Comment on A key feature of NFTs has completely broken / Web3 was supposed to make sure the original artist always got paid. Not so much anymore.

conciselyverbose@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• Bjornir@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  There are uses for NFT, but it is clearly not what they are famous for.

  NFT aren’t pictures of monke, they are a way to authenticate something in a decentralised way, so no trust in another entity needed. The picture isn’t the NFT, and that is why you can just right click-copy it.

  You can’t however just copy the NFT, the actual token. Having a token that’s verifiably owned by someone is useful for certain things. It’s like a certificate of authenticity, but digital.

  source

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Digital certificates has already existed for half a century. There’s nothing new. A certificate doesn’t get any more legitimate just because it’s recorded on a blockchain.

    source

    • bjorney@bjorney.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yes but NFTs are held in trust by you, not a 3rd party business. If you want to sell your NFT to a friend you can do that without brokering the exchange through a middleman who can/will charge a cut

      source

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Don’t blockchain brokers charge a transaction fee?

        source
      • kitonthenet@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This is still solved by certificates, I can make my own self signed certificate that says it me and sign whatever I want. The only thing that crypto “solves” is over the wire man in the middle attacks, which aren’t even really a problem in the modern internet

        source
      • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        How you transact the ownership of NFTs is a different story. I’m reacting to the claim that NFT is “like a certificate of authenticity, but digital”, which is not unique to NFTs at all.

        This claim is also often misunderstood, since the NFT can only verify the authenticity of the certificate itself, not the art/asset it’s pointing to.

        I can easily create an NFT of Mona Lisa. The blockchain will see no problem with it at all. Heck, I can create 1000 NFTs of Mona Lisa if I want.

        source
      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This sounds completely logical, until you realize it’s for selling JPGs and expecting them to only exist in that one buyer’s hands.

        source
  • sab@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Are there any practical (non-theoretical) uses for NFTs that couldn’t be done otherwise though?

    source

    • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      insert word jumble about unrealistic scenarios made up in my basement while stoned

      source
    • Maturin@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Basically anything that is currently traded on any digital or quasi-digital exchange but relies ultimately on a paper/manual backend.

      source

      • sab@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Can you give a real life example of that being applied?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Bjornir@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      www.hongkiat.com/blog/nft-use-cases/

      It is just a tool, it’s what you do with it that gives its worth. Monkey pictures… Well that’s not worth anything

      source
  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    NFTs have never once not been very blatant fraud.

    source

    • Bjornir@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      NFT aren’t monkey pictures.

      source

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I know what they are. They're a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist and very probably never will exist.

        They have never once been used for anything even neutral. Every single case has been outright malicious.

        source
  • JayK117@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I reckon the meeting about the tokens went something like “okay, how can we monetise this?”, “Okay hear me out here… monkeys!.. digital monkeys!”

    source