sleepyhead the buffalo said:this seems like a pretty good critique of NFTs; and might give some answers to questions that were asked here:
This was very interesting, thanks for posting. Actually unwinds some of what I thought I knew on the authentication side, but I'm not sure if that is just limited to this weird NFT space and crypto wallets with remote hosting using questionable protocols.
"NFT marketplace suspends most sales, citing 'rampant' fakes and plagiarism"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/tech/nft-marketplace-plagiarism/index.html
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to aircooled :
If you own a 911 you can't drive, do you really own a car?
We should ask Seth. 
NFT transactions are now down 92% since last September, with values down equally as much. I really had to laugh at the guy who dropped $2.9 million for an NFT of Jack Dorsey's first tweet, which when he bought it was estimated it could go as high as $50 million. He's trying to sell it now and the highest offer he has received is.... $14,000. He declined said offer because he "thinks it is worth significantly more than that." Bad news for you, bud, but apparently it isn't because if it was, people would be offering you more than that. Another guy spent $32,000 on a Snoop Dog-curated NFT and now has it up for auction, with an asking price of $25.5 million and the highest bid is....$210.
I listened to a podcast (Last Seen) that focused on the shady world of art storage in free-trade-zones. Apparently, there's lots of people who buy/sell expensive art work that is stored in very high-end storage facilities called Freeports. The art (often) may not ever move, but can be bought & sold, creating a tax haven that helps obscure ownership and tax responsibilities. I suppose it's similar to NFTs...except it's much easier to understand why a rare portrait from a talented artist may have value. NFTs...not so much.
In reply to Hoondavan :
This is a misunderstanding of what NFT's are. NFT's are *not* the work of art. They are a record of a transaction, effectively a receipt. They're not even necessarily (and probably are NOT) the deed or legal title.
It's most likely equivalent to a key to a building or room where the artwork can be viewed. Someone might sell someone else the key, but they haven't sold the artwork.
NickD said:NFT transactions are now down 92% since last September, with values down equally as much. I really had to laugh at the guy who dropped $2.9 million for an NFT of Jack Dorsey's first tweet, which when he bought it was estimated it could go as high as $50 million. He's trying to sell it now and the highest offer he has received is.... $14,000. He declined said offer because he "thinks it is worth significantly more than that." Bad news for you, bud, but apparently it isn't because if it was, people would be offering you more than that. Another guy spent $32,000 on a Snoop Dog-curated NFT and now has it up for auction, with an asking price of $25.5 million and the highest bid is....$210.
Looks like the people who made big money selling NFTs already made their money and walked away. Just like any other Ponzi scheme.
Hoondavan said:I listened to a podcast (Last Seen) that focused on the shady world of art storage in free-trade-zones. Apparently, there's lots of people who buy/sell expensive art work that is stored in very high-end storage facilities called Freeports. The art (often) may not ever move, but can be bought & sold, creating a tax haven that helps obscure ownership and tax responsibilities. I suppose it's similar to NFTs...except it's much easier to understand why a rare portrait from a talented artist may have value. NFTs...not so much.
This was part of the movie Tenet.
In reply to Beer Baron :
"A good receipt" is the best explanation I've seen for an NFT. It's not a thing, it's just a record of a transaction. It's very much like that artwork that gets bought and sold but never actually delivered to the new owner. Someone else could have the key to the room or even have the artwork hung in their living room, but the legal ownership remains. I think the best intent is that they become the record of the deed/legal title.
This short-lived NFT idiocy was basically people taking that concept of ownership without possession to the limit, to ownership of something that cannot actually be possessed.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
NFT's are always constrained by the original contract though. Very rarely is that contract for *ownership* of the item in question.
It's not like buying a piece of art sitting in a locked room or an investment property that you never actually visit, but still *own*. It's more often like a time-share of the right to go visit or make use of the space... but never doing so.
There are also potential problems because they are a decentralized record. The chain can fork. If it does, which record is correct?
As much as it's a PITA to deal with a title agency and the county registrar's office to transfer a property, it makes it unambiguously clear and certified who *definitely* owns that property, and defines systems for how to adjudicate if there are any questions or conflicts over it.
NFT's certainly can have viable functionality, but they just seem like they don't solve important problems better than currently existing systems. Instead, they seem more often to be driven by people that don't understand thinking that the download code that lets you watch a movie anytime you want and clearly identifies that this is YOUR digital copy of the movie on AmazHuluFlix+ doesn't mean that you own the *rights* to that movie as a work of art.
Block chain , Block chain , Block chain.......
get you piece of the block chain over here ,
Get one before they are gone....
Hurry Hurry Hurry.......
BT Barnum at his best :)
Can the chain fork? That seems like a fundamental flaw. I will admit I've never looked too closely into blockchain, it does seem like it cannot scale but I thought that the entire point was that it carried the transaction record in it. My understanding of the NFT concept was that it was intended to be proof of ownership and solve some of the problems.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to Beer Baron :
"A good receipt" is the best explanation I've seen for an NFT. It's not a thing, it's just a record of a transaction. It's very much like that artwork that gets bought and sold but never actually delivered to the new owner. Someone else could have the key to the room or even have the artwork hung in their living room, but the legal ownership remains. I think the best intent is that they become the record of the deed/legal title.
This short-lived NFT idiocy was basically people taking that concept of ownership without possession to the limit, to ownership of something that cannot actually be possessed.
Oh, so sort of like a project car title?
Keith Tanner said:Can the chain fork? That seems like a fundamental flaw. I will admit I've never looked too closely into blockchain, it does seem like it cannot scale but I thought that the entire point was that it carried the transaction record in it. My understanding of the NFT concept was that it was intended to be proof of ownership and solve some of the problems.
Oh yes. The chain can fork, and apparently this is not uncommon. All you need is a node using an old version of a chain. You can also attack the blockchain to force a fork.
Blockchain also has the major problem that it is effectively impossible to claw back changes. This actually makes it *more* susceptible to fraud and scams than conventional, centralized record systems. It's moderately more resistant to movie-style-hackers, but it's more susceptible to the far more common scam of tricking someone to give you access to their account. With no central authority, you can't call up the credit card company and dispute charges.
A NFT is really a mini computer program that exists on "the blockchain", except that there isn't *ONE* "the blockchain", it's a decentralized record.
In reply to Beer Baron :
The lack of a central authority is intended to be a feature, not a bug. But a lot of crypto/NFT folks are discovering just WHY there is a central authority.
Keith Tanner said:Can the chain fork? That seems like a fundamental flaw. I will admit I've never looked too closely into blockchain, it does seem like it cannot scale but I thought that the entire point was that it carried the transaction record in it. My understanding of the NFT concept was that it was intended to be proof of ownership and solve some of the problems.
Yes, and even worse, my understanding is the resolution for which fork is valid is susceptible to fraud/manipulation/abuse.
Keith Tanner said:In reply to Beer Baron :
The lack of a central authority is intended to be a feature, not a bug. But a lot of crypto/NFT folks are discovering just WHY there is a central authority.
Exactly.
I'd say it's less "proof of ownership" but and more "certified proof of transfer". It can make a definite record that person A transferred the NFT to peron B. It can *also* make a definite record that Person A transferred the NFT to Person C. But there aren't really any good mechanisms to adjudicate whether the NFT now belongs to Person B or Person C.
It often makes fraud *easier* to perpetrate, because it is effectively impossible to claw back or undo changes. Sure, when Person A transfers Biterium to Person B, it's nearly impossible for Person C to jump into the middle of that transaction and redirect the funds to their bank account like something out of a hacking movie. But that's not what most theft/fraud is. If Person B tricks Person A into revealing the login information to their digital wallet and transfers all their Biterium, there's basically nothing they can do. You can't call up your bank or credit card company and report that someone stole your login information and took all your money, and ask them to undo those transfers.
Which is also fun, because NFT's are really tiny computer programs. You can write one that says, "If this program is opened or viewed, transfer all assets in this digital wallet to account [ABC123]," and frequently you can just *put* them in people's digital wallets.
NFT injection :)
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Initially, I thought CryptoCurrency and NFT's were just goofy and didn't make sense. But the more I learned about them, the more I realized they're actually pretty horrifying.
It's been shared on the forums before, but the essay "Line Goes Up" spells things out very well.
I am suspicious a lot of the NFT's where bought with bitcoin and other virtual currencies because you may have billions in bitcoins, but they can be hard to spend or convert into real cash.
Of course....
Hoondavan said:I listened to a podcast (Last Seen) that focused on the shady world of art storage in free-trade-zones. Apparently, there's lots of people who buy/sell expensive art work that is stored in very high-end storage facilities called Freeports. The art (often) may not ever move, but can be bought & sold, creating a tax haven that helps obscure ownership and tax responsibilities. I suppose it's similar to NFTs...except it's much easier to understand why a rare portrait from a talented artist may have value. NFTs...not so much.
Companies such as MasterWorks sell shares of specific pieces of fine art. They store and sell the art later...hopefully for a profit.
BTW, it's not practical to create a mutual fund or ETF for fine art due to its low liquidity which is why MasterWorks operates the way they do.
Here's an article by the Motley Fool that explains it all. I'd like to invest in something like this but I have ethical issues with it as many of the other investors are laundering money and/or dodging taxes (see also crypto currency).
Brett
Beer Baron said:In reply to Hoondavan :
This is a misunderstanding of what NFT's are. NFT's are *not* the work of art. They are a record of a transaction, effectively a receipt. They're not even necessarily (and probably are NOT) the deed or legal title.
It's most likely equivalent to a key to a building or room where the artwork can be viewed. Someone might sell someone else the key, but they haven't sold the artwork.
Interesting. I've learned something today.
Wait, no rules makes it better for fraudsters!?! And it attracts people who don't want to be burdened by societies rules?!?
This reminds me of an episode of it's always sunny - what did they call it, the freedom bar?
This website can take over this thread from here: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
You'll need to log in to post.
