Jason Moyer on 12/4/2021 at 11:42
I'm just kind of sitting here waiting for it all to get carbon taxed, because that's going to be my favoritest day ever.
Karras35 on 12/4/2021 at 20:52
You bitter, bitter little man.
heywood on 12/4/2021 at 22:27
Before you complain, consider that the more expensive it becomes to mine, the greater the value of your holdings.
june gloom on 13/4/2021 at 21:34
I wish all crypto miners a very pleasant lose all their money.
PigLick on 14/4/2021 at 07:51
ok now lets talk about NFT's
Jeshibu on 14/4/2021 at 11:12
Quote Posted by PigLick
ok now lets talk about NFT's
They're dumb and bad. Next topic.
heywood on 14/4/2021 at 18:26
Let me pull on this thread. Are NFTs really that different from cryptocurrency? The obvious difference is fungibility, hence the name. You can barter with NFTs but you can't use them directly for payments. But how much does that really matter? 99% of the people buying cryptocurrency aren't intending to use it as currency, and most payments still have to be made using a traditional nationally-backed currency. Both NFTs and cryptocurrencies are virtual assets made artificially scarce through different methods, and both are used primarily for speculative investment. The real difference is that cryptocurrency is made scarce mathematically, while NFTs are made scarce by their association to something unique, usually a piece of art.
At first, it seemed crazy to me that somebody would buy an internet meme. Who would want to "own" a cat GIF that is copied all over the internet? And what does "ownership" really mean when the artist didn't even transfer copyright to the "owner". And given how internet memes come and go, why would you think such an asset would hold its value over the long term? But then I thought, what makes that more crazy than buying cryptocurrency, which is neither pegged to any real asset nor backed by any central bank? In both cases, you own nothing but a blockchain record.
Nameless Voice on 14/4/2021 at 18:34
I think the main problem with NFTs is that they are based on some artist's work - but the artist gets nothing (or very little) for it.
Gambling with made-up things is all very well and good - I've done a little bit of it myself - but ripping off artists is Not Cool.
Pyrian on 14/4/2021 at 19:01
I feel that Crypto-currency has at least some underlying utility (beyond the pyramid scheme of investing money into taking other, later investors' money). That utility is money laundering, but illegal and/or immoral utility is utility nonetheless. Whereas NFT's are a glorified link that would have to have some sort of legal backing to mean anything resembling ownership of a linked artwork. So, as is, NFT is just the pyramid, and that's bad.
heywood on 14/4/2021 at 20:20
Have artists been ripped off?
The one example everybody seems to know about is Nyan Cat. The artist Chris Torres sold it for 300 Ether, which if he still has it, can be converted to about USD $700k. That's a lot for a rudimentary 8-bit GIF. From what I read, the sale didn't include copyright transfer, which means that it has zero intrinsic value. If there's no copyright transfer involved, it really stretches the definition of ownership. There's nothing to stop Chris from selling it again on another blockchain. And there's nothing to stop anyone else from selling it either. Supposing I could find a willing buyer, I could sell "ownership" of Chris' GIF too.
If an artist "sells" their work through an NFT but retains copyright, how can they be ripped off? They got paid for nothing. If an artist sells their copyright, that's normal business. The transfer will have legal standing and you don't need an NFT for that.