Topic: Bitcointalk posts as nft (Read 571 times)

I think it boils down to human need to feel unique, 'look I spent $100k to own this image, I own it, none else does'. Yes other people can have 'save-as' image of it but only one can own it.

Also, ethereum price appreciation has fueled the nft mania. When you have bought tons of ether below $100, you would care less about spending $100k for picture.

That is indeed an interesting thing to know. This means that people will buy that NFT thinking it is on a 50% discount but in reality it has been bought again by the same original creator. Also a group of people can buy the NFT, making it more valuable as people see that particular NFT is in demand and it has been bought many times. So many tactics can be used to sell the useless NFT at good prices.

I already explained myself in my next post after the one you quoted. I was making fun of the idea of being the digital owner of a post or a piece of art/drawing that is publicly available on the Internet for anyone to use and do with it as they please. It seems so foolish to me and worth nowhere near the inflated prices that these pieces are getting sold for. More precisely, the prices that we see, but in reality it can be the same person paying himself out of a different account and then selling it to a third-party with a fake 50% discount. A 50% discount from the price he paid himself.

In reality, the opposite of this is true. Once you own an NFT, everyone can see that NFT, download it, use it anywhere but the owner only controls the Ethereum wallet associated with that Post/Pic/Video/Music/NFT.

Why on earth does anyone need to pay the original owner, when they can use the NFT free without the ethereum wallet of course. Seems like NFT is the biggest scam in a modern day world that is fooling the whole of mankind.

I Think,  The Forum doesn't need their own post.I would like to say NFT they should be Using verified their method like others method.They are not useless and i don't say that coz they are  in the marketplace. If they verified require they i think scammer can't scam. And i think they will be selling venue ticket directly with public.

I don't think it would be possible to know. I know that airlines will generally sell 10x% (100% + x) of seats based on the assumption that some ticket holders will not show up.

The posts you quoted were specifically regarding why a NFT is superior to a back-end database with regards to trusting the entity issuing the NFT. I would expect that cost to transfer a NFT to generally be cheaper than using a back-end database, given that a back-end database will typically involve third-party intermediaries (such as StubHub), which will charge their own fees (which are very substantial).

There is also the issue of price transparency on the secondary market. It is not easy to know with certainty what others are paying for similar seats when using a back-end database.

There is also a very low barrier to entry into the NFT marketplace. This makes it easier for people to offer competing marketplaces that charge lower fees.

Are venues scamming customers in ways you're describing a problem that exists anywhere in the world? Looks to me as if it's mostly a solution in search of a problem.

Neither with NFTs, from the customer's side. I still cannot comprehend how can this work on a global scale if the whole world went into, say, Ethereum. How would it scale with decent fees if at the moment the fee costs more than the ticket itself?

I'm confused by your writings. Who you say will cheat, the venue or the scalpers and for which reason?

Doesn't the venue want you to not know that?

You can see who created the NFT.  In the example of a venue selling tickets, it would be as easy as looking at the creator of the NFT and seeing if they're verified using a marketplace like opensea which is the popular method currently, or you can look at the blockchain and see if the contract address matches the address given by the venue for the event.  A big feature of NFTs is being able to confirm their authenticity, although that is just one of many advantage over the current venue ticketing system.  I might also add that this is just one example of a use case.  There are so many more I get dizzy thinking about it.  An NFT could function as anything from a share of an investment fund (works well because you can easily pay dividends to NFT holders by looking up their addresses on the blockchain) or it could be a picture of a penis that grows or shrinks with your wallet's ETH balance.  There will be many use cases and that is exciting to me.

Creating a system in which ticket holders can transfer tickets to others is very possible but is not trivial, nor free. With NFT tickets, transferring tickets would be done via software used by ticket holders.

I don't think NFTs would give more access to a venue's business. The price tickets are selling for directly from the venue is public. The capacity of a venue is public, and actual attendance is often publicized. Venues do not typically participate in the secondary market for their tickets.

