Topic: Reee: How would bitcointalk community react to bitcointalk nfts - page 2. (Read 447 times)

It's not even that for me. I just think there's been opinions which have been sort of standardised, if that makes any sense. It's become socially acceptable in a sense to absolutely dog on any sort of altcoin, including NFT's whenever possible. I've gotten that impression for a while, and while I don't necessarily blame people for having that opinion, I'm pretty sure it's become just a saying, without the user actually finding it out for themselves. I think the right term would be herd mentality, and following social norms, which this forum definitely does have, as does literally every place you look. I've followed social norms, as well as you, and others. There's nothing wrong with this, but it does frustrate those that aren't following them at that time. The thing is, we need pioneers in this world to generate any sort of new technology or success. 

Of course, the altcoin scene is pretty wild, and there's a lot of crap out there which is why I do understand why it has the reputation that it does. However, that doesn't mean everything is crap. There's a few examples which I'm sure a few people could give that are actually fairly exciting. For example, I'm quite interested in the mimble wimble technology which I actually think could potentially be a good implementation. Grin obviously stirred up a storm when it was announced, partly due to theymos announcing grin was accepted for certain things on the forum, but some of that was also genuine interest.

So, while NFTs are definitely the fad right now, some users don't realise they've actually technically been part of our lives for some years now, they just haven't been labelled or introduced to them like NFTs. I do think a lot of NFT implementations are crap, but that's the same as crap implementations of altcoins. There is, and will always be interesting ideas which are being tested, which Bitcoin doesn't have.

Which is an important point to make. Although, everything that's been successful will have people jumping on the bandwagon, and trying to make their own version in an attempt to make a lot of money. I think there's a saying "failure of your own success". Technically, Bitcoin has been copied a million times by now, and while a lot of users will roll their eyes at a new up, and coming altcoin it's because they're attempting to create the success of Bitcoin, in their own way. Obviously, most are copies or just badly implemented, but there are the exceptions.

Just to answer the question and the title of this thread , i wouldnt react in any way about bitcointalk nfts i guess .
Because i have not a single NFT or something like that and i dont want a NFT , for sure if theymos will be decide to make some i would think about.
But for now i guess its nothing that would help Bitcointalk or the community , it would be only another thing that someone makes profit from it.
Just my 2 cents here on that.

This is the first interesting thing I've read about NFTs in a very long time. Can you tell more about the "decentralized database" the (this specific) image from your NFT is stored in?


When the vast majority of NFTs one sees are images like made of 5-years old kid in Paintbrush (ok, I'm generalizing badly, but I think that you get the point), all on OpenSea, I would not be surprised that people gets sick and tired of it.

Explaining that the things can be better, explaining at least to those open to read the explanations, debunking the incorrect info, is something that maybe should be done (or done better) now and then.
For now you have given me a nice surprise, still, I am still somewhat wary and I need more details (or links).


Also, exactly because many share "my" opinion, my suggestion would be to add somewhere in the top post some (very) short debunking information, to keep the rest of the posts on-topic.

---

LE: I will continue here, to mot create too many posts. This is about the original topic and it's something I've also said in the other post.
One problem with the idea of using NFT for bitcointalk could be that it would look like bitcointalk is endorsing NFT technology. So maybe using the name bitcointalk in this could be somehow avoided? I don't know, just an idea.

Yes, hundreds of thousands by this point... Take this one for example, its what I am doing to build my Bitcoin Forum NFTs. The data which is presented in the Information tab is totally immutable: it cannot be changed by me, nor can it be changed by anyone b/c the file that contains it is stored in a decentralized database. More commonly used than this is IPFS, and an entire blockchain (WAX) already revolves around using it to store data for its NFTs.


You're basically saying a lack of understanding is what is preventing you from understanding NFTs. I've actually heard this line of reasoning from other forum members over the last couple months, though its still quite bizarre.


Sure, one of the clearest-cut examples is the earliest, which is Namecoin domain names. Namecoin names are, in essence, non-fungible tokens that provide a censorship-resistant method for website access. Because the Tor network and I2P achieve the same effect in a more robust manner, they never really caught on, but they could still serve a role in the future some day.

