snip
1993, I swear Hal invented BTC, every time I jump in the rabbit hole it leads to him. 
Topic: Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 1260 times)
The open market decides what is valuable or worthless
I consider it worthless for the reasons I outlined. Alas if I cared how people evaluate things. [...]
It's advisable to state that value is a vague term, in contrast with price. There are sub-terms such as personal value, intrinsic value, market value etc. If you sell a bitcoin for $40,000, it'll have a $40,000 equivalent market value, but a $0 intrinsic value. Or, if you sell me a toy I had when I was 5, nostalgia will affect me and I'll personally evaluate it differently than the rest of the buyers. Therefore my personal value will be greater than the current market value. 
I changed my opinion, because it’s not in my position, as a mere pleb, to call something valuable, or worthless. The open market decides what is valuable or worthless, not the opinions of individuals. Which we have experienced as Bitcoiners, those opinions are 99.9% WRONG.
True but there is a difference between having a price and being valuable in my opinion.You can sell anything to people, even complete garbage and they buy it but that never means that what you are selling them has value. Value comes from utility, if you sell people dog shit for a million dollar a bag, that still doesn't give dog shit any utility. But at the end of the day, bitcoin still has a lot of utility to provide.
I think there is some underlying value in NFTs.
I began thinking like there's even one thing legitimate about them, but I honestly can't find any. Are they promoted as an alternative method to transfer rights of digital property? I already explained why this fails in I had the same opinion. I called NFT the “Tulip Mania 2.0” of the current bull cycle, but I remembered what Hal Finney said,
I changed my opinion, because it’s not in my position, as a mere pleb, to call something valuable, or worthless. The open market decides what is valuable or worthless, not the opinions of individuals. Which we have experienced as Bitcoiners, those opinions are 99.9% WRONG.
I think there is some underlying value in NFTs.
I began thinking like there's even one thing legitimate about them, but I honestly can't find any. Are they promoted as an alternative method to transfer rights of digital property? I already explained why this fails in I don't disagree that many people are laundering money via NFTs, as I understand that many people also launder money via the purchase of art, and for the most part NFTs are a form of "digital art" (although there is the potential for non-art NFTs).
It is not about art per se. It is about finding a way to "wash" dirty money. Which is why I use the general category of tokens rather than NFTs. It is actually a lot harder and costs a lot of money to launder money using art.When using tokens, the laundering costs nothing because the creation of the token costs nothing whereas there has to be some art that has some minimum quality to not raise suspicion. The tokens already have no quality and they are not regulated and the "buyer" (who is also the seller putting dirty money from one pocket to another) can be anonymous.
I think there is some underlying value in NFTs.
I don't see it.I don't think there would be demand for a NFT that could potentially be sold on another blockchain.
Considering the fact that people have bought coins that didn't even have a blockchain (ie. they were dead) mainly during 2017, I don't think they care whether the same NFT is being sold elsewhere! What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT?
It doesnt matter what I think they think they are buying. What matters is the terms and conditions of the sale, what rights were bestowed upon the buyer. of course, then that brings up other questions about how those terms and conditions are inherited upon future sales if using a different marketplace than the original sale happened on...
Quote
Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?
does the artist give up their rights to the work?
What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT? Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?
There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.
I don't disagree that many people are laundering money via NFTs, as I understand that many people also launder money via the purchase of art, and for the most part NFTs are a form of "digital art" (although there is the potential for non-art NFTs).
I also don't disagree that a lot of people buying up NFTs are speculating, but I don't think NFTs are tulip bulbs. I think there is some underlying value in NFTs. I don't think there would be demand for a NFT that could potentially be sold on another blockchain.
And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.
And this third group is by far the largest
I have not seen a single person who isn't buying a token for profit making. The people you mention are also "investing" in these tokens thinking they would appreciate in time. Something like the dotcom bubble but without the bubble.And this third group is by far the largest
Yes, the same you can do with BTC... right clicking it, you can create Bitcoin... who would buy it?
No, you can't create bitcoin out of thin air but you can create an unlimited amount of the same token out of thin air with virtually no cost. NFT is basically sign that you're owner of specific content. I seriously doubt it's biggest group when cryptocurrency marketcap is very small compared with other investment and it's very easy to pirate the NFT. Some people even decide to pirate almost all NFT[1].
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-nft-bay-asks-if-you-would-steal-all-the-jpegs/ar-AAQSzsM
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-nft-bay-asks-if-you-would-steal-all-the-jpegs/ar-AAQSzsM
Yes, the same you can do with BTC... right clicking it, you can create Bitcoin... who would buy it?
And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.
And this third group is by far the largest
And this third group is by far the largest
NFT is basically sign that you're owner of specific content. I seriously doubt it's biggest group when cryptocurrency marketcap is very small compared with other investment and it's very easy to pirate the NFT. Some people even decide to pirate almost all NFT[1].
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-nft-bay-asks-if-you-would-steal-all-the-jpegs/ar-AAQSzsM
There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.
First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.
First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.