As I mentioned in my last post, venues have incentives to maximize actual attendance because one more person attending an event results in expected additional revenue via concession sales. So if you have a valid ticket, and there is space for you, the venue is going to try to get additional money from you by letting you in and trying to get you to buy concessions.

So issuing NFTs as tickets would allow customers to detect (and trust that a venue is not) overselling tickets to their events.

So what's the incentive of the venue to actually issue NFTs instead of back-end tickets? With the latter their customers will have less access to their business.

The level of trust isn't reduced. The scenario where the venue rips you off remains and it's the only problem with or without NFTs. What to do the proof of the ticket ownership if the venue does not want to accept it either way?

There are a limited number of reasons why a venue would deny someone access to an event they have a valid ticket for. Most venues have some kind of concession stand and/or a "gift shop" that generates revenue, so they have an incentive to have as many people inside the venue for an event as they can get.

Similarly to the above, if a venue sells 100 tickets to an event, there is the expectation that not every (current) ticket holder will show up. So if a venue expects 90% of current ticket holders to show up, they might sell 108 tickets for every 100 people worth of capacity the venue has, so they can maximize their revenue. If a venue were to sell tickets as NFTs, something like this could be easily detected.

Some entertainment events also have specific seat assignments. If you have a ticket for a specific seat, if you have an NFT ticket, you will know with certainty the venue did not issue another ticket for that same specific seat.

If you are denied admission to an event, after the fact, if you have an NFT ticket, you can prove that you actually had a valid ticket to the event if you were to complain. If you had an electronic ticket linked to the venue's private database, the venue could potentially deny that your ticket was valid.

So yes, you still need to trust the venue if you are using NFT tickets, but the level of trust needed is reduced.

It's definitely a phase, exactly like you described it except the ICO craziness involved a lot of straight-up scams, whereas the NFT mania seems to be a digital version of the tulip bubble (and yes, I know there are scams in the NFT space).  Something like this could only happen in a world where people have too much time and money on their hands.

Sure, NFTs would be a great innovation for that--but wanna bet the music/concert venue industry never adopts it?  All of those ICO projects had ideas about solving real-world problems with blockchain technology.  How many of them do you see around you right now, having been implemented?  I sure as hell don't see a single one, and I'm predicting NFTs won't be used for any useful purpose either.  

Time will tell, and we could all argue endlessly about what the future holds, but in the present NFTs represent digital art primarily and those art pieces are going for crazy prices (not all of them, but more than is justified IMO).  The market is in a bubble, plain and simple.

Edit:

Dang, you wrote pretty much what I did.  Should have read this whole page first, but there's a lot of bickering.  You're on point about the whole solution-in-search-of-a-problem thing.  That phrase has been uttered since at least 2013, because I remember reading it on that forum for skeptics that James Randi owned before I joined bitcointalk.  Back then they were saying it about bitcoin, but it's just as applicable to NFTs.

Same like affiliate links work, but for scalpers.

If they make the purchase using some sort of KYC or via a bank, yeah, it will harm their privacy. However, if they pay using bitcoin, they'll get the same privacy they would using Ethereum. Getting the tickets that're stored in a centralized database using a decentralized currency sounds fine to me.

I still don't get why they should be distributed to the world decentralized-ly.

But, you have to trust the venue either way. Alright, so why can't I say the same with NFTs? Don't I have to trust their words they'll allow me to join in? Can't they simply deny my enter with no excuses?

LoyceV said it;

Having concert tickets tracked via a back-end database operated by a concert venue would mean the concert venue could arbitrarily transfer a ticket from one person to another, without the consent of the owner. If there is a dispute, there is no real way for a ticket holder to prove their case, other than their word.