Other good, non-image uses involve NFTs that grants their holders rights, permissions, or special access. For example, there have been bots made for ETH, BTC and even DOGE NFTs that allow token-gated access to Discord channels, meaning you must own the token in your wallet in order to join the channel. Property rights have been conveyed via NFT, rights to music & video IP, and all sorts of media. Its quite possible that NFTs will be used to convey ownership of smart property, e.g. an apartment or car door that unlocks after proof of corresponding token ownership has been established. The most promising upcoming use case for NFTs in the future are related to identity.


You didn't provide any reasoning with which to do so... you just made a statement, "I think this is a big step in the wrong direction," but you didn't say why.

I saw your NFT project before and I think it has potential, but I really don't understand why I have to believe or not believe in any of this like in some religion.
Metaverse is just a stupid idea and I don't know how that crap has anything to do with Bitcoin or with NFT., unless you plan to stay locked at home for life with your metaverse helmet on  

The blockchain part is OK. But linking it to data stored by a business on its database is not OK. That's the implementation I was telling about.
Are there any NFTs that don't have "the metadata" on various companies' servers? I am not aware of more.


This is the part that made me stop believing in NFTs as viable tech. Of course, if you have good example/explanation to prove me I'm wrong, I will be happy to see it's not everything lost.
For now I see it a hype based on an incompletely baked idea/tech. And hype is .. nuanced (see, I can say that without using strong words).


You didn't manage to convince me that my reasoning is incorrect.

What exactly do you mean by "implementation"? The blockchain? That is what NFTs are implemented on. Some are even implemented on the Bitcoin blockchain (some of my favorite ones, as a matter of fact).


OpenSea is a business, but its not where the NFTs are stored, so in essence the NFTs themselves are only as centralized as their blockchain. Sure, the metadata of some NFTs is mutable & prone to hacks but its a far cry from all NFTs... for some NFTs the metadata isn't important at all and its only the token itself that matters, which cannot be hacked, so much as a blockchain can be hacked. You're making sweeping generalizations to paint all NFTs with the same brush to further convince yourself that your pre-conceived viewpoint is the correct one. It's based on limited knowledge of an extremely nuanced subject.


Here you've stated an opinion backed by zero reasoning, not much I can do with it.

I will start that the other thread was not clear about that (or I've just missed it, and many others).
Still, some value their avatar, while many others don't, or just rent it. And here one point - maybe interesting for some - could be that maybe certain companies or signature/bounty managers could get interested in that.


NFT may be a good idea, but imho the implementation is bad, hence comparing it with bitcoin is inappropriate.

Many don't see in the current use of NFT more than childish images. Many have came with - imho good - points that currently NFTs are pretty much centralized (Open Sea) and the blockchain information points to an old school server / database with all the problems of that (mutable, prone to hacks).



Maybe I'm wrong, maybe other bitcoiners are wrong too, but asking "If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?" is imho a big step in the wrong direction.

I'm reee-ing this thread as it was opened and closed before I even saw it... and I do have a lot of responses to comments in it.

Personal plea: I'd appreciate it if respondents didn't just rehash knee-jerk opinions on NFTs for the sake of cranking out a post to fulfill their weekly quota, thanks.

Obviously OP realized pretty quickly his particular vision of the idea wasn't gonna fly with the community, so no need to belabor that point.


I agree this should be the case when it comes to high-profile members, like satoshi and Hal... it wouldn't be right for just anybody to make them and sell them... or sell anybody's w/o the consent of the user themselves... would be interpreted as a cash grab.


Funny you should mention it -- this is actually what I did, but in reverse: your avatar IS the NFT. The image attached to the token changes when you change your avatar.


Thanks for bringing it up. And I'd just like to point out that this is all accomplished entirely on the Bitcoin blockchain. I thought it was cool because its sort of an identity token that represents who you are on the forum and the blockchain. Alternatively, you have the option of minting multiple copies so you can trade them with others (this can be done in a trustless fashion using the Counterparty DEX). It would be a fun way to collect Bitcoin-backed trading cards of other forum users. For the entrepreneurial, you could even wrap them and sell them on OpenSea, or any of the other NFT markets.

I was thrilled to have a wisened OG like philipma1957 volunteer to go first... There are 4 other members who expressed interest that I'm current waiting to hear back from.


Cryptocurrency (Bitcoin being the first and most prominent) is the digital representation of money. NFTs are simply the digital representation of everything else.

If you believe that society is headed into an era of digital expansion, where the idea of the metaverse becomes more prominent and maybe even a central focus point, you should root for blockchain-backed digital ownership to play an important role in this new paradigm.

If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?