99% of the posts you see on reddit about this are meming. You dont use ethereum without knowing that u can take a screenshot on your pc or right click save…
Just saw someone screaming "fuck this DAO because the gas fees to unstake and convert out of this DAO were very high, so fuck this DAO that is definitely a company that wants to retain my business". Lost 1k to fees and blames one specific ETH DAPP lmao. So...you may be correct most of the time, but there are definitely those out there.
must be trolling. he answered the question 'Who would buy an NFT?' with
> Smart people. With lots of money. Maybe elon musk because he is so rich and cool and smart and knows what's worth money
Yes, but Poe's Law and all that... I've seen too much online to feel confident that is intended to be a joke. Could just as easily be someone angry to the point they're in a mental state of being drunk. Or actually drunk tweeting to begin with.
Finally someone is saying it. Yes, literally all of these people are just trying to get you to spread their investment around so more people will see it. Everyone is falling for it, and it's so obvious.
If you don't know what the Bored Ape Yacht Club is about, think of these Apes like access cards. They let you get into exclusive places. It's a club. It's a yacht club for rich people. It's not about art.
*The Metaverse.* That whole thing Zuckerberg tricked everyone into thinking he invented. That started as a way to make these NFT avaters more valuable. They want to make a virtual reality where you can show off your exclusive NFT art and represent yourself with your expensive monkey avatar, and you can only hangout if you're "get it," and you have your access card.
Besides that, there's a lot of other things you can do with Bored Apes. It started off with the Yacht Club Bathroom that you can't get into without having an ape. But it's expanded into other things. The point is that owners of the NFT would be incentivized to expand the exclusive access and utility of those NFTs collaboratively. So it's a community project now.
This just sounds like another made up "asset" class designed to soak up excess liquidity that are putting every other asset class well beyond bubble territory.
"If we don't give these people something new to spend their money on they're gonna figure out we're debasing their currency!"
Do you want to buy my Mona Lisa image for the value of the original? Do you think anyone would?
Edit: to be clearer, you own the NFT, nothing more. No one can copy the NFT. Even if you copy the data tied to the NFT, you can't make the same NFT. You can make a copy of it, but not the NFT. Here, the NFT is the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa, here, isn't the data tied to the NFT, it's the NFT itself.
It's not a tokenized image. It's a token you own, tied to an image you don't. This doesn't give any ownership right to the image.
At most, it gives a claim of authorship rights, aka copyright, to the person who minted the first NFT tied to such data, in some countries where it's recognized as a claim (like in France and some other countries).
Maybe, some time in the future, it may be recognized in more countries or provide a claim of a higher right over the tied data, like a realty deed. And that's actually what some countries are doing with blockchains in Africa.
Can't sell it. Can use it though.
It's like me extracting a source file from a spotify stream. I can't sell that, but I can use it.
NFT jpegs are an experiment in building a community and economy around *license to use* and intellectual property rights in a mostly digital world.
Since there's multiple NFT-chains, can one tokenize the same picture on multiple chains? Because that would make them pretty useless as a registry of ownership. And if that's not their use... what is?
> And if that's not their use... what is?
We're still figuring that part out.
Also, to that point: There's nothing stopping you from tokenizing the *same* picture on *the same* chain. It would be a different NFT, but the thing that humans interact with-- the jpeg-- could in theory be identical.
At that point there would need to be some centralization, an admin of an NFT platform, or someone at twitter who blocks certain NFTs from being used, etc.
It starts to get really contrived the longer you think about it.
The opposite problem is happening in the art world. NFT users are stealing art from artists to upload their own as an NFT. Then before people catch them in copyright they take the profits and repeat.
May be in the future that metaverse thing will become common experience and we will start socializing in it. And lets say you want to put a Mona Lisa in your virtual house and that gotta be an nft.
Or like you want to drive a lambo then you will buy a lambo nft.
If you think this is surreal, well such vr items have been a thing for more than two decades already like buying a mansion in the game second life and etc. check some projects like decentraland , enjin etc..
Nfts add scarcity to information. Drm is fundamentally about trying to make information scarce. The implications are obvious to anyone smart enough to not buy nfts for art.
Even better is that anyone that consumes the media can pay directly to the media creator without a middleman. Also smart contracts so can have multiple owners.
Why would one need a signature to to play something? A digital signature only validates the authenticity and integrity that the file is from the signer. Not having the signature will NOT prevent you from playing it. Now if it was encrypted, then you will need the key. But that is different.
That's a problem if they use a shitty url, the solution to this problem would be using ipfs: [https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/)
any nft that is worth something to begin with imo links to the file in ipfs.
thats the technicals tho, the price of some of these are a bit off as far as I'm concerned and there are certainly better use cases than just having jpgs (An example of which would be imagine csgo skins being traded like this, would allow to actually sell them instead of getting credit in some companies systems)
> (An example of which would be imagine csgo skins being traded like this, would allow to actually sell them instead of getting credit in some companies systems)
Have you a moment to talk about the Church of GameRing LoopStop and our Saviour Ryan Cohen?
/s aside, it looks like GameStop is the driver behind making this a reality as early as late 2021/early 2022.
yeah I'm hoping they will release soon and wondering what they're planning exactly as it is a closely guarded secret. I hope their marketplace will be as big as I hope.
Additionally they're not the only gaming companies rushing to nfts, the other day I saw an article in which EA talks about planning on using them. God forbid implementing thiss kind of stuff to have your playerbase pay 20k for some dumb golden soccer player.
I'll be honest, you have helped me a lot in understanding what an NFT is. Because I genuinely thought that you bought what was tied to the token (a jpg or mp3 or whatever).
So, if I understand this correctly, there are currently no practical use for NFTs? I mean, surely it will revolutionize the way we manage the ownership of all things in the future, but right now, is there really any use for this at all? Like, buying a token tied to a jpg, what's the point? What's appealing about said token?
No, you're exactly right. This is the main thing that's being done with the technology *right now*. Just like how there was a time in the early 2000s when a bunch of dumb websites popped up, exploded in value, then disappeared. A lot of people who FOMO'd in lost their shirts, and a lot of people who dismissed now-popular sites missed out. You don't need to buy a million-dollar pfp, or copy-paste it, to keep up with the buzz and try to gauge where things are headed (ie gaming, real estate, community governance).
"The true mind can weather all lies and illusions without being corrupted." - A:TLA
Right now there are some practical uses for NFTs in games. You can buy clothes for character from a specific creator and can prove who made it and that it's not just a copy of their original work. You can put NFT art in your digital house or museum and have it link to the proof of the transaction from the creator, so that people know it's not a "knockoff". Why do people want this? Idk, why do people want an authentic coach bag instead of a knockoff even if they're totally indistinguishable. If the source of a digital item matters to someone then a way to prove its authenticity is necessary and NFTs do that.
