I try to keep an open mind. However...
docbother
Posts: 107
I have been a NFT skeptic, meaning I am willing to listen to an explanation of what, precisely, NFTs actually do, beyond the vague and abstract "explanations" I have read so far. I still fall far short of fully understanding what this is.
This leads me to at least two possible conclusions:
1) I am just too dim to understand the concepts involved - or -
2) There is nothing there to understand
While I claim no deep understanding of the math behind crypto currencies, at least I understand fairly clearly what crypto currencies do. They provide an digital currency that is very difficult if not impossible to counterfit while enabling completely anonymous transactions. I.e., cash, but without a physical form.
What NFT provides is not only less clear, it is not getting any clearer with time. It can somehow be used to exstablish "ownership" of a digital work. Ok, but we already have this thing called a "receipt" or bill of sale for that. Does it prevent non-owners from seeing (or hearing) the digital work in question? Sorry, but that makes no sense for a works of art. This would only allow you to say "It's mine now and nobody can see it. But trust me, it looks so cool!" Not much different than wrapping it up and strongly encrypted zip file.
So, even after a year of following this, no one has explained clearly what problme NFTs actually address that hasn't been already addressed with simpiler means. Don't point me at any long-wind articles by experts. Just tell me in your own words, how NFT make a differece. Be specific - no "This revolutionizes everything!" answes. I've spent a year looking at those tea leaves and have yet read one which says anything other than claiming that this or that expert says "Trust me, it is really cool! And there's money to be made!" The whole thing smells like Mortgage-backed securities pre-2008. Luckily, I don't think this has any danger of toppling the Dow.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
One of the vistas for which I see NFTs being useful is... in a Ready Player One sort of virtual world. Now, imagine this future virtual-world system is something decentralized, very much like the world wide web is: millions and millions of individual, independant servers all interconnected, each one owned seperately by individuals like you or me, or owned by small companies or big companies, but all allowing one to travel easily around between them and through them, say hi to their friends, visit neat vistas, and so on. .
This is in stark contrast to other means of having a virtual world system, where the whole thing was owned by one big company, i.e. like Second Life is now, or like Facebook's virtual world system they're trying to get people into, where a central committee of They can simply kick you out of the entire system if they don't like you. This decentralized system would also be in contrast to that system AOL was trying to make at one point , back in the 90s or so, where they had an exclusive, AOL-members-only subset of the WWW that the rest of the world couldn't access.
You can't be kicked out of the WWW, just out of individual web-forums or the like. You couldn't be kicked out of this future, decentralized virtual world system, either, though you could be kicked out of certain vistas in it if you, say, misbehave there.
This decentralized system isn't itself the NFT, this imagined future virtual-world is, however, a system that would be much more easy to make work well using NFT or using something like it, and would be a whole lot harder to get working if there wasn't something like NFT to build their technology around.
In this RPO-inspired virtual world, one could buy a virtual car, and his ownership of that car would be in the blockchain. Now, imagine that car is a "no copy" item, meaning you can only rez one copy of it at a time. Perhaps you left a copy of it parked in a virtual parking lot somewhere, and when you try to rez a new copy, either the system refuses to let you place it out where you are now, because it's checked the ownership of this virtual car against the blockchain and notices you have one already rezzed over there... or it lets you rez the car here, and the server that has that virtual parking lot on it, upon peridically checking the blockchain about the objects it has on it, notices there's another one now rezzed, and that one over there then disappears.
This is one of the really neat ways NFTs could be useful in the future. Whether this NFT system ever goes that way, or the current NFT system, a virtual art ownership authentication system, crumbles away due to being too far ahead of its time, and disappears, like happened with certain virtual-currency systems that came along before Bitcoin took off... and some other system like it takes its place when something like that RPO future comes along, only time will tell, though.
In short, NFT is the casing for a collectible card.
Pretty much, yup.
I wish I could remember where I read this, but someone said at the start of this whole thing that NFTs were monstrous in part because the goal is to take the one advantage digital art truly has as a medium--the ability to distribute it freely to everyone--and tries to not only circumvent it but do away with it altogether. I understand the value of digital prestige items to people--I've played MMORPGs for almost 20 years and I work for a game studio with a cash shop product--and I love the concept of virtual worlds. But the draw of this implementation for many crypto/NFT fans is, at its core, "I want to play an MMO where my wealth guarantees me exactly the level of exclusive access and prestige I have in the real world."
For all the talk about decentralization (not poking at your post, just what I've heard in discussions about it), the end goal of digital exclusivity--especially when talking about buying and selling virtual collectables for thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars--is to reproduce wealth inequality online. It's looking at the barest sliver of egalitarian communication and visibility the modern internet offers and saying, "Hmm. I don't feel like having obscene amounts of money buys me enough acclaim and deference here."
I'm not about to defend Facebook here, but in the case of Second Life and other virtual worlds, they're owned by one big company because those are the people who made it. The gaming industry is exploitative in many, many ways, but these are still people being credited for and profiting from their work--the thing NFTs are supposed to guarantee artists. The company in this case is the individual entity who can kick you out for misbehavior because it's their world (and having been on the Council of They at times, you usually have to work really hard to be malicious enough that they'll get rid of a customer).
Virtual worlds also take a staggering amount of money to develop and maintain. The open-source/collaborative MMO projects that do exist are either private servers or relaunches of older games, and while these are both important from an archival perspective the people behind them are still starting out with a product that needed money for initial development. Even as someone who doesn't touch the tech that keeps a game online I'm still surprised that anyone manages to pull it off given how complex it is.
Someone will pay for the initial investment and someone will have to be responsible for maintaining it, or it won't stay online. Whoever it is will be the de facto center, just as platforms like OpenSea have become the de facto power centers in brokering NFTs. And of the people who think the metaverse is likely to be a thing, there sure are a lot of companies all claiming to be the ones working on launching it! I wonder why.
I swear this isn't me trying to upbraid you for your post; I mostly want to break it down to component parts because even when NFTs could concievably be used for a good thing, the scenario tends to require perfect conditions and technology and infrastructure that can't yet practically exist. Meanwhile there are often already genuinely grassroots and decentralized practices in place that artists are using to get paid for exclusive work, like the entire commission and adoptables ecosystems. But the reason those practices stay outside the mainstream and decentralized is that they're not big, lucrative, or prestigious enough to be something people can co-opt for power.
The issue I have with NFTs at this point - every popular press article I've run into so far imply that the NFT purchaser owns the item the NFT links to. None of them outright say so, but there is no mention that all the purchaser owns is the link.
I get more and more tempted to create a group of NFTs for the Brooklyn Bridge or the Mona Lisa.
And... As there is no proof of origin and/or ownership required when you mint the NFT, anybody can take anybody's art or whatever and start selling NFT's for it.
With most of the NFT's being sold anonymously, the buyer has no means to check if the seller of the NFT has any rights to the digital content contained in the NFT.
Not just images, but you can use NFTs as a vehicle to distribute any digital content. Take the NFTs Daz has been trying to sell...some of them contain links where you can download an obj file that you can then use in your 3D program. You could distribute digital music files, ebooks, movies and videos. Second Life was mentioned above, they could be used to sell in-game content. I've seen NFTs used as avatard on Discord. As long as the link remains active, the owner of the NFT can download the content linked.
Granted it's a the new trendy thing, and is unneccesary, but once the bubble bursts, you'll probably see more and more NFT creators focused on delivering value to the buyer, you'll see more and more NFTs used to sell digitial products instead of used to push lazy pictures.
Still, the NFT doesn't add any value to the digital content, you can sell the content just the same without the NFT as well.
Maybe, maybe not. Most of the digital content you pay for these days is only licensed to you. For example, buy an ebook from Amazon or Barnes and Noble, and you're not actually buying the file, only a limited license. Even if you're selling directly from your own website, the consumer might be confused, because chances are the content creator isn't thinking about what rights they're transferring to the buyer. When you're done with the content, all you can do is delete it and forget about it.