And there is a third group... people who want to collect something... like stamps, coins... and todays generation has discovered NFTs. If you check opensea.io (largest marketplace for NFTs) you will find out, that most people are buying and collecting these items.
And this third group is by far the largest
What exactly do you think people believe they are buying when they buy an NFT? Why do you think people have been willing to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars for NFTS? Because they have too much money in their bank account?
There are only 2 types of people who buy tokens including NFTs.First group are simply laundering money, which is why you suddenly see a random NFT appear and immediately be sold for millions of dollars by complete anonymous sources.
The other group are the gamblers who think buying the current hype is going to give them a lot of profit in the shortest time possible. They don't pay much for these tokens.
As I mentioned, the issuer needs to represent if the NFT represents exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the issuer says the NFT represents exclusive ownership of an asset, then tries to sell a similar NFT on another blockchain, they are selling something they don't own, and would be committing fraud.
i dont think most people that buy nfts have any type of ownership over the artwork itself thus the above is a mute point. just because there is only one up for sale on some marketplace on some blockchain doesn't mean they can't go and sell the same thing on other blockchains. buyer might not like it but that's how it goes. now i think where it might seem unethical to do is to go and sell it on some other marketplace using the same blockchain. but buyers have no control in any event.
As I mentioned, the issuer needs to represent if the NFT represents exclusive ownership of the underlying asset. If the issuer says the NFT represents exclusive ownership of an asset, then tries to sell a similar NFT on another blockchain, they are selling something they don't own, and would be committing fraud.
i dont think most people that buy nfts have any type of ownership over the artwork itself thus the above is a mute point. just because there is only one up for sale on some marketplace on some blockchain doesn't mean they can't go and sell the same thing on other blockchains. buyer might not like it but that's how it goes. now i think where it might seem unethical to do is to go and sell it on some other marketplace using the same blockchain. but buyers have no control in any event.
In order for an NFT to have value, the issuing entity needs to have some kind of ownership claim to the underlying asset. So if one entity sells the same underlying asset twice on two different blockchains, the buyers of those assets could come after the issuing authority in court.
why is that though? the creator of an nft can sell it anywhere and as many places as they want to. no one is going to come after them for doing that.
Quote
The solution to the above problem is not technical, as it not technically possible to prevent someone from selling the same asset on two blockchains. The solution is legal, and is something that would need to be handled by the courts.
yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money. but i guess that's relative. like if their nft is worth $200,000 vs $2.
yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money.
There's no law enforcement in NFTs, that's the problem. Currently, to prevent copyright infringement, the creators have to declare their property, but there're intermediaries involved. Transferring rights using a blockchain is a completely unofficial procedure and does not transfer the ownership legally, yet.However, I'm not convinced such actions will be taken any time soon from the states.
You could simply validate with a signature.
Sig points to physical asset. Serialized objects make it easier.
I did a proof of Burn Signature binding concept a few years ago something's misaligned now and the signature doesn't check out anymore but it did at the time.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/auctionproof-of-burn-notes-something-different-bwatartadeco-last-hour-5150524
I guess in a way I designed the BTC NFT or what could be.
You could add terms to a sale with signatures and DChain the sig with historical TX ID , a itemized Blockchain within a Blockchain. Like a human read smart contract kinda.
Now I want to mess with this concept....
Sig points to physical asset. Serialized objects make it easier.
I did a proof of Burn Signature binding concept a few years ago something's misaligned now and the signature doesn't check out anymore but it did at the time.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/auctionproof-of-burn-notes-something-different-bwatartadeco-last-hour-5150524
I guess in a way I designed the BTC NFT or what could be.
You could add terms to a sale with signatures and DChain the sig with historical TX ID , a itemized Blockchain within a Blockchain. Like a human read smart contract kinda.
Now I want to mess with this concept....
In order for an NFT to have value, the issuing entity needs to have some kind of ownership claim to the underlying asset. So if one entity sells the same underlying asset twice on two different blockchains, the buyers of those assets could come after the issuing authority in court.
why is that though? the creator of an nft can sell it anywhere and as many places as they want to. no one is going to come after them for doing that.
maybe what you meant is if a buyer of an nft tries to do that. completely different story.
Quote
The solution to the above problem is not technical, as it not technically possible to prevent someone from selling the same asset on two blockchains. The solution is legal, and is something that would need to be handled by the courts.
yeah but are they allowed to do that? anyone considering legal action will probably end up spending alot of money. but i guess that's relative. like if their nft is worth $200,000 vs $2.
and then what about people that get hacked and lost their nft that way? you dont know who the hacker is so there's no legal recourse, only technical solutions to stop the hacker from profiting off their stolen artwork.
NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain have been around for years on the counter party platform.
I have a couple rare pepes myself.
I have a couple rare pepes myself.
I did not know that.
OK, I change my mind about NFTs. Although the NFT market currently is Tulip Mania 2.0, it might also have a purpose not only as an “asset”, but a technology of expression of socio-political viewpoints, and other such messages.
Jump to: