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

[centaursTesticle [CT]]

As far as NFTs having no inherent value, you could say the same about Etherium or Bitcoin… or US dollars. But if a buyer and a seller come together to exchange items in mutual, voluntary trade, those things have value at least to the people involved in that trade. Capitalism 101. If you wouldn't have participated in such a trade, then the items perhaps didn't have value to you, but it still had value to somebody. Saying "I'd never buy an NFT so they're worthless" is like a man saying "I'd never buy tampons so they're worthless" or a non-diabetic saying "I'd never buy insulin injections so they're worthless."

Also, I'm not the first to make this argument, but I like it so I'm going to repeat it: How many of these perpetually-offended people whining about NFTs would gladly put down thousands of dollars for a rare Funko Pop doll made of plastic, an environmentally-unfriendly material made of petroleum?

Yeah the blockchain thing should be corrected but that's how it was written in the article. I'll keep that in mind if I write anything about it myself though.

First of all thank you for the feedback.
Second, tampons have a purpose: soaking up menstrual blood. Insulin has purpose: regulating blood sugar stuff. NFTs are trying to do what dollars, yen, euros, bitcoin, ect. have already done. Gay funny monke pictures aren't really an upgrade as far as currency goes imo..

Also I agree with that last paragraph, but the thing is: fuck those people as well.

 

[Cesspit Clogger]

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.

Some feedback and opinions:

The phrase "the blockchain" implies there is only one blockchain. In fact, most cryptocurrencies have their own entirely separate blockchains; there's a Bitcoin blockchain, a Litecoin blockchain, an Etherium blockchain, a Dogecoin blockchain, etc. Heck, you could start your own blockchain today on your home PC if you so desire. Most NFTs are represented on the Etherium blockchain which was the first "next-generation" blockchain which was designed with the extensibility to do things like have other tokens and contracts stored and traded on it which subsequently became widely used, whereas with earlier and simpler blockchains like Bitcoin's, you can exchange Bitcoin tokens and… that's about it.

Regarding the environmental concerns, see above about most of these NFTs being traded on the Etherium blockchain. That blockchain existed before NFTs were popular, and would continue to exist if they all disappeared tomorrow. The energy expenditure and environmental concerns were all there before NFTs really became a thing and NFTs haven't really affected things all that much. Saying NFTs are causing environmental damage is like saying wearing a hat while driving a car causes you to use gasoline.

As far as NFTs having no inherent value, you could say the same about Etherium or Bitcoin… or US dollars. But if a buyer and a seller come together to exchange items in mutual, voluntary trade, those things have value at least to the people involved in that trade. Capitalism 101. If you wouldn't have participated in such a trade, then the items perhaps didn't have value to you, but it still had value to somebody. Saying "I'd never buy an NFT so they're worthless" is like a man saying "I'd never buy tampons so they're worthless" or a non-diabetic saying "I'd never buy insulin injections so they're worthless."

Also, I'm not the first to make this argument, but I like it so I'm going to repeat it: How many of these perpetually-offended people whining about NFTs would gladly put down thousands of dollars for a rare Funko Pop doll made of plastic, an environmentally-unfriendly material made of petroleum?

One not-irrelevant point you missed is that a contract for a car represents ownership of an actual, useful, physical entity. You can go around this fact with the "it has value to somebody" argument, but at the end of the day, it's valuable because fine art auction houses (AKA money laundering cartels) are testing the waters right now, and for that, they need these series of bits to hold some extremely imaginary value. It's not a stock, and it's not a currency, not even a crypto currency. It is not alike to the Funko Pop, it is the digital equivalent of the Funko Pop: the minimal amount of substance that can hold intrinsic value.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Probably rate me late for it, but isn't NFT just a rerun of the comic book/trading card crash? where everyone's dad wasted their money on a reprinted X-Men #1 thinking they'll sell it back in a decade for a million dollars only to discover it's worth jack shit because Marvel printed a million of those things.

