deleted by creator
It’s a solution in search of a problem. Currencies are government backed because the vast majority of people have faith in their governments’ enforcement of legislation regarding use of that currency. It’s good to be able to make class action lawsuits against scammers and most in the population will choose anything government backed if they have the option.
So if the goal is to get away from government backing, who do you give control to? In the case of a blockchain, it’s the parties with the majority of the “proof of XYZ” creation hardware. Which are not normal people. Then there’s the possibility of developers of a blockchain choosing to rewrite the ledger, causing splits. So you didn’t invent some unmodifiable currency either, the control lies with people who you probably should trust even less than the parties managing EUR/USD.
Then, it’s incredibly energy inefficient. Especially proof of work is a ridiculous waste of computational resources, at least tie the problem to something NP-hard with actual value instead of whatever reverse hashing search is usually done. But wasting resources is the design of the system anyways.
deleted by creator
People don’t care because crypto is literally a made up thing.
Sure, people make money off of it. But people make money off loads of things. That doesn’t change that it’s literally a made up currency that has tons of people scamming the shit out of people for a quick buck.
How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is “yes”. It’s always “yes”.
The only question is, can you hold the tiger’s tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren’t the last one holding it.Unfortunately for them that ship has sailed. It’s not hard to get in on a scam like this of you do it early enough, i probably would have done it if i had enough money when this started (don’t judge, much, money is important when you don’t have it) and i probably would have gotten out like a bandit. Now though, it’s mostly targeting them.
Nobody is going to judge a cute and awkward baby trans girl needing cash on my watch. That’s for sure.
C-cute!? (~\\~)
Very cute and very pretty
Scam or not some of them are very useful to pay for some not so legal things
Investing in currency is already dumb, in cryptocurrency? Doubly so
I quite enjoyed supporting artists like Ame72 and Sabat by purchasing their digital artwork. 🤷♀️
I don’t see how it’s much different than Patreon. You pay creators that you enjoy, you get a digital collectable, and access to discord of you care about that sort of thing. NFTs allowed many people to do art full-time.
You didnd’t purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven’t figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
So if somebody buys my digital photos off Deviant art, they didn’t “purchase my photos”? Geez, I better go call that TV studio that used some of my work and let them know they got scammed.
When I hired a wedding photographer 15 years ago and got the digitals, did I get scammed?
Are you against people buying anything digital or just the underlying technological platform?
It’s having a legal contract that passes the intellectual property to your name and a Legal System backing that contract with the power and willingness to enable the use of Force to confiscate the property of contract breakers, that give you de facto ownership rights.
That’s the essential difference between your example and NFTs.
Thinking that a mere “ownership certificate” which is not legally recognized is “ownership” is just a variant of the Sovereign Citizen delusions only with “magical” bytes instead of “magical” words - techno-magical mumbu jumbo for people who can’t understand that symbols not backed by enforcement structures mean nothing in a society.
An “ownership stamp”, no matter how technically advanced, which is not recognized or backed by a Legal System gives you de facto no ownership rights because nothing will back you up when others disregard your claims of ownership asserted by that “ownership stamp” and if you yourself try to enforce it that Legal System will likely turn against you depending on how you try and enforce yourself your ownership claims (for example if you do something legally deemed Theft or Assault it’s you who ends up in facing the might of the Legal System).
That’s the essence of the complete total idiocy of thinking NFTs are ownership: ownership is not merely having a “certificate of ownership”, it’s there being societal structures that recognize your ownership and will back you up when you want to assert ownership rights. In fact, most ownership does not require any certificates, digital or otherwise, just an entry in a database of the appropriate Legal Registrar of ownership.
As I said, thinking it’s some made up certificate of ownership that gives you ownership rights is Sovereign Citizen “logic”
bruh it’s really not that difficult. Fan sends money to artist. Fan receives some magical bytes in return. Could fan have right clicked and downloaded the artwork without paying? Of course. But fan wants to support artist. Because fan likes artist’s art. It’s how any digital “marketplace” works, NFT or not. All this “legal system” and “ownership” and “legal registrar” nonsense you’re pulling up is completely irrelevant. You’re reading too much into it.
“Bruh”, your problem is exactly that in your mind it’s all simple even though you live in a Society right next to millions of people and you somehow think that what you believe because you read it on a website gives you “rights” that those millions of people will respect just because you say so.
It’s like thinking that a toilet needs not be connected to a sewage line to handle your shit or the electricity for your house appears by merelly having power lines rather than coming via them from where it gets generated via a complex infrastruture to get it to you.
