this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
528 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
4059 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 157 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are they trying to say that NFTs are some kind of bullshit scam that should have dissolved into the ether like the crypto bro's cocaine-fueled manic state that spawned them in the first place? How shocking and unpredictable.

[–] 2tone@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What do you mean? You didnt go out and spend all your money on reproducable jpegs? Whats wrong with you?

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 80 points 1 year ago (2 children)

reproducable jpegs? Excuse me?

I live walking distance from my local police department. If another person uses my NFT without my consent I will report them immediately. This is MY PROPERTY. The transaction has be verified scientifically on the block chain. Anyone who violates my NFT rights will pay the price.

Buddy, you have no idea who you are messing with. I have made a ridiculous amount of money in crypto/NFTs and I have the best lawyers. If you don’t delete those stolen jpegs, you’re going to regret it. When you steal someone’s property you get punished. Watch out.

[–] rush@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Sorry to disappoint ya, but the thing that gets stored on the blockchain isn't the image itself but usually just a link to the image, sometimes with a hash of the image.

You're not storing the image itself on the blockchain, meaning if the link goes down your NFT is useless.

Additionally, you cannot report someone for using your NFT unless you get a registered copyright for it, and the use of your NFT must not fall under fair use. Considering that there's so many different variants of the same NFT in most cases, it'd be barely possible to register a copyright as you'd immediately strike all the other variants AND there is a chance the distributor already has copyright on the work.

(ofc, I'm not a lawyer, check local legislation.)

[–] derpo@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I do love how genuine you are when replying to this shitpost

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 41 points 1 year ago

Bless his kind soul. He doesn't deserve the downvotes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Stares in Poe's Law.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mortgaged my house for a computer-generated ape that my son's cousin's uncle's neighbor's mailman said would one day finance my retirement.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago

So the guy on Reddit who told me I better get with the NFT game or be left behind in a year was full of shit?

[–] JungleGeorge@kbin.social 111 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The whole "web3" bs has always just been a shabby scam, and people fell for it

[–] sab@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did they though? It might be my filter bubble, but whenever I saw web3 being pushed I saw a small refraction of responses of people who also thought it was a great idea (typical salesbros - so a good idea for others to do, just not for themselves). But the vast majority of people reject it for being a scam.

So how many people fell for it, really?

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Did the average person/average internet user fall for it? No.

Did the people who fell for it get sucked into what was basically a cult that sucked the money out of a decent amount of people? Yeah.

The numbers for some of these scam projects were honestly insane.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More than 0, which is all the comment said.

[–] sab@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we're just going for semantics, don't you mean more than 1 for them to qualify as "people"?

[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CarlsIII@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even the name “web3” is stupid. Isn’t it supposed to be the next step after “web 2.0?” Shouldn’t it then be “web 3.0?” They couldn’t even include a space between web and 3!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 51 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I thought the whole point of NFTs and the blockchain is that it's decentralized, and you can use "smart contracts" for things like this. How is one company able to decide to change it?

[–] PopularUsername@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Apparently, smart contracts are not contracts at all... they are friendly suggestions. Unsurprisingly a contract needs a mechanism to enforce it, which makes decentralized contracts redundant at best (as you still need institutions outside of the blockchain to monitor and enforce the contracts), and or worse, completely useless if there is no legal way to enforce them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] June@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can only change it for their instance, but they can’t impact all NFT marketplaces. This is only significant because this company is the largest broker so it will impact more people.

Anyone can set up their own blockchain and build it however they want. Hell, they could make it centralized even.

[–] hyperhopper@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not the question

The post you replied to was saying, "shouldn't it be inherent to the entry on the Blockchain, regardless of market"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fortunately, nothing of actual value was lost. Just fools being parted from their money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eranziel@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's broken now? I'd say that's a bold assumption that it ever worked in the first place.

Edit: to be clear, I mean that it is and always has been an impossible problem. The only reason it ever worked is because some broker company wanted it as a feature, not because anything compelled them to give original artists a cut. And that's before you consider the question, "but how do you know the NFT was made by the original artist?"

[–] GenBlob@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How is this Web3 scam still a thing? I thought I would finally stop hearing it after the crash but it just keeps coming back. The only people who will get rich from this are the scammers themselves.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

It’s a mindset. Once you know that the solution is Blockchain, all you need to do is to find a question that fits this answer to get filthily rich.

Casinos are also a known scam, but that hasn’t stopped them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is now a recurring feature of tech vaporware. Claiming something that is clearly shit is okay because it does some good, or something that is uselesslt frivolous and speculative will have and important function and use-case in the future.

My condolences to those that have been made fools by this - we all need to keep an eye out for these patterns going forward.