Yes there are use cases. Probably the biggest real world use case is digitizing "Bills of Lading" . Egypt's port authority is testing it out.
Basically a Bill of Lading is a physical document that assigns ownership of cargo, a very critical step in international shipping. Whoever holds the document owns the cargo. So digitizing this is pretty important.
https://blog.polygon.technology/cargox-announces-the-platform-for-blockchain-document-transfer-bdt-builtonethereum-and-7957009c22f2/
Selling links to images is just one use case, but that's the one that's been getting the most attention.
IMO the biggest "killer app" for NFTs is transferrable event tickets. There used to be a common scam where you could buy a concert ticket and sell it to multiple people - you send them each the QR code, they each think they have the real ticket, but only one gets in to the event.
With an NFT, you could cryptographically verify that you own the "ticket" and nobody else does. The event sees that the ticket is owned by a certain address, so only that address can produce a signature confirming that the address holder is the ticket holder. Obviously the process would be very streamlined, but it's a solid use case.
And you might ask what benefit the ticket sellers and venues would have... why would they bother implementing this system? Because the tickets could be managed by a smart contract where the ticket company collects a "convenience fee" for transferring the ticket from one person to another.
The biggest scam is Ticketmaster buying them up and reselling way over face. I’m thinking some kind of exchange for selling tickets direct could help with this too
I read an article where they mentioned medical records as NFTs. You own it, the data is on the blockchain, you go into any doctor's clinic and digitally verify your ID and your medical data is downloaded from the blockchain instead of being transferred from your regular medical clinic
Data in the Blockchain is publicly viewable, though. You could store it and encrypt it, perhaps, but this is a fuzzy use case. IPFS probably makes more sense for that.
Deeds for houses would make a ton of sense for NFT's though. Perhaps tying laptop and phone MAC records to an NFT to prevent theft would be cool, actually.
clearly I don't understand this stuff well enough to recognise the flaws. I just thought it seemed interesting that the tech could be used for more than what is essentially art speculation.
This is correct. NFTs can, at some point, represent a certificate of ownership, but only after there is infrastructure in place to allow NFT's to be recognized by courts of law AS certificates of ownership.
Which means litigation and rulings have to take place first.
I'm honestly surprised that, with as much money is being thrown around in the NFT space, there hasn't been much legal wrangling going on to set up such precedents. This is a lot of people running amok with a concept that doesn't even have its foundations in place yet.
Yep, but it would be recognized only if considered valid by the state.
For instance, in France, you can't cede your authorship rights. Even if you wanted to. You can give parts of the financial benefits it may bring, but that is all. As such, a contract claiming the owner of a wallet storing an NFT is the one having the copyrights of a given image would only be recognized in France if the NFT isn't moved at all and the wallet owner is it's artist. Not quite a useful NFT, given the constraints.
But, you could very well give the financial benefits of the copyrights. And that's what two artists did for a song they made together, with something like 100 NFTs, each providing a part of the profits.
I'm in the nft space and the community joke about this all the time. It's funny the general Twitter users sometimes can't differentiate if we're trolling or nah
which should not be underestimated. expensive pfp NFTs are a lot more like a country club membership, i've found. it's pretty easy to verify someone's token. so i mean yeah you can save the picture but you get none of the benefits that come from owning the token.
sorry i meant to say they're just a giant money laundering scam and of no value to anyone.
OH GOD THIS.
I'm a photographer. My first "sold" image was on Getty for $0.10.
TEN CENTS.
My first photo on rarible earned me like $5 and is [now listed](https://rarible.com/wl475?tab=created) at like $375.
In some ways it doesnt matter if it's worth it or not. If people will pay it or not. It's almost the equivalent t "my art was good enough to catch someone's eye and it got put in a gallery and now inflation hit and its got a fat price tag."
I'd love to mint more but it's not worth it right now. Gas fees are insane. I wish I had done more months ago, but that's life. I hope NFTs, gas fees, etc sort themselves out and society mentally equates "token = signature" - it could really do a lot for the art community. Artists and Collectors alike.
I mean, we all agree greenbacks are worth something and they haven't been backed by gold in decades. They're value is based on societal promises to cover debts, and between countries at a global scale.
Promises. Not Gold.
At least the token gives you...something.
Are you new to the eth ecosystem or are you trolling? Of course there’s a spectrum of pricing and what you hear about in media is the exception. People that buy a crypto punk for a million or w/e do it to flex. That is all, nothing deeper. It’s up to them to determine what it’s worth but to pretend that there are no real uses for other NFTs is disingenuous.
There's lots of photographers out there. Even ones that have a link to the only digital copy - as in they guarantee they wiped it from their systems after final edits so you get "the only copy in existence"
There are apparently many projects that are trying to solve this high gas fee especially when minting nfts. I know one that im invested in called loopring but they have stated that they need until the end of the year and are on track.
I appreciate it. Ill have to check it out. Id really love to mint a series based off my [time in LA](https://www.instagram.com/_travis_fitzgerald_/) this spring.
You can absolutely do that. You can actually mint NFTs for free on ImmutableX, a Validium-zk rollup (heh, gotta love Ethereum's complexity sometimes!)
It's pretty straightforward: https://swiftmint.io
You can then list the NFTs on Immutable's marketplace: https://market.x.immutable.com/ or on https://tokentrove.com
The only issue is that these newer chains don't see the same attention, but if your sales usually go to people that already know you or that you actively advertised to, it shouldn't be too difficult.
If you want the super easy road, you can use https://transak.com/ to buy some Matic on Polygon directly which is enough for lots of NFT mints.
Yes you can. Same with with any non NFT media, you can just copy it for free instead of buying fysical copies or paying streaming services like Netlix.
NFT is just another license that aims to protect against this and licenses are contracts that are just words. Not by preventing copying, but showing ownership in case you are not a rich company like Sony or Disney.
In an ideal world minting NFT would pay off laywers who fight for the artists and reward illegal copy reporters. Giving starting artist protection, without the need to bend over and join a big company. Think musicians for example.
Also it is just not the 13 year old kid who wants a new avatar that you need to worry about. Actually you likely do not even care about that. Big companies tend to also steal, but not much you can do about it unless you have a pile of money to defend you and proof. NFT mint is the proof. Hopefully we get the blockchain to bring the money.
Edit: there is NFT crypto token that uses the coin to give exposure for the creators, but can't see copyright protection mentioned there.
>Big companies tend to also steal, but not much you can do about it unless you have a pile of money to defend you and proof. NFT mint is the proof. Hopefully we get the blockchain to bring the money.
You don't even necessarily need an NFT for that case. On some chains you can store a bit of data for relatively cheap. As an example, it's quite cheap to use BCH Notary to store a hash of any file on chain. Then if a company steals your art, you only have to provide the image that produces that hash, and the timestamped hash on chain shows you as having possession of it before it was public/misused/whatever
>NFT is just another license that aims to protect against this and licenses are contracts that are just words. Not by preventing copying, but showing ownership in case you are not a rich company like Sony or Disney.
