Topic: Bitcointalk posts as nft (Read 646 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.

If it's indeed innovative and brings something new to this world, I'll hug it tight. It's just that I don't think it's as useful as you think. Alright, so we'll walk out with self-custody on our concert tickets, so what? I may be forced to use it, but that doesn't change my attitude towards it. Hell, I'm even gonna be forced to use CBDCs.

Alright, would you mind telling me what else NFTs can do instead of *just* selling/buying rights of a product?

It does matter a little, though. If I was crazy about NFTs I would chin in the network effect by a lot. Same thing happened with bitcoin. There were people who did contribute by a lot; it shouldn't be imagined it just broke one trillion plainly by its existence.

I wish it won't, at least in a protocol level. I wish it stays as neutral as it currently is.

By the way, bitcoin did had NFTs, the so-called “Colored Coins”. What did it make those fail, Sherlock?

You are always free to doubt friend.  I was in Bitcoin back in 2011, I'm familiar very much with people not understanding and then dismissing new world changing technologies before giving them a chance.  Luckily, your doubt cannot stop innovation and moving forward.  NFTs are here to stay and people who think it is only about art and no different then people who thought Bitcoin was nothing more than useless fake money in 2011.  Time will prove right those who can visualize the future.  It makes no difference what you or I think or even what we do.  I just hope Bitcoin can catch up as it's use cases have been dwindling for years while other chains are continuing to evolve the world into crypto.

I think this is necessary, but needs a specific upgrade, nft can apply to meme icons, can also be a form of decoration for members, or an nft content creation.

No, but that's what honestly kept me.

They may aren't here to make some profit, but they are all for the money. Whether they see it as a get-rich-quick scheme, an investment, a store-of-value or a currency they are all for the money. All these are part of finance.

Yes, they want to build some cool things such as NFTs. I never said they're useless or that their reason of existence is exclusively speculative, but I can't deny that it's not part of finance. They're result of work on top of a currency. They cannot be realistically seen outside finance.

Until this happens, let me have my doubts it will.

Neither do I, but people buy them at amounts one would consider absurd.

Lol.  I picked up on it!  After the second read-through, of course.  Sarcasm just doesn't translate well in forum posts for some reason.

If you can make an NFT out of a bitcointalk post--and if there's someone suggesting it--I think that's a sign that the mania is about to hit its peak.  IMO that peak can't come too soon, because I can't seem to avoid hearing about these worthless things no matter where I go.  Everyone is talking about them as if they're the new bitcoin, and how much money can be made from them, etc.  But somehow I never hear compelling arguments as to why they should be worth anything at all.

So what if you "owned" one of Satoshi's posts (or someone else's)?  Is that something you're going to treasure years from now?  Hand down to your kids?  Not likely.  More likely is that if you can't find a sucker to unload it to, you'll be stuck owning a piece of digital trash that doesn't truly represent anything unique and that no one will ever care about, much less want to buy at any price. 

Let me take a wild guess, you got involved in crypto for the currency aspect? Not everybody is in this space only for the money. Some people want to build cool things. Whether you like NFTs or not, someday you won’t have the option to not buy one if you ever want to attend a concert or sporting event. What currency you use to pay for it will likely be up to you.

Bitcointalk or some shitposters?

For your information, the scam known as BSV still has some fraudulent supporters on this very place with their own little thread in which they censor everybody. However, it's part of the rules to be as free as possible;

First real use case of a currency outside finance. Of a currency. Outside finance. Seemingly absurd.

Yeah, NFTs actually make quite a bit of sense in certain scenarios, though that's limited, and currently we're going through a phase of everything in the world becoming an NFT, which in a lot of instances doesn't really make all that much sense.

Especially, Bitconitalk posts. Doesn't make sense to me, and I'd say Twitter is the same. Though, I do accept that's the way the world is going currently. I do think its a phase though, and a lot of people will be looking back at this somewhat like the ICO craze a few years ago.

No, bitcointalk didn't join the ICO scams, it just advertised them for money.  It didn't create it's own fork, it just censored the ones others worked on.  It didn't join the DeFi-hype, it left millions of dollars in unclaimed HEX on the table.  Not entering the NFT space would be no less destructive than the other decisions listed here.  Especially if L2 is supposed to be the way forward.  NFTs are the most functional and useful thing that has entered the crypto space in a long time and NFTs in gaming might be Bitcoin's first real use case that anyone outside of finance would give a shit about...  You either get it or you don't.  You clearly don't and that's ok.  Innovation isn't for everyone.  Right click and save, am I right?  

Whoever didn't know it, NFTs were a thing in bitcoin long before they gain this name; they just didn't get enough interest: Colored Coins.

To be honest, I haven't understood why should tweets be sold in the first place. Wanna give me one reason?

This is not true unless both the seller and buyer agree not to which never happens. The buyer mysteriously seems willing to re-sell it in a higher price than the one they bought it and uploads it on every NFT marketplace.

However, the purpose of NFTs isn't about the content, but the rights of it.

I like this. Can we NFT all scams and the Press board?

Bitcointalk didn't join the ICO scams, Bitcointalk didn't create it's own Fork, Bitcointalk doesn't join the Defi-hype and Bitcointalk sure as hell won't join the latest money making scheme called NFT.
Months ago I saw a good picture explaining it in WO, but I can't find it back. Something like: NFT means you don't own something, you can't take it home and you can't stop others from using it, but if you go to one specific made-up blockchain, it will tell you it's yours. That's BS. Bottled air is more real!

---

---

That being said, if anyone is dumb enough to offer Bitcoin to get a made-up token on a made-up chain that makes them think they own my posts: feel free to make me an offer! Bidding starts at 69BTC.

This reminded me of that $69 million worth of that painting, Beeple, although it is not something drawn by a 3 year old child but it is only a digital art that you usually saw around the internet and is just being categorized as NFTs.
Well if what you said keeps happening, I can only imagine someone downloading random image in any image hosting website, doing some photoshop into it, and publishing it in the internet with cost of thousand bucks.

---

My source: Beeple sold an NFT for $69 million
Nice price, I just noticed lol.

I think the whole thing about these NTFs is so pointless that it's not clear to me who and why is paying a few hundred thousand $ for something that looks like it was drawn by a 3 year old child? The idea of someone monetizing forum members' posts in this way is even more absurd, because they would have to seek the consent of the owners of those same posts for such things - and I'm sure not everyone would agree.

Besides, this is not the first idea that came up when it comes to the NTF and the forum.

Bitcointalk NFT tokens

I don't know what I'm trying to say about the NFT you're talking about, but if the goal is to help fund the forum, I don't think NFT is necessary. NFT is the new hype where we can see it as too high and too expensive (in some cases) but I don't think forums need NFT just to get funding. If the forum really wants to capitalize on the hype, then we currently have token or coin in its name on the market with fundraising through ICOs, IEOs and so on. But it looks like forum can skip all that because I don't think income is one of the main goals of this forum.

So far the forum has source of revenue from advertising to pay moderators but if indeed the forum needs more funding then I think admins can think of more great things than NFT which I think will only last a while. I know NFT is fine if someone wants to do it, but who's going to buy someone else's reasonable post for a great price?

I would say they are and only the copyright owner can market the art they created and if you want to do so, you'll need their permission. However, in this case, Satoshi is no longer on the forum and no one can seek permission from him, so I'm not perfectly sure of the laws about it and who one would need to seek permission from.

The scope of NFTs is so broad now and probably abused, but it is perfectly possible to put up a bitcointalk post for sale, whether anyone would or should buy is another topic.

Hey, I think it's pointless as well, but if some rich dudes that has too much money wants to bid it up it and the money ends up going to a good cause, then I'm all for it. It's not like they're going to get scammed or something; they totally know what they're getting when paying for an NFT.

If you're curious how high people's interest is in nft bitcointalk posts. Some time ago I came across this nft "artist", and you can see he is trying to sell Satoshi's welcome post on this forum. Looks like it hasn't been sold yet. Maybe because marketing factors affect, or basically forum posts are not interesting to be used as nft.

By the way, is this user violating copyright?

NFT's in the most part seem a lot like going to the park in the city where the air is supposedly cleaner, bottling it, and selling it to people that are rushing to work in their cars. Why on earth someone would want to own a Bitcointalk post, that someone else wrote just doesn't make much sense.

NFT's have their uses I suppose, but Bitcointalk posts aren't that. NFT's are just being abused, and overused for a means of making money. It'll fade away given enough time. It does make you laugh though, that someone that's free, and open to all is now being peddled as something that's exclusive, and worth something, like Twitter posts. A bit ridiculous really, especially considering most Bitcoin users would have once upon a time liked the idea that its decentralised.

Anyway, Bitcointalk posts as NFTs? Nah, not going to happen.

I don't think that the forum needs this for funding. It's not poor and it also have its pretty good ways of getting more funds.
On the other hand, doing this would look like endorsing/supporting NFTs and maybe even certain NFT platform. I don't think that such a move would be good on long term.

My post was meant as a ridicule of most implementations of NFTs. Everything I mentioned can still be achieved whether or not a post is achieved as an NFT or not. Once this hype passes and people get addicted to something else, the only worthwhile use case will be gaming and the possibility to own your characters, maps, weapons, skills, whatever, and being able to move those around different games. 

"According to "Valuables," the tweet itself will "continue to live on Twitter," but the winning bidder would own the NFT, "signed and verified by the creator," like a virtual autograph. - cnbc

I assume similar would be applicable to this forum and posts will continue to live on bitcointalk.

Hopefully this would be possible when NFTs are created on bitcoin blockchain. This forum is about bitcoin, not ethereum or other altcoin projects that are now supporting NFTs.

I am confused. I think it is the token (NFT) private key that will be for and protected by the owner as the owner of the token. The pictures or posts would be publicly available as it is now.

Luckily, once someone becomes an NFT owner of a Bitcointalk post, no one else can see the post publicly. You can no longer click on it, you can't copy-paste it, or quote it. It completely disappears from the face of the earth (Internet) and can only be found in the buyer's Ethereum wallet. This really is the future and I am wondering why Bitcointalk is getting themselves involved!?

I am considering recording my voice while moaning loudly. It's going to be an incredible collection worth millions. There will of course be a discount and special rates for Bitcointalk users.

This forum is open to all. While no one will ever stop them from creating NFT for thier own posts like Satoshi's post or Laszlo's pizza post, I'm not sure how is it going to make a difference since anyone can still view or read that thread.

The point of NFT is to make it like you are the owner of the art and non can shut it unless you have the keys. If you have an NFT of Laszlo post and Laszlo suddenly decides to login and edit his post, what's going to happen to you NFT?

I'm pretty sure Bitcointalk doesn't need extra funding. If Theymos wanted to make NFTs based on Bitcointalk historical posts(the hodl post, Satoshi posts, etc) and use the funds to support a charity/cause though, I' pretty sure it could be successful.

The forum doesn't own user posts, they're the property of the entity that wrote them.

If someone wanted to find a post, get permission from the poster and then sell it as an nft they could (whether the demand would be there might be different).

If tweets can be sold as nft why not bitcointalk posts?

Bitcointalk has had many notable people and I presume their older posts would have significant demand.

Could also help in forum's funding, if needed.

Wdy think?