If you buy an NFT, you own the NFT and everything that comes with it. After you download the content, you can turn around and sell it to someone else and recoup some of your money. It's not without risk. The link to the content could go dead, and the NFT becomes worthless. The content itself might not be desirable enough to find another buyer. And right now, the gas fees to record the transaction on the blockchain eat into the value of the NFT.
Nope... The only thing you own, is the NFT, ie. the casing that holds the link to the digital content. No proof of ownership, origin and/or legal transference of any rights regarding the linked content is provided.
On the other hand, I do find NFT's quite useful in certain situations.
Lets say I'm growing rare tulips, but I want to keep my identity secret when auctioning the bulbs.
I make a hand drawn picture of a tulip and mint an NFT for it, including the location and access code to the storage locker in the link contained in the NFT, and let the anonymous collectors start bidding.
When the transaction has gone through, the buyer can collect the bulb and everyone is happy and remains anonymous.
????
So the buyer collects the bulb, then sells the NFT (all anonymous) as the NFT still exists even if you remove the codes from/on the link the NFT refers to, and the new buyer gets the empty casing......
Exactly... Buying and selling NFT's is just buying and selling NFT's, it is the NFT (the casing) that's unique and can be tracked through transactions to the (anonymous) one that minted it. Nothing in the scheme makes any promises about the digital content contained behind the link.
Although, as the market for rare tulip bulbs is rather small and the players may know each others inspite of the nicknames, I would advice against resale of an empty casing, it could have dire consequences...
That's the reason I chose them
Ah, so this was a...... dark metaphor? :D
I'm now offering Chuck Numbers for you to apply to your artwork or ANYTHING you want! Collectable coins, signed baseball cards or even your dog or kids! Just PM me for a number I'll give it to you and it's OFFICIAL! Official Chuck Numbers from Chuck! It's all the craze.
## THIS MESSAGE IS PROTECTED BY CHUCK NUMBER 001 ##
I keep a database of all numbers written on my Deny's napkin here, so just PM for yours and I'll add scribble it onto the DB.
Hey! So, if you remember me talking about the Metaverse in previous threads, here we go: https://apnews.com/article/facebook-meta-mark-zuckerberg-technology-business-5ad543ab7780caae435935f0aca9fac6
The real reason a lot of people find NFTs worth investing in is that they've bought into this. They know their purchases aren't worth money as an investment now; they believe they'll be worth millions when the entire internet is part of the Metaverse and owning exclusive digital items will be a marker of wealth and privilege. I speculate that Daz believes it's in an especially good place to capitalize on a demand for virtual avatars; they may be right.
As I said in my post above:
This has reached a new state of stupidity: McDonalds is offering a small group of McRib NFTs.
So - can I smell the McRib? No, it'ss an image. Can I taste the McRib? No, it's an Image. So why pay real money for a link to an image I can download for free? Because NFT! The only possible value here is if the image(s) are on a server that can only be reached by the link in the NFT - ad as soon as anyone posts the image that uniqueness disappears.
Pass.
I issued Chuck Number 002 to a french fry...and then ate it.
It's all just a money grab plain and simple if u don't belive that I have a bridge I will sell u :P
Is the bridge for left or right hand traffic ?
Daz3D gives away bridges for free. Wait, wrong kinda bridge. :D
lol :P
HAH! My version is better! I don't need no stinking McRib NFT, I cut out a picture of a McRib and soaked it in McRib grease and I can keep that McRib COI (Cut Out Image) in my pocket for whenever I need to look at, taste or smell a McRib!
The cool thing is you can do that with most foods and smelly objects and you don't have to burn down the planet in the process.
Rare tulips anonymously placed in a storage locker by a mysterious individual using a secret identity...
Are tulips a metaphor for a particular kind of mushroom...?
Perhaps of the magical variety?
Just kidding...