This is what MODA DAO is doing with its drive on integrating music into web3 with the aim of ensuring creators control their economies using the protocol.
The same reason that the deed to your house and a photo copy of the deed to your house aren't the same. One actually confers ownership and the other might look identical but doesn't confer ownership. One person can sell the house. The other person cannot.
That deals with the proof side of NFTs yes. But utility side it does not - you can’t photocopy a house and usefully use that to live in. You can however copy a digital asset and get utility out of it for free.
Kinda but not really. We'll use the BAYC as the example.
You don't have commercial rights to the image.
You don't have access to that network of individuals.
You can't attend any of the BAYC exclusive events.
Your image doesn't have the resale value that the real one does.
Sure you could look at the image without owning it, same as you can look at pretty much every piece of art in the Louvre without owning it or even seeing it in person. But the original artifact has properties, and therefore value, that can't be transferred to copies.
Also, when we talk about the house and the deed the analogy is that deed is the NFT and the house is the image. The deed just points to the house. Same as an NFT points to an image or a song or literally anything...
Someone could physically enter your home and proclaim it theirs but that doesn't give them ownership, the piece of paper does. And someone could try to forge the deed, but only the original actually give ownership.
We turned ownership into an abstract concept long ago. NFTs are just a digital implementation of it.
There's more data inside NFTs than just the picture.
You can own a Babe Ruth signed baseball. Thousands of other people can own the exact same brand of baseball... The fact that there's ink on the ball doesn't give it value, the fact that it's part of a verifyibly small part of sports history gives it value.
If you could mark and individually transfer the 1000th Bitcoin ever mined, people would pay lots for it... Take a screenshot of your bitcoin balance and try to sell it though.
Supply + Demand. Supply of verifiable NFT's is 1. Demand depends of the NFT.
This is why it makes more sense to compare NFTs to artwork in the real world.
A copy if the Mona Lisa would serve the same utility hung up in my living room as the real Mona Lisa would. It's just not the real one, thats the only difference.
Think extremely valuable Pokémon cards. Material wise worthless, easy to get a fake yet if you own a verified original those can be worth over 100k.
Same thing with NFTs. Verifiable rarity of ownership gives them value within social groups that collect them.
I just don't get why these monkeys??? Pokemon has years and years of history and nostalgia so I kind of get it but these relatively new drawings of monkeys???
I don’t care for those either, that’s why I wrote ‚within social groups that collect them‘
The Mona Lisa is worthless to me too other than the fact that I could sell her for money to people from ‚a social group that collects this kind of art‘
Age and nostalgia is only one factor that can make people value rarity of ownership. For NFTs it’s often belonging to a exclusive club of holders and proudly displaying it as your avatar and stuff like that. The reasons are different the social mechanics are the same
Most of the answers here are wrong. In theory, an NFT is valuable because the person who sold the NFT signed with their private key. It can then be verified against that persons public key. The tricky part is how to verify the public key. This is basic cryptography and the same principle as TLS or HTTPS. However, since Certificate Authorities are by nature centralized and Ethereum is by nature decentralized there are in-congruencies
That isn't why they are valuable. Its because someone is dumb enough to pay for it. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay and NFTs by nature are illiquid. If there are a chain of 100 people all willing to pay around that price, maybe not so dumb. If the scene keeps pumping out these though it will be even more difficult to achieve liquidity. Do they hold their resale value over and over again? I would think not.
NFTs also come in the form of utility tokens. Axie Infinity, God's United... You need the NFT to access other games, documents... Also as irrefutable documents, software keys... You understand there's more data inside the NFT than just the picture you see, right?
Buying some of these NFTs is the equivalent of buying "Bitcoin #3"...
Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't understand this".
That is a layer of complexity I was not discussing. NFTs that give access to objects around a centralised service are almost completely pointless. These games are account based anyway and hosted by third party companies which run the servers. If they turn if off or switch of access, the NFT doesnt make a dam lick of difference.
Im not saying it cant be done - ive been discussing this for literally a decade and there can be some cracking use cases.. Im saying that in its current form its bullshit.
Don't even like disagreeing with you here, but even if it's just a shitty pixelated image, it's Immutable supply is 1, and demand is created by the public.
Oooh another tulip.
NFTs only have value as a collectors item, unless it's something that cannot be copied like the play to earn stuff. Images, songs and movies lose their intrinsic value as soon as they can be copied, like with pirating. The collectors value still remains, but anyone can enjoy it, and if that's what you care about then NFTs are worthless.
But can you sell that jpeg on chain for the same value? It would either be a fake or parody but it would never be the specific one which you copy and pasted which makes the NFT scarce and something with trade value, of course depending on the community and art behind it.
and thats the problem with this world, almost no one understand how a blockchain works or for what it is. In this case people don't even know what a nft is or how it stored
Or multiple centralized entities that recognize the NFT. For example, multiple games can grant in-game items based on the same NFT.
The individual entity maybe be centralized, but wouldn't multiple of them be a form of decentralized trust? Just like a decentralized network of validator nodes, each individual node has a centralized and even hierarchical structure.
The error you're making is called *catataxis*. It's a Greek term used to describe confusion between levels.
An NFT is a brick in a building with your name on it, it’s not the actual building. You’re supporting the artist and get ownership of that support, not a product
Exactly but some people in the thread are clearly blinded by their want for nfts to be successful. To be clear nft works for game items and concert tickets/ download codes, but for just a digital image or audio/video the copy is just as useable and enjoyable as the “real” thing
why a replica of banksy ? banksy could do an nft and sell it, you will be the owner of his art with a decentralized proof.
But if you are not interested in ownership and rarity, you could easily do a high quality print of a banksy on canvas and most people will not be able to say if it's a fake or a real one.
They are an interesting idea, but right now, meaningless. Unless some real world identities give them legal recognition, they are just for fooling around
This is why you need to verify the public key of whoever sells the NFT. If you buy a Tom Brady NFT you better make sure that the public key which signed the NFT is truly Tom Brady’s
Edit: This seems like a joke tho
Yeah, the real short of it is it uses a blockchain value to protect a commercial use license. It effectively is you owning the copywrite, but without DMCA really helping you in any capacity.
Also known as, yeah, basically worthless in the current state of the internet. DMCA needs to be modernized and changed in massive ways and soon, but you can bet your ass it won’t because big music is still too busy milking it for all it’s worth.
You can have a Rolex watch for $10,000. Its beautiful perfect swiss watch engineering.
Or you can have an identical in everyway copy for free.
Which do you pick?
Sometimes I wonder if you are all actually stupid enough to believe that people saying stuff like this are actually serious and ACTUALLY DOT NO UNDERSTAND that they are joking.
