laundering. That being said, considering the state of online gaming and how easily people fall for monetization schemes, I do see this having some roots to carry on for awhile.
The question is for us Kiwifarmers- how do we cash in on this scheme?
I have some Etherium, but do you think it's better to wait till 2.0 before buying more?
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
We could always make MS paint drawings of Null's alabaster white ass and sell them
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
If you have to ask how, you're not well-connected enough to pull it off.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2018
If there's any other way to explain the rapid success of NFTs beyond apparent money laundering I absolutely would love to know.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
Well, tax right offs? Tho I have a rough time believing the donation of a digital art file to an art museum is going to be accepted by the IRS yet.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
Actually the more I read about this, the crankier I’m getting. It’s definitely a grift on content creators/artists. To enter the game they have to buy ether, then use that ether to mint on a gambling fad.
Plus it’s painfully obvious how little is understood. I keep finding that collectors believe they are also purchasing the copyright to any images they collect. Or they believe the token and artwork are the same thing.
Plus it’s painfully obvious how little is understood. I keep finding that collectors believe they are also purchasing the copyright to any images they collect. Or they believe the token and artwork are the same thing.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2019
This is probably retarded but I want to inB4 ....
Could we create an NFT Rare Gator Collection and sell it to support the site?
Could we create an NFT Rare Gator Collection and sell it to support the site?
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
WTF am I looking at?!
Unless they’d be bought for more than the fees to mint them it wouldn’t be profitable.
Man Flavored Tofu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
NTF seems to be the logical next step of blockchain technology.
I know corporations have been eager to assign "ownership" to their products. I suspect this type of tech is intended to destroy file sharing, and the entertainment industry has been wanting this for years.
The problem with past verification systems for digital content was it's limited scope and unreliability, Crypto currencies proved it's a reliable way to prove ownership and can handle a huge volume of transactions. Two essential traits for companies to monetize digital content. The good news would be that people can buy digital content, whether it be an e-book, song or movie, and actually own the product. Bad news could come in the form of devices only allowing "verified" content to be played or viewed to prevent content piracy.
It will be interesting to see what legislation and regulation develops from this kind of tech. Will people be able to purchase games from Steam and resell them for example? A law change can either create or destroy an entire industry at this point with all the unanswered questions this tech.
I know corporations have been eager to assign "ownership" to their products. I suspect this type of tech is intended to destroy file sharing, and the entertainment industry has been wanting this for years.
The problem with past verification systems for digital content was it's limited scope and unreliability, Crypto currencies proved it's a reliable way to prove ownership and can handle a huge volume of transactions. Two essential traits for companies to monetize digital content. The good news would be that people can buy digital content, whether it be an e-book, song or movie, and actually own the product. Bad news could come in the form of devices only allowing "verified" content to be played or viewed to prevent content piracy.
It will be interesting to see what legislation and regulation develops from this kind of tech. Will people be able to purchase games from Steam and resell them for example? A law change can either create or destroy an entire industry at this point with all the unanswered questions this tech.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
How can you say that when Amazon, iTunes, Steam, and the like have already deployed digital content "ownership" systems at a global scale? Amazon will even let you lend out your Kindle books to others, temporarily transferring the "ownership". Steam will let you trade or sell cards and items, and the only reason they don't let you resell games too is because they don't want to. This is a solved problem already.
Plus, there's one big issue with using a blockchain for content ownership: it's all public. I don't want the whole world knowing I bought the 8K HD version of "Anal Sluts Gone Berserk".
Just you guys.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
The issue with those is that the ownership was provable only on a single ledger. The ledger controlled by the company. An NFT traded on the Ethereum network however creates a permanent record outside the control of the selling company.How can you say that when Amazon, iTunes, Steam, and the like have already deployed digital content "ownership" systems at a global scale? Amazon will even let you lend out your Kindle books to others, temporarily transferring the "ownership". Steam will let you trade or sell cards and items, and the only reason they don't let you resell games too is because they don't want to. This is a solved problem already.
Plus, there's one big issue with using a blockchain for content ownership: it's all public. I don't want the whole world knowing I bought the 8K HD version of "Anal Sluts Gone Berserk".
Just you guys.
Right now you "own" your Amazon music or steam game only so long as both companies stay in business. If for whatever reason they go under and their ledger book is closed then bully for you. Your proof of ownership is gone too. Not if the proof was on the block chain however. There still needs to be a legal framework established but in theory if you bought a steam game with a steam token registered on the ETH network, even if steam disappears you can still assert ownership of that digital file and if needs be get it from another source.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
But does that even make sense? What would it even mean for multiple companies to "service" ownership on a shared ledger?
At the very least, this would be a major overhaul of every business touching on intellectual property, in the name of changes that none of them particularly want (and some specifically don't want).
Thought experiment: I have one license to a piece of software or media. The license is recorded as an NFT on a public blockchain, and there are multiple entities that I might call on to supply the binaries, give me a runtime environment, and so on. What if I request service on this license from two different suppliers at once? Who enforces the limitation to one copy?
If it's the suppliers, are they communicating amongst themselves to make sure I'm not double-dipping? And if so, aren't we just back in a super-monopoly situation with one effective authority and one ledger?
If it's the software maker having its software "phone home", then isn't their database really the master record here and the blockchain is superfluous?
If you "check in and check out" software on the blockchain itself in realtime, are we really OK with broadcasting these details to the world? And how does this interact with computers not having 24/7 internet, a client being lost or destroyed before it can "return" its license, etc?
Microsoft already has a model sort of like this when it comes to their volume licensing and reselling. In their case, they let the resellers sell you keys and distribute binaries which you (or they) can manage however you like, but the real database that matters is theirs.