 

[419]

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.

One not-irrelevant point you missed is that a contract for a car represents ownership of an actual, useful, physical entity. You can go around this fact with the "it has value to somebody" argument, but at the end of the day, it's valuable because fine art auction houses (AKA money laundering cartels) are testing the waters right now, and for that, they need these series of bits to hold some extremely imaginary value. It's not a stock, and it's not a currency, not even a crypto currency. It is not alike to the Funko Pop, it is the digital equivalent of the Funko Pop: the minimal amount of substance that can hold intrinsic value.

With both of these together in mind, the problem then really boils down not to the concept or even application of an NFT, but to the idea that someone can "own" digital artwork. The people who keep buying into that stupid notion are exactly the reason that the right-click > Save As... joke is even making the rounds, and they're usually just as bad, if not worse than the "anti-NFT" crowd, when it comes to conflating the two together, which is how we ended up with all these stupid gimmick lines trying to cash in on the unprecedented success of the much earlier concept projects like CryptoPunks purely because high-art niggers decided to do some test runs as well.

In other words, art houses like Sotheby's not being bombed to the ground instead of allowed to latch onto crypto as a whole was a mistake.

 

[Gone Ham]

NFT's are gay and anyone who believes in them deserve to be scammed

 

[Lift Me Up]

https://mintable.app/art/item/ballsack-rare/BhxwLwzOM5bT-9O

No
Fucking
Thank You

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

Are there any MMOs or games that utilize or will utilize NFTs? It’s a use case I find interesting.

Probably rate me late for it, but isn't NFT just a rerun of the comic book/trading card crash? where everyone's dad wasted their money on a reprinted X-Men #1 thinking they'll sell it back in a decade for a million dollars only to discover it's worth jack shit because Marvel printed a million of those things.

Yes. That’s exactly what it is.

 

[Jewthulhu]

Why are most NFTs so fucking ugly? They either look like stoner "art" or shit done by a complete amateur.

Even if they WERE good, what's the point of paying for a .jpg anyway? Even outside the fact you can just "save as" the image for free, is it really worth paying any amount of money to post an ebin reaction image on a twitter thread before forgetting about it forever in a folder somewhere?

 

[Least Concern]

With both of these together in mind, the problem then really boils down not to the concept or even application of an NFT, but to the idea that someone can "own" digital artwork.

Owning digital art isn't a weird concept. If it helps, think of ownership over digital artwork to mean ownership over the rights to the digital artwork, since that's closer to the truth anyway. For example, Ralph took that video of Chris getting arrested. That video was quickly shared all over the Internet, but it's right to say that Ralph owned the copyrights to that video, and can (and, from what I understand, did) exercise those rights to issue takedowns to people sharing the video without commentary or fair-use context or such or demand licensing fees.

Now what Ralph could do is to put the rights of ownership of that video into an NFT. Now, whoever owns the Chris arrest video NFT has the copyright to that video just as Ralph did. If I bought that NFT from Ralph, I could now brag about owning that video, or issue my own takedowns or licensing fees - or sell the NFT representing those rights to someone else.

EDIT to avoid double-posting:

Why are most NFTs so fucking ugly? They either look like stoner "art" or shit done by a complete amateur.

For many of the more lazy NFTs representing art, the artworks are procedurally-created from a finite set of assets which are combined together to make the art. So for example, the bitmap portraits might contain hair style B, hair color F, face G, eye color R, skin color P, etc. If you look at other portraits from the same set of NFTs, you'll start to see these patterns.

Even if they WERE good, what's the point of paying for a .jpg anyway? Even outside the fact you can just "save as" the image for free, is it really worth paying any amount of money to post an ebin reaction image on a twitter thread before forgetting about it forever in a folder somewhere?

You've missed the basic point of NFTs, though to be fair, you're hardly alone in this. Please read the OP and the few replies to this thread so far before posting again.

