Yeah the correct term would be “commutative” as someone already pointed out. Meaning the order doesn’t matter when considering multiple percentages. E.g 50% of 73% of something is the same as 73% of 50% of that same thing
FWIW nobody who is actually knowledgeable about crypto ever thought anything positive about NFTs. It’s all just wallstreetbets types who read one article and think they’re economists now. The tech is interesting and has applications but monkey jpegs are what idiots spent millions on for some reason.
Nobody who is knowledgeable about crypto ever thought dogecoin was anything but a meme coin or pump and dump scheme. They would have known it offered zero benefits technologically over existing cryptos. Some may have bought it to cash in on the crazy market surrounding it, but they never thought doge was the future or anything. The people who thought that were the “i read one article and I’m a crypto expert now” crowd referenced in my original comment.
The same will happen any time a “get rich quick” scheme comes around. People saw things going up 100% in price from one day to the next, compared to a 2% per year savings account. That’s very enticing for anyone.
This one was at an impressive scale though. Probably because it was so accessible. I’d have my BIL in South America telling me he’s playing a game that mines some random coin. Can’t really say much other than to be sceptical and never risk more than you can afford to lose.
People saw things going up 100% in price from one day to the next, compared to a 2% per year savings account. That’s very enticing for anyone.
And that's the entire problem...by the time things go up in price by 100%, the people that will make money have already made it. Getting in at that point is useless, and will likely lose money.
I used to say that, but I’ve given up on that idea. I’ve never seen a use of blockchain yet that didn’t boil down to being virtual money. NFTs could have had potential as a method of trade if they were tied to real ownership of things instead of just receipts saying you bought a cartoon monkey jpeg.
But every time I think something would be a problem blockchain solves, I can always think of an existing, typically better, solution to that same problem. I think that space is too infested with grifters to attract anyone with a truly novel idea.
You’re getting downvoted by cryptobros, but you are absolutely correct, there is no good use for block chain and never will be
It’s a fully public database among trustless parties. To the first point, there’s no reason any database can’t be made public if so desired. To the second point, for the block chain to have any meaning or value beyond itself, some authority eventually needs to interpret its contents. That authority might as well hold the database or, in trustless cases, a third party trustee. Nothing about it makes sense at a very base level, you don’t even need to explain the tech because it just doesn’t hold up logically.
Yup, it passed quietly surrounded by friends and family. Hasn’t been too many days (I think…). The CEO (or founder? Whoever) pulled the plug because they just didn’t want to deal with it anymore iirc
Maybe her third thumb is just a little slender. If I position my hand like that, I can almost reach. I don’t think hands with those proportions would be impossible. It’s probably a little wonky genetically, being her third arm and all.
Came here to say this. It’s a silly way to look at it, but these dorks are basically saying “no, using the ‘internet’ is not going to catch on silly techies.” It’s a kind of technology, not a vehicle specific to capitalism or big funds. NFTs could be proof of ownership over anything.
Consumers want true ownership, even if it requires a kind of tokenized-receipts system.
I would argue that just because something that could work doesn’t mean it is the best fit for the job for one reason or another.
We have multiple programming languages, database, filesystem, media formats etc…etc… Those also generally perform the same thing but some do certain things better and you pick whatever one best fits your needs.
why can block chain and go both existing and fit whatever role best fits them?
Not saying block chain / NFTs are the answer to ownership tracking just saying we shouldn’t write them off just because something else might work.
I think NFT’s had some promise for stuff you actually have to own (not some ape pictures). Like a digital version for maybe an invitation or tickets or if done properly (by your countries government for example) maybe even for stuff like licenses (i.e. driving license, welding license etc.) Or identification (passport, id, etc.)
Every single one of the examples you gave relies on some single centralized authority to give it value. Passports and licences are meaningless without a government. Tickets rely on the venue.
I have not heard anyone mention any application for NFTs that would work better than a database run by the agency that is required to give the document value.
The problem IS the centralized authority. Can you forever trust a government to not artificially inflate or deflate the value of a currency? The whole point was to have a system with no single authority. No single point of failure.
It is, however, not perfect. The volatility, limited number of transacrions per second , and reliance on an incredible amount of energy expense were the largest of these when the original bitcoin concept was created. Some of these issues have solutions, but its still an evolving technology.
For government documents you need nothing but a plain old certificate to create a digital signature. If there is a single instance of trust (such as a government) there absolutely no point in using a blockchain.
Decentral NFTs for concert tickets would only make sense if you were looking for a solution to liberate the second market, i.e. people selling tickets to other people without involvement of the host of the concert. Such a model is neither beneficial for the hosts (as they wouldn’t benefit from the second market sales) nor the visitors (as the second market typically leads to even higher prices). If you meant a way to return/trade tickets on a platform controlled by the host / the original issuer of the tickets, then there’s again no need at all for crypto aside plain old, stupid certificates.
Even in single instances of trust there can be advantages to using blockchain for those applications:
Decentralization can give you better uptime/availability of those documents. If the DMVs website or authentication service goes down, documents can still be authenticated since they and/or their signatures stored in a distributed manner. The internet can go down at your bar but if you have a recent copy of a chain, you can still verify somebody’s ID.
It can make them easier to transfer between parties, and creates a digital “paper trail” which can conform to whatever requirements one might have. For example, you could easily require several parties to sign off any time the document is moved or assigned to a new person.
You can use those documents and their signatures with smart contracts or other decentralized apps. For example, you could sign up for an account at a bank or a platform like eBay using your NFT’d digital ID and the bank could accept it would needing to manually verify if the id “looks fake” or if your blurry phone picture is going to cut it. They don’t have to call up the government and ask them to verify it or pay some third party to match your address against their database of known people, etc.