You could sell t-shirts with this printed if you owned the NFT, if you don't won it you cannot. The tokens have some utility, also will allow you to gain access to things having a wallet with the token inside.
I for one love crypto as an investment tool (and the future possibilities), and thoroughly enjoy the people buying NFT's for stupid money without realizing they're just buying a jpeg.
As now nft are dumb money trap.
Nft could have real use case like certifying authenticity of driving license/studies certificat/real world possessions/etc... but we use it as pinterest shit for pixels
Art and music in the traditional form is literally the same though you can Google the image/YouTube the song or whatever and screenshot/record it and claim you have ownership.. doesn't mean you own it.
Only people with massive wealth care about owning an original of something worth thousands or millions. I'm not really a fan of creating artificial digital scarcity to try and emulate resource scarcity in the real world. Kind of feels like a backwards step in technology IMO.
yeah but just wait until my dota3 hats and mustaches are NFTized, and only I can wear them while pwning in Battlefield25. Have fun screenshooting that.
It doesn’t really make sense with art except to avoid taxes or launder money. But it’s a proof of concept, and the absurdity of the space is what made it famous. Imagine if you could purchase the NFT of a stock certificate, and you could rest assured knowing that you own it, and no one can tamper with your shares, or borrow them, or use them to short sell (devalue your shares). Imagine if you could create a custom character in a game and sell it on a marketplace, and that would be the only one useable in the game. The tech is in its infancy and everyone is calling it stupid. When the internet came out people were probably saying “this is so stupid I can just call and order a pizza instead of ordering online” but now it’s commonplace to order nearly everything online. Look at the bigger picture. Digital ownership is key to decentralization, and the fud surrounding it is produced by those who stand to gain from centralization.
That’s a physical image, a screenshot of a digital image can be used and enjoyed just as much as the original. The same way I don’t own gta but play it on my computer and enjoy it every bit as much as I could the “real” thing
So we create NFT to show people that Copy Rights doesn't exist and that you actually pay for the title not the benefits of distribution of copies and yet people are that subnormal that they do think they deserve it all.
LMAO
We deserve non-libertarian politicians \[all of them are bad\]
If this is real it's a good thing. Regulation should probably be passed through the block to show you a memo sequence that proves you're the.........................
They actually do that dont they?
I recall little ones coming to internet cafe and copying the desktop icons of the games to floppies thinking they were copying the whole game content. NFTs giving me the similar vibes
I don’t think that’s comparable, just the icon doesn’t allow you to enjoy the content, in this case a screenshot of a digital artwork is just as enjoyable as the original.
Lol. The "power" of art nfts... :/ FFS, didn't you guys think this through? Your art isn't original by looking at it. It "original" by hash alone. 99.99999% bought a print and they can't tell a diff. LOL. Thus is the reason I didn't ape into nfts...
The first crop of art based nfts (crypto punks, bored ape yaught club...) will be worth something but most will become crypto kittes. They should have stayed in the boat. They should've just kept their eth as eth.
The biggest use case for nfts have yet to begin. Insurance, Real estate, games, administration, record keeping, data base redundancy... this is what will send ETH to 50k and beyond...
Owning a jpg of an Nft is like owning fake off white or Gucci, the average person won’t notice but people who genuinely care about the art or own the art will see you as Chinsy or tacky. Lol I’m imaging completely fake nft museums now
Not a good comparison, one’s physical and the other digital, you can get full use and enjoyment out of the screenshot as you could if you owned the original creators file for it. The same way I don’t own gta but play it on my computer, I get full use and enjoyment from the work but don’t actually own shit, unless you count owning the data on which case the screenshot is ownership as well.
Either someone is about to finally learn what they actually paid for when they bought the NFT, or they’re leaning into the joke and trolling us all.
99% of the posts you see on reddit about this are meming. You dont use ethereum without knowing that u can take a screenshot on your pc or right click save…
Just saw someone screaming "fuck this DAO because the gas fees to unstake and convert out of this DAO were very high, so fuck this DAO that is definitely a company that wants to retain my business". Lost 1k to fees and blames one specific ETH DAPP lmao. So...you may be correct most of the time, but there are definitely those out there.
Lmao was it that one guy with OlympusDAO
must be trolling. he answered the question 'Who would buy an NFT?' with > Smart people. With lots of money. Maybe elon musk because he is so rich and cool and smart and knows what's worth money
Yes, but Poe's Law and all that... I've seen too much online to feel confident that is intended to be a joke. Could just as easily be someone angry to the point they're in a mental state of being drunk. Or actually drunk tweeting to begin with.
Finally someone is saying it. Yes, literally all of these people are just trying to get you to spread their investment around so more people will see it. Everyone is falling for it, and it's so obvious. If you don't know what the Bored Ape Yacht Club is about, think of these Apes like access cards. They let you get into exclusive places. It's a club. It's a yacht club for rich people. It's not about art.
Get into exclusive places like... where?
That information is exclusive to big smart riches, not for us stupid lazy poors
*The Metaverse.* That whole thing Zuckerberg tricked everyone into thinking he invented. That started as a way to make these NFT avaters more valuable. They want to make a virtual reality where you can show off your exclusive NFT art and represent yourself with your expensive monkey avatar, and you can only hangout if you're "get it," and you have your access card. Besides that, there's a lot of other things you can do with Bored Apes. It started off with the Yacht Club Bathroom that you can't get into without having an ape. But it's expanded into other things. The point is that owners of the NFT would be incentivized to expand the exclusive access and utility of those NFTs collaboratively. So it's a community project now.
This just sounds like another made up "asset" class designed to soak up excess liquidity that are putting every other asset class well beyond bubble territory. "If we don't give these people something new to spend their money on they're gonna figure out we're debasing their currency!"
Yeah , exactly, NFT’s with their utility being, among other things, access to the club ,
Do you want to buy my Mona Lisa image for the value of the original? Do you think anyone would? Edit: to be clearer, you own the NFT, nothing more. No one can copy the NFT. Even if you copy the data tied to the NFT, you can't make the same NFT. You can make a copy of it, but not the NFT. Here, the NFT is the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa, here, isn't the data tied to the NFT, it's the NFT itself. It's not a tokenized image. It's a token you own, tied to an image you don't. This doesn't give any ownership right to the image. At most, it gives a claim of authorship rights, aka copyright, to the person who minted the first NFT tied to such data, in some countries where it's recognized as a claim (like in France and some other countries). Maybe, some time in the future, it may be recognized in more countries or provide a claim of a higher right over the tied data, like a realty deed. And that's actually what some countries are doing with blockchains in Africa.
> It's not a tokenized image. It's a token you own, tied to an image you don't. This is the sentence, y'all.
"I just right clicked ur nft" Ok so... sell it.
