This emoji summarizes it perfectly: 🤢

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago
    • NFTs are objectively a scam, and unsurprisingly, 1208 – these developers – proudly and prominently display Wolf of Wall Street Jordan Belfort on their homepage.
    • They just say “open-source” without stating a license, and coming from people willing to put a pyramid scheme in their no-effort mobile game, that sends up red flags for openwashing.
    • If it is open-source, that isn’t god’s gift to mankind or anything. There are plenty of existing open-source Flappy Bird clones that mimic it – as best I can tell – one-to-one because Flappy Bird isn’t a complex game. And I’m somehow doubting a game designed to hawk shitty-ass NFTs has a lot of detail put into it either.
    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      One small but important correction. NFTs are not a scam, it’s an amazing technology that has the potential to revolutionize lots of stuff, that became popular when people used it for stupid shit.

      Saying NFT is a scam because people have used it to scam others is like saying phones are a scam because people call others over the phone to scam them.

      NFTs are essentially a decentralized token. This means that they can be used to represent anything you might want to represent with a token, e.g. ownership of a physical object such as a car or a house; ownership of a digital asset, such as a website or game; some predetermined amount of something, similar to a stock or bonds; etc. The fact that some people used it to mean ownership of random pictures and people thought buying random pictures on the internet for a ridiculous amount of money was a good idea tells you more about people than about the technology.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s neat. Until a representation of something on a blockchain has any legal meaning regarding authenticity, ownership, or anything else, and until the overwhelming majority usage of NFTs isn’t as a scam, NFTs remain a pathetic and comically stupid class of speculative asset constituting a pyramid scheme that also happens to destroy the environment.

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The legal validity of things come from people using it and courts enforcing it, someone years ago might have said:

          That’s neat. Until a representation of something on a piece of paper has any legal meaning regarding authenticity, ownership, or anything else, and until the overwhelming majority usage of paper isn’t as a scam, paper remains a pathetic and comically stupid class of speculative asset constituting a pyramid scheme that also happens to destroy the environment.

          The thing is that even if a technology is used mostly for stupid things that tells you more about humans than about the technology itself. Or do you also think that phone calls are scams because 90% of the phone calls you receive nowadays are scams, even though the technology behind phone calls is the same used for mobile internet.

          Also the destroy the environment claim is really bogus, for starter money pollutes more than crypto when you consider all of the chain of what it takes to produce and transport money. But also for example if you live in the US your home probably pollutes more than a mining farm since they’re usually in places where electricity is extremely cheap, mostly in China near a hydroelectric power plant. But also the technology itself doesn’t need to consume that amount of energy, that’s just the current implementation, but there’s a push to move to PoS instead of PoW, which would mean that NFTs (and crypto in general) would not need farms or even a specially powerful computer.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ok, I was in agreement with you (the concept of NFTs is great, what people do with it is dumb) until the environment part

            Crypto, even proof of stake, isn’t energy efficient and never will be, the banking sector uses more energy but it also manages quadrillion in funds and transactions, crypto’s value as a whole is orders of magnitude less than that and there’s more energy spent per transaction than in the traditional financial sector. Crypto replacing banks and cash would be an environmental disaster.

            Next, even if mining is done using green energy, it means that this energy isn’t used to reduce emissions in other, actually essential, sectors. There’s an environmental cost to green energy (what do you think was under the dam’s reservoir?) so having to produce more infrastructure just for crypto is wasteful.

            • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              exactly, and also saying our houses use more energy than crypto as a justification is just relative privation. yes our houses use energy because we need to survive. that doesn’t mean we should just give a blank energy check to whatever inefficient new technology comes along.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I didn’t even get to that, house energy usage can’t be compared to crypto energy usage, they’re not used for the same thing!

            • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              There are some valid points here, and I agree that the energy could be used elsewhere and that green energy is not entirely green.

              I even agree that for most cryptocurrency as they are now the cost per transaction is higher than alternatives. However the technology for cryptocurrency, especially with PoC can be a lot more efficient in scale. To get an idea of it you can look at Visa, which processes 1700 transactions per second, BCH can do 178, so 10% of it, ETH2 is supposed to be able to process at least 20k, so 10x that amount. I imagine either of those coins pollute a comparable amount to visa when you consider everything that visa needs to operate (machines, cards, servers, etc). I feel that people don’t take these sort of stuff into consideration when they talk about the energy consumption of crypto. There is a discussion to be had here, but blankly stating that it’s an environmental disaster is fear mongering.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Visa can process a maximum of 24k TPS

                Crypto energy usage goes up the more it’s being used and the more decentralized it becomes. Centralized services like Visa can increase the network load while barely increasing the energy requirements.

                Crypto bros always forget that to replace the banking system, crypto would need to replace the infrastructure as well, but because of decentralization it would be less energy efficient for the same result.

                You can just stop, there’s no way to greenwash crypto and decentralization. The amount of transactions happening on all crypto networks at the moment could be handled by one server if it was centralized. There’s benefits to it, stop trying to sell it as being green, it’s not and never will be.

      • binary45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hey, if you say NFTs aren’t a scam, then why is almost every single NFT project losing its value?