I wanna add: prosecute and sue these thieves. Sue the people who took money to promote these lies. They all deserve to have those ill-gotten funds ripped away.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (46 children)

"Web3" was supposed to enrich a bunch of assholes. It was never meant to do anything else.

load more comments (46 replies)
[–] Kazumara@feddit.de 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To me that whole royalties spiel was always just marketing to bait non-technical people into adopting the NFT system.

I've never seen anyone build and use an enforcable mechanism for a multi transaction chain to pay out to one original address repeatedly. I think at the very least you would always have to hold the NFT in a multi sig wallet between the artist and the current owner, for the artist to have a mechanism to keep enforcing their royalty claims. That would also require involvement of the artist in every further transaction.

Maybe I'm missing something like a smart contract that can fabricate new multi sig transactions on demand with pre-approval of the artist somehow... If anyone knows of something like that I'd be interested in the technical details.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A. I don't actually feel bad for anyone because if you're involved in NFTs in any way, you're begging to be scammed. There is no legitimate use for NFTs.

B. This seems like blatant illegal fraud. You can't just advertise "get this cut of all transactions forever" to get people to join, then say "just kidding" once they include their "art" in your shitty scam. They're entitled to their shitty cut of your shitty transaction, and you can't hand wave it away by pointing to fine print when you sold the product very clearly making that claim.

[–] Bjornir@programming.dev 29 points 1 year ago (8 children)

There are uses for NFT, but it is clearly not what they are famous for.

NFT aren't pictures of monke, they are a way to authenticate something in a decentralised way, so no trust in another entity needed. The picture isn't the NFT, and that is why you can just right click-copy it.

You can't however just copy the NFT, the actual token. Having a token that's verifiably owned by someone is useful for certain things. It's like a certificate of authenticity, but digital.

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Digital certificates has already existed for half a century. There’s nothing new. A certificate doesn’t get any more legitimate just because it’s recorded on a blockchain.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] sab@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (31 children)

Are there any practical (non-theoretical) uses for NFTs that couldn't be done ~~otherwise~~ easier/better without them though?

Edited to make it easier for NFTs to show their worth.

load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] TheKarion@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How do I too sell pngs for butloads of money?

[–] ShunkW@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] benoit@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

It sure sounds like that wasn't a feature of NFTs, but a feature of OpenSea

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 17 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


One of the big promises of NFTs was that the artist who originally made them could get a cut every time their piece was resold.

Starting March 2024, those fees will essentially be tips — an optional percentage of a sale price that sellers can choose to give the original artist.

The marketplace will continue enforcing the fees on certain existing collections until March 2024, at which point they’ll become optional on all sales.

Critics say it will hurt small artists and undermines creators’ ability to control their relationship with the people who buy their work.

OpenSea CEO Devin Finzer criticized the fees’ “ineffective, unilateral enforcement” and said that creators will find other ways to monetize their work.

“Our role in this ecosystem is to empower innovation beyond a single use case or business model,” he writes in the blog post announcing that OpenSea will no longer support the ecosystem’s primary business model.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Who could have seen this coming? Who could have foreseen that all of Web3 was a ponzi scheme that would say anything to get people to pretend hashes on a blockchain is worth 100s of 1000s of dollars. Who? WHO?

[–] jray4559@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

pfffffffffffffffff

I want to be sympathetic, but honestly, I'm just not.

Web3 was a mistake from the beginning.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Stinkywinks@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ik the technology is useful, but selling shit I can screen shot is fucking pointless. If you want to buy shit from the artist, just buy their shit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] stormesp@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Except people has been stealing art to do NFTs without paying the artists from day 1?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nolegjoe@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I thought the royalty payments were enforced by the contract?

[–] Fisk400@feddit.nu 17 points 1 year ago (31 children)

Turns out that the smart contract is a post-it note stapled to the NFT and the marketplace can just ignore what the post-it note says because it's not legally binding.

What they can't do is trade with marketplaces that do enforce the contract. Originally it was enforced because if one marketplace stopped enforcing it the marketplace would be cut off from the Echo system but turns out that the 5 big marketplaces just need to agree to drop it and everything is fine.

load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Obligatory rather funny If NFTs Were Honest | Honest Ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG_v4bb2e4k which sets this out, a year ago

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I can’t believe I’ve never seen this, it’s incredible. When NFTs were first hyped I spent far too much time explaining to techbros how they were just buying an entry in a decentralized ledger that pointed to some url on a centralized server someone owned and could take down or change on a whim. Nobody cared, because as this video demonstrates it was never about art or anything but about grifting. Thanks for sharing

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›