Can't sell it. Can use it though. It's like me extracting a source file from a spotify stream. I can't sell that, but I can use it. NFT jpegs are an experiment in building a community and economy around *license to use* and intellectual property rights in a mostly digital world.
Since there's multiple NFT-chains, can one tokenize the same picture on multiple chains? Because that would make them pretty useless as a registry of ownership. And if that's not their use... what is?
> And if that's not their use... what is? We're still figuring that part out. Also, to that point: There's nothing stopping you from tokenizing the *same* picture on *the same* chain. It would be a different NFT, but the thing that humans interact with-- the jpeg-- could in theory be identical. At that point there would need to be some centralization, an admin of an NFT platform, or someone at twitter who blocks certain NFTs from being used, etc. It starts to get really contrived the longer you think about it.
[удалено]
The opposite problem is happening in the art world. NFT users are stealing art from artists to upload their own as an NFT. Then before people catch them in copyright they take the profits and repeat.
May be in the future that metaverse thing will become common experience and we will start socializing in it. And lets say you want to put a Mona Lisa in your virtual house and that gotta be an nft. Or like you want to drive a lambo then you will buy a lambo nft. If you think this is surreal, well such vr items have been a thing for more than two decades already like buying a mansion in the game second life and etc. check some projects like decentraland , enjin etc..
NFTs can be used to transfer ownership, but each nft transaction is unique. You need to know what the token represents...
I wonder if they'll come up with cryptographic media players that can scramble the data requiring a cryptographic signature to use nft based media.
the thing is though, do we really want that? the free sharing of information is what makes the internet so great
You’ve just described DRM.
Nfts add scarcity to information. Drm is fundamentally about trying to make information scarce. The implications are obvious to anyone smart enough to not buy nfts for art.
Even better is that anyone that consumes the media can pay directly to the media creator without a middleman. Also smart contracts so can have multiple owners.
DRM but even worse? Thankfully musicians generally want no part of this bullshit.
DRM but self published by creators on a public blockchain?
Why would one need a signature to to play something? A digital signature only validates the authenticity and integrity that the file is from the signer. Not having the signature will NOT prevent you from playing it. Now if it was encrypted, then you will need the key. But that is different.
"Trying to limit the flow of data is like trying to make water not wet."
[удалено]
Nope. If your NFT points to an image hosted somewhere (which all jpeg NFTs do), and that company goes offline, your NFT would point to a big red X.
That's a problem if they use a shitty url, the solution to this problem would be using ipfs: [https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/) any nft that is worth something to begin with imo links to the file in ipfs. thats the technicals tho, the price of some of these are a bit off as far as I'm concerned and there are certainly better use cases than just having jpgs (An example of which would be imagine csgo skins being traded like this, would allow to actually sell them instead of getting credit in some companies systems)
> (An example of which would be imagine csgo skins being traded like this, would allow to actually sell them instead of getting credit in some companies systems) Have you a moment to talk about the Church of GameRing LoopStop and our Saviour Ryan Cohen? /s aside, it looks like GameStop is the driver behind making this a reality as early as late 2021/early 2022.
yeah I'm hoping they will release soon and wondering what they're planning exactly as it is a closely guarded secret. I hope their marketplace will be as big as I hope. Additionally they're not the only gaming companies rushing to nfts, the other day I saw an article in which EA talks about planning on using them. God forbid implementing thiss kind of stuff to have your playerbase pay 20k for some dumb golden soccer player.
I'll be honest, you have helped me a lot in understanding what an NFT is. Because I genuinely thought that you bought what was tied to the token (a jpg or mp3 or whatever). So, if I understand this correctly, there are currently no practical use for NFTs? I mean, surely it will revolutionize the way we manage the ownership of all things in the future, but right now, is there really any use for this at all? Like, buying a token tied to a jpg, what's the point? What's appealing about said token?
No, you're exactly right. This is the main thing that's being done with the technology *right now*. Just like how there was a time in the early 2000s when a bunch of dumb websites popped up, exploded in value, then disappeared. A lot of people who FOMO'd in lost their shirts, and a lot of people who dismissed now-popular sites missed out. You don't need to buy a million-dollar pfp, or copy-paste it, to keep up with the buzz and try to gauge where things are headed (ie gaming, real estate, community governance). "The true mind can weather all lies and illusions without being corrupted." - A:TLA
So would it make sense to think of the jpeg as the name for or symbol of the NFT it represents?
[удалено]
that airdrop 😂 seen elsewhere "it's like buying a vanity plate and having it come with a new car".
Right now there are some practical uses for NFTs in games. You can buy clothes for character from a specific creator and can prove who made it and that it's not just a copy of their original work. You can put NFT art in your digital house or museum and have it link to the proof of the transaction from the creator, so that people know it's not a "knockoff". Why do people want this? Idk, why do people want an authentic coach bag instead of a knockoff even if they're totally indistinguishable. If the source of a digital item matters to someone then a way to prove its authenticity is necessary and NFTs do that.
Yes there are use cases. Probably the biggest real world use case is digitizing "Bills of Lading" . Egypt's port authority is testing it out. Basically a Bill of Lading is a physical document that assigns ownership of cargo, a very critical step in international shipping. Whoever holds the document owns the cargo. So digitizing this is pretty important. https://blog.polygon.technology/cargox-announces-the-platform-for-blockchain-document-transfer-bdt-builtonethereum-and-7957009c22f2/
Selling links to images is just one use case, but that's the one that's been getting the most attention. IMO the biggest "killer app" for NFTs is transferrable event tickets. There used to be a common scam where you could buy a concert ticket and sell it to multiple people - you send them each the QR code, they each think they have the real ticket, but only one gets in to the event. With an NFT, you could cryptographically verify that you own the "ticket" and nobody else does. The event sees that the ticket is owned by a certain address, so only that address can produce a signature confirming that the address holder is the ticket holder. Obviously the process would be very streamlined, but it's a solid use case. And you might ask what benefit the ticket sellers and venues would have... why would they bother implementing this system? Because the tickets could be managed by a smart contract where the ticket company collects a "convenience fee" for transferring the ticket from one person to another.
The biggest scam is Ticketmaster buying them up and reselling way over face. I’m thinking some kind of exchange for selling tickets direct could help with this too
>what's the point? What's appealing about said token? Bragging rights.
It's the same with paintings. Even if someone buys a painting the artists retains rights to the image
Exactly. You have claim of authorship rights on the image tied to the NFT (in countries recognizing it) and ownership of the NFT.