I definitely believe they are totally tulips and absolutely not hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Definitely.
Totally.
Absolutely.
Beyond a shadow of doubt.
You have my word on that.
Definitely.
Absolutely.
Here's the answer: buying an NFT for $50,000,000 makes you a member of a VERY exclusive club. The NFT is a membership card. Get it? You don't own a $50,000,000 NFT so I don't want you in my social circle."
What if John Lennon recorded a vinyl record album and there was only one copy in existance and nobody's heard it. Do you think you could buy it for $9.99 on Amazon? It's just a piece of vinyl - right?
So there's an NFT that is an actual photograph of JFK being shot by the actual person who shot him. Nobody else in the world has seen the photograph. How much is it worth? It's just an NFT. Do you think somebody or some organization might want to pay for it - or the rights to reproduce it? The NFT is basically just a digital photograph.
There's a piece of film showing Marilyn Monroe a half hour before she died, while she's dying, and half an hour after she died. Nobody else has seen it. How much do you think you could sell it for? This NFT?
It's not even that. The NFT is just a container for a link to the digital content.
Here's the thing: I actually loved the idea of NFTs when I first heard about them. Because the way it was described to me was basically a fancy Ko-Fi donation; you contribute to an artist to support them, and in exchange you get this unique little trading card thing from them. The trading card has emotional value and by displaying it you're also helping promote the artist you want to support. That completely rules. The first artist I saw doing them was making these beautiful, intricate little animated 3D keys and I remember thinking, "Wow, yeah, I actually would want one of these."
I totally understand the thing where "owning" a digital item only has the emotional and social value people assign to it, because adoptables work the same way. Nothing except sometimes a watermark is preventing anyone from right clicking and saving any adoptable character I sell on Toyhou.se and using it however they want, but the community assigns a value to legitimate ownership and that means you can use that art free and clear without being accused of stealing it. If you get an adoptable by a popular artist, you're recorded publicly as the owner and you get to point to that and show that you have the artist's permission to use their art to roleplay or represent yourself online with an avatar or whatever because it was a legitimate purchase. That this worked at all was something of a miracle, because it was an answer to rampant art theft; it turned out that when given an opportunity to make a 100% free-and-clear purchase of an asset and support the artist and not make them upset, tons of people are willing to do it to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars (without the blockchain).
I get it. Not a single element of what NFTs are supposed to do for artists or purchasers eludes me. And if they worked the way they're supposed to, I would be selling them. But the whole thing has exposed such a rich vein of human weakness that if it all turned around today and addressed all the issues I have with it, it would still take me about ten years to get the taste out of my mouth.
If NFT supporters had been willing to hold off for five minutes and discuss ways to fix the glaring problems with the format in good faith, I probably still would have been grudgingly curious. As it is, all I see is crypto-utopians going on cheerfully about how everything will be fine! Just wonderful! This time tech will definitely work perfectly and human behavior will follow all the logical pathways set out by this perfect system, and if I don't agree well, don't worry! Don't worry, I'll be forced to use it anyway eventually once literally everything is an NFT.
It sucks extremely hard to have to dig my heels in on any new technology because I'm one of those Xennials who basically grew up parallel to the internet, and if I could upload myself online I probably would. I don't even care that the bored apes are ugly, because I love trash. I'm listening to music from the genre that sprung up like mushrooms from beneath the felled log of Linkin Park right now. I'm in love with collectable kaiju toys even though I can't afford them because they cost $100 or more for something intentionally designed to look like it came out of a ¥100 gachapon. I think Rocky Horror Picture Show is an objectively good movie. But there's joyful trash and then there's this.
One of the many criticisms of NFTs, one which has been brought up over and over again here, is that you don't own the "thing" the NFT is connected to, and the original thing is not necessarily exclusive. These are most frequently images and videos that are on the internet and easily seen an accessed by anyone else. In your examples, owning something like all the prints and the negatives to those would have inherent value and would allow you to control information. Owning the NFTs would not do that.