With a NFT on the other hand, a venue could mind a number of NFTs up to the capacity of their venue for a particular concert. Any time the NFT changes hands (is transferred) this transaction is visible on the blockchain, and the buyer can be certain that a ticket was in fact issued by the venue. If a buyer were to buy a concert ticket, the buyer might similarly check the authenticity of the ticket via the venue's website, however unlike with a NFT, if the ticket is for some reason invalidated, there would not really be any way to know what happened, or who was responsible.

With a back-end database, a venue could potentially scam x percent of customers undetected. With a NFT, the issuer cannot scam a customer without it being obvious they have done so.

---

I might note that most NFTs do not currently work as above described. To my knowledge, there is no real way to confirm the authenticity of any given NFT. The same would likely be true for any bitcointalk post sold as an NFT.

I remember the days when Ethereum started with "code is law" (something they abandoned the moment it was convenient for the ones in control), and one of the examples they gave for smart contracts in real life was renting a car. I instantly wondered how that would work, as you need to manually check for damages and confirm that with the rental company, but nobody seemed to care. And now, years later, not a single rental car uses very expensive transactions on the centrally controlled Ethereum blockchain. It's used for many scam tokens though, and I expect NFTs to have a similar ending.
There's no point to use a blockchain for anything tangible, as long as it relies on a single company. They can just as well do it internally. The same applies to digital tokens in online games: if the game gets shut down, it's all gone with or without NFT.
Car ownership could work as a NFT, but that would require a government agency to run the blockchain. Many people lose their current registration papers, and if it relies on a private key many people will lose ownership of their car forever. That would be a bad solution for something that isn't even a problem (I currently pay €10.40 to transfer ownership of a car in a centralized database).
NFTs are "a solution looking for a problem".

If you read your own process again you'll realize how much centralization is involved in that approach already. Which mean there is no benefit in trying to squeeze a decentralized step such as NFTs into the whole thing.

You are making a big assumption here to justify your statements. How do you know people haven't already given the chance to these "token platforms" and their supposed technologies and were gravely disappointed?

How would you propose this happened in the venue's backend?  Don't ask me to put in place and demonstrate a dumb process to you.  You do it and I'll pick it apart for you to show you why that would be a poor centralized version that requires a ridiculous amount more involvement while giving a subpar experience to the end user requiring invasions of their privacy and enforcement through threats of violence.

I'm not sure those currently writing articles on NFTs are experienced enough with NFTs or their decade long existence on blockchains to have written an article more insightful than my example.  Feel free to do the legwork yourself and post one you understand more clearly if you'd like.

Alright, so why can't this happen in the venue's back-end database? Why should there not be trust in this procedure since venues and only venues can mint the tickets? Everything happens from the venues' website.

Wanna drop me some other, more convincing arguments from an article maybe?

Well, the example I gave was concert tickets, so I'll stick with that as it is a simple and easy to understand innovation.  Right now when a venue sells tickets, they have to deal with scalpers trying to resell their tickets for a profit.  This is a problem because for sold out events it forces would be attendees to purchase their tickets from these scalpers.  This results in endless heartaches for those who purchase fake tickets, or a financial drain for those who pay way too much from a reliable secondhand seller.  With NFTs, scalpers would be considered friends to venues instead of enemies.  Their secondhand sales could be contractually obligated to pay a % to the venue for resales.  Additionally, those buying from resellers could verify the tickets are genuine before making the purchase.  They can also see what other people are paying for tickets up to that very minute.  Just this one example decriminalizes scalpers, gives the venue a new revenue source, and gives customers the ability to make sure they are buying genuine products at a fair price.

That is just one example, but a game changer for crypto nonetheless.



Believe it or not, I'm well aware of colored coins as I was not only around before then, but was also managing an offering on the GLBSE (before your time but go ahead and look it up) so I'm certain I'm far more versed in not only the technology, but it's history than you are.  Answering your question, the blocksize limit killed any chance colored coins had to be useful going forward.  Since you namedropped colored coins, take a look at Namecoin NFTs and your mind will really be blown.