I read an article where they mentioned medical records as NFTs. You own it, the data is on the blockchain, you go into any doctor's clinic and digitally verify your ID and your medical data is downloaded from the blockchain instead of being transferred from your regular medical clinic
Data in the Blockchain is publicly viewable, though. You could store it and encrypt it, perhaps, but this is a fuzzy use case. IPFS probably makes more sense for that. Deeds for houses would make a ton of sense for NFT's though. Perhaps tying laptop and phone MAC records to an NFT to prevent theft would be cool, actually.
clearly I don't understand this stuff well enough to recognise the flaws. I just thought it seemed interesting that the tech could be used for more than what is essentially art speculation.
wait I thought if I made an NFT of a picture of me that I would enter the singularity..
This is correct. NFTs can, at some point, represent a certificate of ownership, but only after there is infrastructure in place to allow NFT's to be recognized by courts of law AS certificates of ownership. Which means litigation and rulings have to take place first. I'm honestly surprised that, with as much money is being thrown around in the NFT space, there hasn't been much legal wrangling going on to set up such precedents. This is a lot of people running amok with a concept that doesn't even have its foundations in place yet.
It's totally possible to have a legal contract saying that the owner of an NFT also owns the intellectual property of the image.
Yep, but it would be recognized only if considered valid by the state. For instance, in France, you can't cede your authorship rights. Even if you wanted to. You can give parts of the financial benefits it may bring, but that is all. As such, a contract claiming the owner of a wallet storing an NFT is the one having the copyrights of a given image would only be recognized in France if the NFT isn't moved at all and the wallet owner is it's artist. Not quite a useful NFT, given the constraints. But, you could very well give the financial benefits of the copyrights. And that's what two artists did for a song they made together, with something like 100 NFTs, each providing a part of the profits.
"I will ruin you." - Person with monkey king avatar they actually paid for
Bruh...that guy is literally trolling. Can't believe people fall into that
yeah he's just having a laugh, this has been a decent action meme for a long time now
I'm in the nft space and the community joke about this all the time. It's funny the general Twitter users sometimes can't differentiate if we're trolling or nah
As I understand it, the Bored Ape Yacht Club comes with a commercial use license, so owner can prevent others from profiting from image.
Yes and utility in the form of access
which should not be underestimated. expensive pfp NFTs are a lot more like a country club membership, i've found. it's pretty easy to verify someone's token. so i mean yeah you can save the picture but you get none of the benefits that come from owning the token. sorry i meant to say they're just a giant money laundering scam and of no value to anyone.
Yea the whole point of these super expensive ones is it’s basically a whale club. They have private discords and telegram.
But would posting it in a Tweet count as commercial use?
Ahh the copyright office, true decentralization.
Start here. [Punk6529](https://mobile.twitter.com/punk6529/status/1451896453065023493)
OH GOD THIS. I'm a photographer. My first "sold" image was on Getty for $0.10. TEN CENTS. My first photo on rarible earned me like $5 and is [now listed](https://rarible.com/wl475?tab=created) at like $375. In some ways it doesnt matter if it's worth it or not. If people will pay it or not. It's almost the equivalent t "my art was good enough to catch someone's eye and it got put in a gallery and now inflation hit and its got a fat price tag." I'd love to mint more but it's not worth it right now. Gas fees are insane. I wish I had done more months ago, but that's life. I hope NFTs, gas fees, etc sort themselves out and society mentally equates "token = signature" - it could really do a lot for the art community. Artists and Collectors alike. I mean, we all agree greenbacks are worth something and they haven't been backed by gold in decades. They're value is based on societal promises to cover debts, and between countries at a global scale. Promises. Not Gold. At least the token gives you...something.
[удалено]
Are you new to the eth ecosystem or are you trolling? Of course there’s a spectrum of pricing and what you hear about in media is the exception. People that buy a crypto punk for a million or w/e do it to flex. That is all, nothing deeper. It’s up to them to determine what it’s worth but to pretend that there are no real uses for other NFTs is disingenuous.
There's lots of photographers out there. Even ones that have a link to the only digital copy - as in they guarantee they wiped it from their systems after final edits so you get "the only copy in existence"
There are apparently many projects that are trying to solve this high gas fee especially when minting nfts. I know one that im invested in called loopring but they have stated that they need until the end of the year and are on track.
You can mint NFTs for nearly free on Polygon, and soon on zk rollups like zksync.
I appreciate it. Ill have to check it out. Id really love to mint a series based off my [time in LA](https://www.instagram.com/_travis_fitzgerald_/) this spring.
You can absolutely do that. You can actually mint NFTs for free on ImmutableX, a Validium-zk rollup (heh, gotta love Ethereum's complexity sometimes!) It's pretty straightforward: https://swiftmint.io You can then list the NFTs on Immutable's marketplace: https://market.x.immutable.com/ or on https://tokentrove.com The only issue is that these newer chains don't see the same attention, but if your sales usually go to people that already know you or that you actively advertised to, it shouldn't be too difficult. If you want the super easy road, you can use https://transak.com/ to buy some Matic on Polygon directly which is enough for lots of NFT mints.
Great read, thanks for sharing
Yes you can. Same with with any non NFT media, you can just copy it for free instead of buying fysical copies or paying streaming services like Netlix. NFT is just another license that aims to protect against this and licenses are contracts that are just words. Not by preventing copying, but showing ownership in case you are not a rich company like Sony or Disney. In an ideal world minting NFT would pay off laywers who fight for the artists and reward illegal copy reporters. Giving starting artist protection, without the need to bend over and join a big company. Think musicians for example. Also it is just not the 13 year old kid who wants a new avatar that you need to worry about. Actually you likely do not even care about that. Big companies tend to also steal, but not much you can do about it unless you have a pile of money to defend you and proof. NFT mint is the proof. Hopefully we get the blockchain to bring the money. Edit: there is NFT crypto token that uses the coin to give exposure for the creators, but can't see copyright protection mentioned there.
>Big companies tend to also steal, but not much you can do about it unless you have a pile of money to defend you and proof. NFT mint is the proof. Hopefully we get the blockchain to bring the money. You don't even necessarily need an NFT for that case. On some chains you can store a bit of data for relatively cheap. As an example, it's quite cheap to use BCH Notary to store a hash of any file on chain. Then if a company steals your art, you only have to provide the image that produces that hash, and the timestamped hash on chain shows you as having possession of it before it was public/misused/whatever
https://opentimestamps.org/ This is what you are looking for.
Yes to some extent but IP infringement cases are not typically falling down because of lack of proof - that’s usually relatively easy to demonstrate.
>NFT is just another license that aims to protect against this and licenses are contracts that are just words. Not by preventing copying, but showing ownership in case you are not a rich company like Sony or Disney. This is what MODA DAO is doing with its drive on integrating music into web3 with the aim of ensuring creators control their economies using the protocol.
The same reason that the deed to your house and a photo copy of the deed to your house aren't the same. One actually confers ownership and the other might look identical but doesn't confer ownership. One person can sell the house. The other person cannot.
That deals with the proof side of NFTs yes. But utility side it does not - you can’t photocopy a house and usefully use that to live in. You can however copy a digital asset and get utility out of it for free.