It’s the Soverign Citizen kind of take on the world, and the results are pretty much the same for techno-deluded kind of Soverign Citizen as for the document-deluded ones: nobody else respects your claims to having certain rights hence the only worth you can extract from such “certificates” is from finding and swindling even greater fools to sell those “certificates” to.
You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say shit about “rights” and “respect”. The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You’re bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?
I genuinely have no clue what you think I “read on a website” about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a
tokenshort string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that’s it. All of these ideas of “ownership” and “rights” and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.Seriously, what is your endgame here?
They just really really really hate NFTs/crypto for some reason. I can’t imagine ever getting so worked up about a technology like people do today about crypto. I want to support an artist so apparently I need to have a PhD in contract and IP law in order to do so.
As per another poster higher up this thread:
You didnd’t purchase their artwork though. The fact that you still haven’t figured that out says a lot about what kind of customerbase was needed to get NFTs off the ground.
You seem to have chosen a very specific, very “curious” cutoff point for contextual relevance of responses not alligned with your opinion in this thread in order to claim my response to you is some wild unrelated “bullshit”.
Further, you responded to my comment criticising NFTs as a means of guaranteing ownership, with an example usage that has nothing to do with ownership and were NFTs do literally nothing useful at all (you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required), so per your own logic your post is bullshit you brought into the conversation.
Your example provides no support for the idea being discussed by everybody else in this thread, so either that post of yours is bullshit you brought into the conversation (since it goes out on a tangent and doesn’t support the points I was replying to or made in my comment) or you wanted to support the idea that NFTs are useful and failed miserably and now are just criticizing me for following you down your irrelevant tangent to the points being discussed in the thread.
Seriously, what is your endgame here?
The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It’s the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn’t really mean anything.
The virtual deeds would be great for game licences and trading second hand games online
That stuff already works just fine without NFTs or crypto bros.
How tf are you trading digital games you’ve finished
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the “oracle” and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn’t add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn’t also achieve.
The blockchain is distributed.
For example, you might use it as a trademark registry or to certify a chain of legal evidence. You can validate a presented copy matches the original and what the chain of ownership was. And you can do this without the single point of failure of a nationwide database
Who holds and validates the original you’re comparing to?
That’s the point, a use case where no one has to. It’s only the record of ownership.
And clearly you’d still need to make arrangements to prevent multiple chains of ownership for a copied artifact
NFTs make the mistake of assuming that somehow makes it unique, forgetting you can just copy the original. However these use cases work from the opposite direction: given an accused infringement, does that match?
Consider the current use case for trademark. Someone creates a trademark and registers with an authority. At some point they may renew modify, or sell. After some time, that authority has a database containing the original and a chain of ownership. Blockchain could serve this identically, with the potential advantage of the chain being self contained and distributable
That is not how the chain has worked or could ever work. There is a reason after over fifteen years people are still speculating how blockchain can be useful.
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that’s very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I’ve searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn’t look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn’t be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
That’s security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there’s nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
You’re falling for the classic paradox of security: it has to work for someone. OF COURSE if you get all of the keys and every detail of the process you can crack it. That’s true of ALL CRYPTOGRAPHY. If someone knows everything including the keys, it’s too late for any ‘secure’ device.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
Yes it is. The scheme is that when you take a picture, the camera signs said picture. The key is stored somewhere in the camera. Hence the secrecy of the key hinges on the the attacker not knowing how the camera accesses the key. Once the attacker knows that, they can get the key from the camera. Therefore, security hinges on the secrecy of the camera design/protocol used by the camera to access the key, in addition to the secrecy of the key. Therefore, it is security by obscurity.
And how do they get the camera? You could make the same exact claims about SSH being useless because “if an attacker gets the key, it’s over!”
NO SHIT!!
They buy it at a store.
I had too much money once. I bought some nft Reddit avatars for like 2k and it is still there somewhere but I am too lazy to even check on that
It’s somewhere there some kind of nft safe they have or something like that. It’s all very clunky.
I think I had to note down some access code at some point or something like that, it’s all too tiring to remember and unclear if there is anything you can do with it
what the fuck
It’s just money right, it’s not like there’s a shortage.
At some point it only goes up and up, multiplicating like some kind of sex starved horny rabbits. Population of which you are informed monthly by some clean but boring site: -0.67%, 2.27%, -1.23%… which for some reason is trying hard to appeal to you and that fake tone seeps through every second word on their butt licking reports.
Please use our services, oh maam please. We are here for you please use us