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          First of all losing value and being a scam are not correlated, the dollar is losing its value compared to the Euro for the past year but it’s not a scam.

          Secondly that would be an association fallacy, “X is a scam, X is an NFT, therefore all NFT are scam”.

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        NFTs are essentially a decentralized >token. This means that they can be >used to represent anything you might >want to represent with a token, e.g. >ownership of a physical object such as a car or a house; ownership of a digital >asset, such as a website or game

        No.

        NFTs are not proof of ownership. At best they are the equivalent to receipts, at worse they are mere url links. They are certainly not title deeds, not proof of copyright ownership or anything of that sort. They are just a ledger that person D paid something to person C who paid something to person B who paid something to person A.

        Lets use those NFT monkeys as an example. There is literally no proof anywhere on that NFT chain that person A is the rightful copyright owner or has the rights to sell said image. Furthermore, there is no proof that person A gave the rights to person B to resell said image. Or that anyone down the chain sold the complete rights instead of just selling the link to access monkey.jpg

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The whole point of cryptocurrency is decentralized ownership. That’s the big breakthrough in technology, it’s the whole point of it, I can try to ELI5 how that works if you want to, but for the moment I’m just going to assume you accept that cryptocurrency can demonstrate ownership.

          NFTs are an extension of that, except they can’t be split or traded by one another, i.e. they’re non-fungible. Therefore you can by definition prove ownership of those tokens, as that’s the whole point of the technology, which again, if you’re curious I can try to explain how it works.

          How does ownership of those tokens transfers to ownership of something else? Well, that’s an excellent question, and the answer is that it happens in the same way that a piece of paper grants ownership of a house. There’s no innovative technology behind that piece of paper, but still everyone would agree that it grants ownership, and the reason is that the authority that enforces that chose to respect that piece of paper. Nowadays this is mostly databases and the piece of paper is just generated from the records there, but this is very insecure as anyone with database write access (or access to the physical folder containing the documents in case of old paper deeds) can transfer ownership. NFTs solve this because only the owner of a token can transfer it to someone else, so they’re inherently safer than any of the alternatives.

          Again, the technology is great and has millions of excellent applications, but people use it for pyramid schemes and scamming others, but people do that with any piece of technology.

          • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The whole point of cryptocurrency is decentralized ownership. That’s the big breakthrough in technology, it’s the whole point of it, I can try to ELI5 how that works if you want to, but for the moment I’m just going to assume you accept that cryptocurrency can demonstrate ownership.

            How does ownership of those tokens transfers to ownership of something else? Well, that’s an excellent question, and the answer is that it happens in the same way that a piece of paper grants ownership of a house. There’s no innovative technology behind that piece of paper, but still everyone would agree that it grants ownership, and the reason is that the authority that enforces that chose to respect that piece of paper.

            So NFTs are not inherently proof of ownership as the person above said. The general concept of owning crypto (which no one is questioning here) is a very different topic than using NFTs as proof of ownership of literally anything else.

            • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Do you consider a deed to be proof of ownership? A stock? The registry of a car? They’re not inherently proof of ownership, they’re just pieces of paper or entries on a database. If you go down the road of what is proof of ownership then no technology we have is able to prove it.

              The thing is that NFTs you can prove ownership of the token, if the token correlates with something, e.g. if the DMV stored car ownership in a Blockchain, NFTs could be used to represent car ownership in a secure and decentralized way.

              • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                but, why? is there some problem with the way we prove ownership of things now? as far as i know there isn’t an epidemic of car titles or house deeds getting hacked.

                • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  No, there isn’t, but there are advantages to it as well, just like how a database has advantages over a paper folder.

                  An NFT can’t be transferred by anyone other than the owner, and ownership can be verified independently.

                  Here’s an example of a use that would be very cool and would take advantage of it (even though I know it’s unlikely to happen). Ownership of games, some games are sold on different platforms, to verify the ownership of the game (or DLC, or cosmetics) games have to verify with first party services (like PSN or Steam), which means that for the most part you need to buy games on each platform individually, but if platforms used an NFT for it games would be buy once play anywhere, and they would allow you to sell or even borrow games, and no company could prevent you from doing so. Which is obviously the reason this will never happen, but it’s a nice idea.

                  That being said there are downsides to it as well, such as a person being the full owner of stuff means that a person can lose the key and therefore lose access to the house, or that scammer can steal everything, whereas making you sign your house to someone else is a lot more beurocratic, which serves to protect you from you.

                  Just to be clear, I’m not a “we should use NFT for everything” type of person, in fact I don’t think there are many use cases nowadays that are worth using it, but the technology is interesting regardless, and solves the problem of how to prove ownership without a centralized trusted organization.

            • Shard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Buddy must have purchase a couple of bored apes just after the peak. He’s still waiting for them to peak again

              • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Nope, never bought any of the NFTs that were sold to idiot speculators because I understand the technology and see no value in owning a token representing a digital image. I feel that the rage of downvoting comes from people who got scammed because they didn’t understood the technology and now see it mentioned and think it’s all a scam, similar to how old people used to think emails were a scam because they sent money to a prince in Nigeria.