 

[UtInEqUA]

i have no idea who made my profile pic, but ima sell it as a nft and make millions from faggots

 

[419]

Owning digital art isn't a weird concept. If it helps, think of ownership over digital artwork to mean ownership over the rights to the digital artwork, since that's closer to the truth anyway. For example, Ralph took that video of Chris getting arrested. That video was quickly shared all over the Internet, but it's right to say that Ralph owned the copyrights to that video, and can (and, from what I understand, did) exercise those rights to issue takedowns to people sharing the video without commentary or fair-use context or such or demand licensing fees.

Now what Ralph could do is to put the rights of ownership of that video into an NFT. Now, whoever owns the Chris arrest video NFT has the copyright to that video just as Ralph did. If I bought that NFT from Ralph, I could now brag about owning that video, or issue my own takedowns or licensing fees - or sell the NFT representing those rights to someone else.

Even that would be a better application since it plays directly to others' appeal to using NFTs as a proof-of-ownership for legally-binding documents. Effectively, then you'd own or hold a contract saying you have this-and-that right to use that piece of media accordingly, and you being the bearer of that document is easily verifiable.

To reiterate, however, the main issue so far has been people thinking that you own the digital media itself. We've already seen enough reason throughout the decades of the Internet's existence, and witnessed enough court cases involving music publishers and DRM and the like, to know that that's fucking retarded.

 

[Joan Nyan]

As far as NFTs having no inherent value, you could say the same about Etherium or Bitcoin… or US dollars.

The inherent value of USD is that it's the only currency the IRS accepts and they'll put you in jail if you don't give them protection money every year.

Ethereum and bitcoin having no inherent value... yeah they don't lmao, and that's why their uses as currency are very niche. They only have a legitimate use case because of the corporate monopoly over traditional payment systems keeping eg. Kiwi Farms from accepting credit cards. They're one little regulation away from worthlessness.

 

[Least Concern]

To reiterate, however, the main issue so far has been people thinking that you own the digital media itself. We've already seen enough reason throughout the decades of the Internet's existence, and witnessed enough court cases involving music publishers and DRM and the like, to know that that's fucking exceptional.

But nobody who has done any research about what NFTs really are believes that, though. People repeating falsities to each other about reality is a problem outside of and beyond the concept of NFTs.

The inherent value of USD is that it's the only currency the IRS accepts and they'll put you in jail if you don't give them protection money every year.

That is one fact that gives it value. But another is that I can use dollars to buy a cheeseburger at McDonald's, and thus dollars have value to McDonald's and cheeseburgers have value to me (so therefore dollars also have value to me). EDIT: To put it another way, do dollars have no value to tax cheats then? Or people who don't live in the US and aren't subject to US taxes?

Ethereum and bitcoin having no inherent value... yeah they don't lmao, and that's why their uses as currency are very niche. They only have a legitimate use case because of the corporate monopoly over traditional payment systems keeping eg. Kiwi Farms from accepting credit cards. They're one little regulation away from worthlessness.

Conducting trade involving cocaine has been banned by regulation in the US. Is cocaine worthless?

Stop thinking governments define reality.

 

[Admin Dissipate Swordfish]

Probably rate me late for it, but isn't NFT just a rerun of the comic book/trading card crash? where everyone's dad wasted their money on a reprinted X-Men #1 thinking they'll sell it back in a decade for a million dollars only to discover it's worth jack shit because Marvel printed a million of those things.

That's what I believe it to be, apart from the people who use it to run scams and money laundering.

Joe Average doesn't fully understand what an "En Ef Tee" is outside of the weird art its linked to, and he probably sees that it's making people money, and it's making people huge bucks sorta like that "bitcoin" and all those "cryptocurrencies" a few years back. So he thinks to get in on the ground floor of this new investment since all the tech bros are into it, and he's gonna make his money back, right?

At least with comic books, trading cards, and beanie babies, there was something to hold and look at for your "investment", and with crypto, it was still understandable as a sort of "monopoly money but techy". However, with NFTs at its basic core, I don't think even half of the people buying into it understands its appeal other than it can maybe make them money back in the future.

