Topic: Why running NFTs on Bitcoin blockchain is a dumb idea. - page 2. (Read 456 times)

Few points that haven't been brought up yet:

- Bitcoin already had NFTs by way of Counterparty. Its had them since 2014. The main difference is image data for them is stored off-chain (with one famous exception where the image data is small enough to be embedded in a transaction).

- The image data for Ordinals NFTs can be added in such a way that it is entirely prunable as it mostly relies on witness data, thereby minimizing the blockchain bloat factor.

- Once an Ordinals NFT has been minted, future transactions do not require "movement" of the image data but rather a single satoshi which is the "ordinal" that has been associated with the image data.

- Ordinals NFT sales & transfers are already happening although an automated marketplace hasn't been built yet, so they are all P2P sales for now.


Personally I'll never use it as I'm quite content with Counterparty, although some Counterparty artists are already devising ways to combine the two platforms.

I don't know totally what to think about it yet, am kind of on the fence about it as it pertains to the longevity of Bitcoin. What I do know is that being mad at it is pretty dumb and reflects a steadfast refusal to learn new things.



Most anti-NFT people can only bring up the same arguments that no-coiners have used for a decade against Bitcoin:

- its silly
- its useless
- its a Ponzi scheme
- the real thing is better

NFT haters are basically the new no-coiners  

NFT is not about uploading a whole song/pic/video on a blockchain
NFT is a registry of the HASH ID of a file*.. not contain the whole file itself

yep there are some NFT blockchains that dont even have a unique hash of the file and just some nonce-count ID of version X of a listing..(facepalm)

*EG the "first tweet" on twitter exists in twitters servers(obviously)
but the HTML webpage code for that tweet would be SHA256'd and its that sha256 ID thats put into a NFT blockchain

---

NFT do have utility, but currently the greedy idiots just want to create memes and pay influencers to buy them for a % of the influencers pay, thus created a fake but endorsed value for one version of the item..

if it was used properly for its proper utility of registering ownership of a IP, copyright, patent, landclaim then it can have purpose

but these things should be done on subnetworks of a monetary mainnet. not on the monetary mainnet

LMAO. I doubt the idiots who are uploading porn and donkey jpegs care or even know about immunity, censorship resistance, freedom, transparency or whatever cliche buzzwords you are trying to spout. You give them way too much credit. Do you work for the government or banking industry? Honestly you sound like a shill for either one or both.

I have to chime in and disagree with you here. While I agree that the whole NFT hype bubble is ridiculous, I won't say it is useless. I think NFTs have immense potential in the music industry for artists. The artist usually receives less than 50% of revenue from using streaming avenues and this is being a best case scenario. For selling their music, they receive less than 20% of the revenue and that does not include the costs they outlay on production. I think for music artists, cutting out the middlemen is a great use-case of NFTs. For art it has some use case too, such as the rights to ownership.

 

This got me dead man, laughing hard. Finally someone with all the energy bursting out about how NFT's are making fun around the internet. I am also till date finding that sweet spot to understand what interests people more, the bored ape monkeys or just he money that they might make in the future? Definitely not the art but it's all about money and that is why it got dragged all the way up here. Otherwise NFT was worst idea. It just got pumped because of the guy who made millions of dollars by combining few hundreds digital photos into single one. Lolz.

You never know, what surprise might come along the way in crypto.

May be in some years we will be buying stars and planets with the crypto sitting on the earth itself. 

Bitcoin should be kept clean as it is. Let it prosper with the Satoshi's idea of free monetary outflow and inflow.

This is what I always said to my friends when they ask me which altcoins are good to invest in, they said can you recommend any NFT to buy?

I said, it's better for you guys just to remain and stick with bitcoins forever because these altcoins are truly uncertain when it comes to their preservation as we can truly see, there are some altcoins that haven't been recovered after it falls hard, their developers abandoned the project and jump to another one. Because of tight competition, it always ended up losing its value except for a few of course. but in reality, most of them didn't really make it until now and you have these NFTs joining the list which surely will gonna be like the other altcoins in the upcoming future as well.

No it's not. A bank isn't an immune, censorship resistant, pro-freedom, transparent, globally accessible payment network with no intermediaries involved.

It's debatable only if we accept that making a transaction constitutes a burden for the network. In my opinion, it doesn't. Everyone can make as many transactions as they wish if they're willing to pay the fee. It's a feature.

That's debatable. Remember a couple of years ago when fees were so high that everyone was complaining? That was the result of the biggest spam attack bitcoin has experienced in its short history. A big chunk of that spam attack were altcoins spamming the network as a method of mining their shitcoin!
I'd say that is enough harm for us to do something about such attacks like Ordinals on bitcoin before they become a threat.