Maybe you need better transparency in how many documents are issued and (potentially) to whom. Voting systems, for example, are a use case for this. It could be used for shareholder governance structures, etc.
Blockchains can enforce rules which centralized entities can’t, which is important to consider. An example of how this is useful: imagine the government has a digital ID system and it’s run in a centralized fashion, which makes sense, because they are the issuing authority right? Now imagine that centralized system gets hacked and an attacker starts printing and authenticating a bunch of fake ID requests. In the time between when this attack happens and when somebody figures it out, which could be hours to days, banks and other entities could be relying on those fake documents and potentially lose millions. An example of a rule a blockchain can enforce is “this ID issuing authority cannot issue in a single day more than 10% above it’s daily average of issuances over a six month period”, limiting the scope of an attack. One may say “Well, but blockchain can be hacked too!” which is true, but it’s less likely because the software for these networks has thousands of eyes on it whereas there may only be a couple system admins approving changes to your state-run ID database. Open source software is more secure than proprietary for this reason. Additionally, a security flaw needs to effect 51% of the network which isn’t likely to happen when you have a diversity of software versions.
Many smart contracts need ways to protect against sybil attacks (ie one person pretending to be multiple). Quadratic funding being used for charity fundraising is a perfect example. By using credentials issued on chain by centralized authorities, they can verify a person is not multiple people. Quadratic funding is an awesome way to fund public goods.
The downtime issue for identities is already solved with a government certificate and distributed certificate revocation list. As long as multiple independent parties are mirroring the government’s list, taking down the government servers would not affect identity verification. Certificate Transparency solves the CA compromise problem since you have a log of all issued certs.
The government would obviously be in charge of the blockchain in a very strong way. You would do the exact same process you would to replace a stolen license.
Scams/theft: person has the wallet lost through scam or left, how do you invalidate the lost credentials or tickets.
In these examples, we are talking about credentials issued by a central authority. That authority can re-issue new credentials and invalidate old ones. Easy peasy.
If we’re talking about the risk that people have their crypto stolen in general, yes it does carry that risk same as cash. There are several strategies to mitigate this: people can park larger amounts at institutions if they want or they can use things like multi-sig wallets. You have one smaller pot of money which is your everyday spending wallet which you (or somebody who gains access to it) can spend from whenever you want, and one which is “multi-sig” meaning at least one of your trusted friends/family members/etc also has to sign off if money moves out of that account. You can have multiple people on the multi-sig wallet and set the rules for example 2 of 5 friends or what have you. You wouldn’t leave $10,000 in your phone’s mobile wallet just like you wouldn’t carry a briefcase with $10,000 in cash on the subway. Small money in your spending wallet, big money in your multi-sig.
This is similar to how one stores money normally. You have some cash in your wallet and you put the rest in a bank. In order to withdraw significant money from your bank account, the bank is going to undertake some kind of investigation to make sure it’s actually you. This might be checking your ID at the teller for example. They might also include some type of fraud guarantees where they will cover any losses you experience. That kind of a system is not incompatible with blockchain and I expect with time industries will appear to mitigate these kinds of risks from an insurance perspective.
Also, generally speaking, no system is going to completely eliminate theft and fraud. 99% of the fraud and theft committed over human history has been done using traditional currency, including the kinds of fraud that aren’t even called fraud because the “right people” are doing them like bank bailouts or market manipulation. Even highly-credentialed systems like Paypal are rife with fraud, ask any ebay seller. So we can’t expect crypto or any other technology to eliminate it either, there will always be some. The best we can do is try to find technological, social, and educational methods for reducing it.
Wallet loss: loss through any number of means: fire, incompetence, computer being destroyed, loss of account to cloud backup etc
Same risks as cash, multi-sig or institutional holdings as explained above can solve this.
Issuer need to invalidate: if tickets/credentials were purchased by fraud or an issue occurs where they need to invalidate
Had more of one than the new rockstar games. I really hope it doesn’t turn out to be a soulless cash-grab like the past couple of games have been cough remasters cough
Sure, but I think GTA V was a good deal in the long run. A pretty solid single player campaign and a good amount of online content once that was up and running. I’m not sure if there was online dlc or how that worked, I haven’t played it since about a year after launch, but they had lots of extra content too over the decade.
They released tons of free content updates over the years. For me, it got stale pretty quickly because you needed increasingly huge piles of in-game money to participate in any of the new content and that means either grinding for hours or buying fake money with real money.
The single player and the world building were top notch though and it still doesn’t feel like an old game after 10 years. It’s crazy to think GTA 5 is now older than San Andreas was when 5 was released.
I rather enjoyed GTAO but then I remembered that I was bankrolled by a cheater very early on. Not sure I would have loved it if I had to grind for money instead of immediately buying everything I ever wanted.
Edit: actually, going to expound on this. I predict the following:
An initially buggy, but impressive engine with a mediocre, and probably too short single player story that will be overshadowed by always online crap that you can't turn off. There will be one or two missions that are news-worthily provocative in some way, featuring overly graphic sex and/or really REALLY violent. You'll probably have the option to play it in co-op mode. It will ship with online multi-player. will have game breaking micro transactions from the start, and the online space will be utterly toxic from day 1. They will milk this engine for the next 20 years until it (and we) beg for death. You will be able to dance. Like in fortnite, dance.
Money is just small sheets of intricately designed paper or plastic. Imagine how easy it was to make counterfeits back in the days before all the technology came in
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.