 

[Suikafag]

Good to see my suggestion has finally come into fruition. Great thread mate, I can’t wait to see it bloom and prosper since it has a lot of potential milk

 

[Baked Al-Aqsa]

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?

 

[Samoyed]

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.

Some feedback and opinions:

The phrase "the blockchain" implies there is only one blockchain. In fact, most cryptocurrencies have their own entirely separate blockchains; there's a Bitcoin blockchain, a Litecoin blockchain, an Etherium blockchain, a Dogecoin blockchain, etc. Heck, you could start your own blockchain today on your home PC if you so desire. Most NFTs are represented on the Etherium blockchain which was the first "next-generation" blockchain which was designed with the extensibility to do things like have other tokens and contracts stored and traded on it which subsequently became widely used, whereas with earlier and simpler blockchains like Bitcoin's, you can exchange Bitcoin tokens and… that's about it.

Regarding the environmental concerns, see above about most of these NFTs being traded on the Etherium blockchain. That blockchain existed before NFTs were popular, and would continue to exist if they all disappeared tomorrow. The energy expenditure and environmental concerns were all there before NFTs really became a thing and NFTs haven't really affected things all that much. Saying NFTs are causing environmental damage is like saying wearing a hat while driving a car causes you to use gasoline.

As far as NFTs having no inherent value, you could say the same about Etherium or Bitcoin… or US dollars. But if a buyer and a seller come together to exchange items in mutual, voluntary trade, those things have value at least to the people involved in that trade. Capitalism 101. If you wouldn't have participated in such a trade, then the items perhaps didn't have value to you, but it still had value to somebody. Saying "I'd never buy an NFT so they're worthless" is like a man saying "I'd never buy tampons so they're worthless" or a non-diabetic saying "I'd never buy insulin injections so they're worthless."

Also, I'm not the first to make this argument, but I like it so I'm going to repeat it: How many of these perpetually-offended people whining about NFTs would gladly put down thousands of dollars for a rare Funko Pop doll made of plastic, an environmentally-unfriendly material made of petroleum?

nfts aren't like tampons or insulin. insulin and tampons have a purpose for a need. nfts are a want for ppl with no sense of style. people have unlimited wants, but they are going to prioritize needs to be happy unless they are bad at spending money. nfts are not going to save u during ur period.

nfts are garbage. they have a market, yes, but the market is for fuck boys who listen to rice gum's raps, wear supreme, eat hot cheetos, and cry. Nfts are #1, a horrible investment, and #2, useless. people have bought these monkey pics for 100k+, only for it to crash to a couple thousand dollars. as well, the creator of nfts is just like "yea these things are scams lol they'll be useless in the next 10 years"

they r awful. and stupid.

 

[The Lawgiver]

Haha funny monkey picture.

 

[1440p Curved Monitor]

Oo! There's been some recent drama in the underground nft community. Hicetnunc (HEN), a nft hosting website for Tezos based art, suddenly went offline. This is a rather big community as the website just hit 500k minted artworks (they're called OBJKTs) and the discord has 18k members. I was busy with some irl shit when it happened so I missed all of the drama real time, but I've been told it's because the owner was salty over some criticism and decided to just nuke the whole project. None of the discord mods or community members were told of this ahead of time.
People are pretty upset about it because HEN has some real good shit. You do occasionally get some crappy art but there are a few gems. 1 Tezos is about $7 USD and minting on HEN via Tezos is much more environmentally friendly than Ethereum. Check it out on the current mirror for yourself.

 

[themasterlurker]

Artists are getting pissy over people buying their NFTs and then using them for their own purchases when the entire idea of NFTs are to change a designation of ownership, some artists are also writing in their contracts that you cannot use the imgae as an NFT (but don't worry if you post it or use it anywhere someone can just right-click save and then put it up to market)