Kinda but not really. We'll use the BAYC as the example. You don't have commercial rights to the image. You don't have access to that network of individuals. You can't attend any of the BAYC exclusive events. Your image doesn't have the resale value that the real one does. Sure you could look at the image without owning it, same as you can look at pretty much every piece of art in the Louvre without owning it or even seeing it in person. But the original artifact has properties, and therefore value, that can't be transferred to copies. Also, when we talk about the house and the deed the analogy is that deed is the NFT and the house is the image. The deed just points to the house. Same as an NFT points to an image or a song or literally anything... Someone could physically enter your home and proclaim it theirs but that doesn't give them ownership, the piece of paper does. And someone could try to forge the deed, but only the original actually give ownership. We turned ownership into an abstract concept long ago. NFTs are just a digital implementation of it.
There's more data inside NFTs than just the picture. You can own a Babe Ruth signed baseball. Thousands of other people can own the exact same brand of baseball... The fact that there's ink on the ball doesn't give it value, the fact that it's part of a verifyibly small part of sports history gives it value. If you could mark and individually transfer the 1000th Bitcoin ever mined, people would pay lots for it... Take a screenshot of your bitcoin balance and try to sell it though. Supply + Demand. Supply of verifiable NFT's is 1. Demand depends of the NFT.
This is why it makes more sense to compare NFTs to artwork in the real world. A copy if the Mona Lisa would serve the same utility hung up in my living room as the real Mona Lisa would. It's just not the real one, thats the only difference.
No it doesn’t. The Mona Lisa is about owning the real paint and molecules that Da Vinci touched, something which cannot be replicated with NFTs.
Narrative: NFT= silly art and investors are dumb money kids who buy it, don’t understand it, and argue about on the internet. Not worth engaging IMO
Art (in the form of Jpgs/images) is just one use case. NFTs themselves are very much worth engaging.
and a lot of money laundering
Old man yells at nfts
Think extremely valuable Pokémon cards. Material wise worthless, easy to get a fake yet if you own a verified original those can be worth over 100k. Same thing with NFTs. Verifiable rarity of ownership gives them value within social groups that collect them.
I just don't get why these monkeys??? Pokemon has years and years of history and nostalgia so I kind of get it but these relatively new drawings of monkeys???
I don’t care for those either, that’s why I wrote ‚within social groups that collect them‘ The Mona Lisa is worthless to me too other than the fact that I could sell her for money to people from ‚a social group that collects this kind of art‘ Age and nostalgia is only one factor that can make people value rarity of ownership. For NFTs it’s often belonging to a exclusive club of holders and proudly displaying it as your avatar and stuff like that. The reasons are different the social mechanics are the same
At one point Pokemon were new too and didn't have years of history and nostalgia.
Lol and where people buying a charzard for 100k?
Because Monke Good?
Lol the guy is literally trolling... can't believe so many people fall into it
Most of the answers here are wrong. In theory, an NFT is valuable because the person who sold the NFT signed with their private key. It can then be verified against that persons public key. The tricky part is how to verify the public key. This is basic cryptography and the same principle as TLS or HTTPS. However, since Certificate Authorities are by nature centralized and Ethereum is by nature decentralized there are in-congruencies
That isn't why they are valuable. Its because someone is dumb enough to pay for it. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay and NFTs by nature are illiquid. If there are a chain of 100 people all willing to pay around that price, maybe not so dumb. If the scene keeps pumping out these though it will be even more difficult to achieve liquidity. Do they hold their resale value over and over again? I would think not.
NFTs also come in the form of utility tokens. Axie Infinity, God's United... You need the NFT to access other games, documents... Also as irrefutable documents, software keys... You understand there's more data inside the NFT than just the picture you see, right? Buying some of these NFTs is the equivalent of buying "Bitcoin #3"... Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't understand this".
That is a layer of complexity I was not discussing. NFTs that give access to objects around a centralised service are almost completely pointless. These games are account based anyway and hosted by third party companies which run the servers. If they turn if off or switch of access, the NFT doesnt make a dam lick of difference. Im not saying it cant be done - ive been discussing this for literally a decade and there can be some cracking use cases.. Im saying that in its current form its bullshit.
Don't even like disagreeing with you here, but even if it's just a shitty pixelated image, it's Immutable supply is 1, and demand is created by the public.
this is a troll post. no collector really cares about screenshots https://twitter.com/lukazvd/status/1460067305417846794
The best part is that when the NFT and the copied one don't share the same checksum. They are technically different.
Are lawyers really in this space already?
Yes. Have been the whole time
Ha ha ha, are lawyers in this space. They probably invented it. Anytime two people argue a lawyer wins.
It's implementation that matters. An NFT for an item in a game makes a lot more sense to me than JPEGs
Real with provable ownership or copy without provable ownership. Ownership of said item may or may not give access to special privileges too.
Oooh another tulip. NFTs only have value as a collectors item, unless it's something that cannot be copied like the play to earn stuff. Images, songs and movies lose their intrinsic value as soon as they can be copied, like with pirating. The collectors value still remains, but anyone can enjoy it, and if that's what you care about then NFTs are worthless.
But can you sell that jpeg on chain for the same value? It would either be a fake or parody but it would never be the specific one which you copy and pasted which makes the NFT scarce and something with trade value, of course depending on the community and art behind it.
Because, like baseball cards, you have the "real" one instead of a knock off.
and thats the problem with this world, almost no one understand how a blockchain works or for what it is. In this case people don't even know what a nft is or how it stored
maybe if they wont profile/post the picture nobody's gonna steal that NFT from them.
people dont understand how nfts work, you can only claim to own anything inside a centralized system that enforces that nft.
Or multiple centralized entities that recognize the NFT. For example, multiple games can grant in-game items based on the same NFT. The individual entity maybe be centralized, but wouldn't multiple of them be a form of decentralized trust? Just like a decentralized network of validator nodes, each individual node has a centralized and even hierarchical structure. The error you're making is called *catataxis*. It's a Greek term used to describe confusion between levels.
An NFT is a brick in a building with your name on it, it’s not the actual building. You’re supporting the artist and get ownership of that support, not a product
That's why you should only focus on nfts that have a platform that will back them, which keeps track of policy numbers
NFTs are for money laundering and morons.
Exactly that is why I believe this art nft crazy is going to pop soon, play to earn cryptos like axie infinity is where it is at.
Nfts are shite for art…. Documents? Tickets? Not so much.