I think at this point we just need to accept that NFT is a bad idea and it turned out to be a scam and gambling object. So I don't think that it will be a good idea to associate the bitcoin blockchain with NFT.

Some would argue that the moment the US opted to trade liberty for security was the true moment they lost the so-called war on terror, because they gave up one of their fundamental principles in order to try to win.  The same argument could be made here for Bitcoin right now.  If we truly value freedom, we can't abandon that principle at the first sign of concern.  Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, it cheapens the thing as a whole if we start to espouse totalitarianism.  That's the biggest issue here, in my humble view.

Besides that, if one side escalates, the other entrenches in response and it becomes a drawn out conflict.  I personally believe Bitcoin is resilient enough to withstand any sort of "abuse", as many tend to see this idea.  I also get the impression that market forces will make NFTs on the BTC chain non-viable over the long term.  You could fan the flames, but it's probably better just to let it fizzle out on its own.

NFT is a scam and just plain stupid and it doesn't matter which network it's being run on. Running it on any shitcoin blockchain doesn't affect me as a Bitcoin maxi (haha) as long as it stays away from Bitcoin network. Ethereum is notorious for letting various scammers use their network so nothing new here. Perhaps it will help some peeps to see the light and steer clear from shitcoins.

nfts are a bad ideal anyway, 99% of them have no real (use) besides a promise to get rich

Your argument makes as much sense as saying a bank is practicing censorship when it refuses to be a marketplace for NFTs and pornography.

That is not the purpose of a bank, nor was it ever the purpose of bitcoin. Bitcoin is for moving around money, not images of porn and monkey jpegs.

But no blockchain other than Bitcoin's is immune and censorship resistant. I can see the reason why someone selects this network for this job.

Pointless? According to who? You and me? Obviously, it isn't pointless by whoever broadcasts such transactions. Secondly, the network allows for message transfer, even if highly discouraged. That's a protocol rule, not an opinion. If someone wants to store an essay, he doesn't violate anything. Thirdly, every transaction can be considered congestion, but it doesn't make sense to follow that route, does it?

Actually, I absolutely despise NFT things and am not ready to utilize them for fucking. To convert an image to NFT is ridiculous. NFT on the Bitcoin Blockchain is absolutely disgusting. It resembles an attempt to kill Bitcoin. But I'm curious about who will use it in due to high transaction fees. Many Chain are available to deploy NFT, such as polygons. However, I continue to be curious about how NFT projects raise money from investors.

If you want to spend your money on NFTs then there are other blockchains that are much better suited for that. Clogging up the bitcoin network with pointless traffic and congestion has adverse effects on everyone else using it, in the form of longer waiting periods and higher fees. The cost isn't just paid by the sender. That is not the purpose of bitcoin.

Just because someone values something (whether it be monkey jpegs and videos, cat memes, animal porn, gay porn, child porn etc.) does not mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. There are limits to free speech and the miners have the right to refuse to accommodate such nonsense.

originating from colored coin concepts we seen NFT go viral
but seeing as NFT is now just a buzzword associated with over priced no function meme jokes on a ethereum tokened subnetwork

i guess the similar (original colored coin) concept of things like "ordinals" which would/should avoid being identifiers of meme junk could "if" made on a new good subnetwork of bitcoin and have good coding policy could have real utility of registering property, thus providing a secure system of new utility

I don't have anything against NFTs because I don't even buy them, good for those that sees or develop interest in NFTs but bring this to Bitcoin will just ruin the permissionless open-source project, I like meme coins and I have a few bags of them, it will suck seeing such on Bitcoin blockchain, I believe such trashes are better off on other blockchain projects like Ethereum and Polygon. I can never imagine a day that I will invest my hard earned money on any Jpeg of a cartoonish character, it will never happen.

I hate to say this but agree: say no to nonsense monkeys and fish and cats. I like memes as much as the next person, but no need to bloat the blockchain.

But those aren't just what NFTs (man I hate the word, it's not like we say fungible coins anyway) could do.

I like some ideas I've come across, that would require (evolving) non-fungibility, and linking that to block time instead of regular time as a stable way to lapse time.

Probably atop Bitcoin, sure. Where Rootstock et al?

You don't get to decide what's a waste for somebody else's money. If someone acknowledges value in JPEG, there should be nothing stopping him from spend their satoshi that way. There is a non-zero cost at making those transactions, and the cost is only paid by the sender, again. Not to mention, that it is pointless to measure in energy spent per byte.

Or we just leave it as is, as it isn't harmful for non-NFT users?