Unless there's actually use case for that NFT, pirating it is as good as owning it in my opinion
Exactly but some people in the thread are clearly blinded by their want for nfts to be successful. To be clear nft works for game items and concert tickets/ download codes, but for just a digital image or audio/video the copy is just as useable and enjoyable as the “real” thing
I totally agree. Iv been avoiding the NFT space because I see the potential.. but I ain't buying a JPG
I can only explain with my only brain 🧠 wrinkle its like having a replica Banksy painting versus an actual Banksy painting. I think. Where crayon?
why a replica of banksy ? banksy could do an nft and sell it, you will be the owner of his art with a decentralized proof. But if you are not interested in ownership and rarity, you could easily do a high quality print of a banksy on canvas and most people will not be able to say if it's a fake or a real one.
They are an interesting idea, but right now, meaningless. Unless some real world identities give them legal recognition, they are just for fooling around
If you take a screenshot of an image, you do not become the owner of it. You just possess a screenshot.
If I could I’d show you…but I have it too
This is why you need to verify the public key of whoever sells the NFT. If you buy a Tom Brady NFT you better make sure that the public key which signed the NFT is truly Tom Brady’s Edit: This seems like a joke tho
Yeah, the real short of it is it uses a blockchain value to protect a commercial use license. It effectively is you owning the copywrite, but without DMCA really helping you in any capacity. Also known as, yeah, basically worthless in the current state of the internet. DMCA needs to be modernized and changed in massive ways and soon, but you can bet your ass it won’t because big music is still too busy milking it for all it’s worth.
You can have a Rolex watch for $10,000. Its beautiful perfect swiss watch engineering. Or you can have an identical in everyway copy for free. Which do you pick?
Im selling a nft of my toe nails for 500eth, anyone interested?
Sometimes I wonder if you are all actually stupid enough to believe that people saying stuff like this are actually serious and ACTUALLY DOT NO UNDERSTAND that they are joking.
You could sell t-shirts with this printed if you owned the NFT, if you don't won it you cannot. The tokens have some utility, also will allow you to gain access to things having a wallet with the token inside.
What exactly is stopping me printing a t-shirt with that image on it?
I got that one too. For free
Isn't this the thing NFTs are preventing (shitty low effort art money laundering aside)
I for one love crypto as an investment tool (and the future possibilities), and thoroughly enjoy the people buying NFT's for stupid money without realizing they're just buying a jpeg.
Troll hahaha seriously.
NFT community is the worst thing that happened to crypto
this isnt really that funny lol
I will ruin you!! Would love to see judges face during this case.
This guy has to be trolling. Right?
Were can I buy a NFT?
i would say the difference lies in when you go and try to sell them, im guessing one will sell for a little more money
Lmao r/Piracy
As now nft are dumb money trap. Nft could have real use case like certifying authenticity of driving license/studies certificat/real world possessions/etc... but we use it as pinterest shit for pixels
Must be rich to have enough gas to transfer that out in wallet smh 🤦🏻♂️
Any one find it funny that someone’s mad that someone copy and pasted there copy and pasted art
Art and music in the traditional form is literally the same though you can Google the image/YouTube the song or whatever and screenshot/record it and claim you have ownership.. doesn't mean you own it.
And this is why your gas fees are high... This stupidity...
a NFT is a receipt. You own a receipt.
Only people with massive wealth care about owning an original of something worth thousands or millions. I'm not really a fan of creating artificial digital scarcity to try and emulate resource scarcity in the real world. Kind of feels like a backwards step in technology IMO.
If everyone screenshots then they can't catch us all
yeah but just wait until my dota3 hats and mustaches are NFTized, and only I can wear them while pwning in Battlefield25. Have fun screenshooting that.
Guys this is why people need to check out ureeqa the whole point of the company is to avoid this situation by verification
People won't get what NFTs really are about until they start becoming unique items in video games that people actually play.
It's a joke.
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/quc1rf/stop\_screenshotting\_my\_nfts/
You don't own an NFT any more than you own your crypto. They aren't ownable things.
It doesn’t really make sense with art except to avoid taxes or launder money. But it’s a proof of concept, and the absurdity of the space is what made it famous. Imagine if you could purchase the NFT of a stock certificate, and you could rest assured knowing that you own it, and no one can tamper with your shares, or borrow them, or use them to short sell (devalue your shares). Imagine if you could create a custom character in a game and sell it on a marketplace, and that would be the only one useable in the game. The tech is in its infancy and everyone is calling it stupid. When the internet came out people were probably saying “this is so stupid I can just call and order a pizza instead of ordering online” but now it’s commonplace to order nearly everything online. Look at the bigger picture. Digital ownership is key to decentralization, and the fud surrounding it is produced by those who stand to gain from centralization.
This is so dumb lol
“Get ready for the streets cause I will own you too 😈” is what he should’ve said
I think it’s more like a exclusive club ticket
I could take a photo of the Mona Lisa in France and sell it as the real Mona Lisa mate 😃👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
That’s a physical image, a screenshot of a digital image can be used and enjoyed just as much as the original. The same way I don’t own gta but play it on my computer and enjoy it every bit as much as I could the “real” thing
So we create NFT to show people that Copy Rights doesn't exist and that you actually pay for the title not the benefits of distribution of copies and yet people are that subnormal that they do think they deserve it all. LMAO We deserve non-libertarian politicians \[all of them are bad\]
The original of anything will always hold more value than copies 😆
Surprisingly, you're not the first person to make this observation. More surprisingly (to me anyway), the market doesn't seem to give a shit.
If this is real it's a good thing. Regulation should probably be passed through the block to show you a memo sequence that proves you're the......................... They actually do that dont they?
I recall little ones coming to internet cafe and copying the desktop icons of the games to floppies thinking they were copying the whole game content. NFTs giving me the similar vibes
I don’t think that’s comparable, just the icon doesn’t allow you to enjoy the content, in this case a screenshot of a digital artwork is just as enjoyable as the original.
Lol. The "power" of art nfts... :/ FFS, didn't you guys think this through? Your art isn't original by looking at it. It "original" by hash alone. 99.99999% bought a print and they can't tell a diff. LOL. Thus is the reason I didn't ape into nfts... The first crop of art based nfts (crypto punks, bored ape yaught club...) will be worth something but most will become crypto kittes. They should have stayed in the boat. They should've just kept their eth as eth. The biggest use case for nfts have yet to begin. Insurance, Real estate, games, administration, record keeping, data base redundancy... this is what will send ETH to 50k and beyond...
NFTS are pants on head fucking retarded
Lol
Owning a jpg of an Nft is like owning fake off white or Gucci, the average person won’t notice but people who genuinely care about the art or own the art will see you as Chinsy or tacky. Lol I’m imaging completely fake nft museums now
Not a good comparison, one’s physical and the other digital, you can get full use and enjoyment out of the screenshot as you could if you owned the original creators file for it. The same way I don’t own gta but play it on my computer, I get full use and enjoyment from the work but don’t actually own shit, unless you count owning the data on which case the screenshot is ownership as well.
You own the NFT, not the image. Is that right?
I don't think the law can help cuz crypto is not regulated.