Associated Press is going to start selling NFTs of their photos

[Moonzy]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I can change one third of a pixel and re-upload it to opensee and not have to pay anyone, and can sell it again and again by just changing one third of a pixel.

again, it may not be recognised as the real bored ape

you (or anyone) can upload 1000 copies with minor tweaks, but only if it's the authentic one will people truly give it value
it's public recognition that matters the most

 

7 minutes ago, Kisai said:

NFT's as presented, are not recognized, nor valuable by anyone.

i would say there are some minority, for example, people who are invested in it (whatever their reasons may be)

which 

28 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

Part of society accepts it while the others thinks it's just a bunch of people going looney.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The backlash against it has been substantial, especially in gaming and digital art, because gamers and game publishers see it as a way to make lootboxes into one-of-a-kind collectables and turn the games into a lootbox from hell, now not only is that SSR rarity thing 0.1%, but the first person who gets it, is the only one who can have it, and when that person gets bored with the game, that item is now permanently gone from the game.

yes this is one scenario that can certainly happen
but I'm staying open minded, because I don't know what or how NFT will look like in games made by AAA devs

i'll judge it when it comes out (most likely gonna hate it because big companies likes $$, but surprise me, please)
 

9 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Artists are absolutely irate at how people are able to steal their published artwork, and thieves take the image from deviantart and put it on opensea, make potentially thousands off it, and the artist sees nothing, and can't even force opensea to turn over anything. That's the problem with decentralized "anything", is that once that transaction has happened, there's no way to undo it.

this is exactly an issue that needs to be solved, and I do not have any solutions in mind to solve current problems
but in the future, perhaps artists can publish their artwork on opensea before making them public(?) idk
like how companies file for copyright etc before releasing a product.
 

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

NFT's may be the one thing that ultimately destroys blockchain.

this may be the case but i think it's highly unlikely

blockchain itself is much larger than NFT, even though NFT is currently making headlines
cryptocurrency, for example, have done well even before NFT became widely known

blockchain as a technology itself has much more potential, but as mentioned, current applications of it leaves me questioning

[Taf the Ghost]

You know NFTs have jumped the shark when the AP is getting in on it.

[pas008]

So are Nfts going to be used in meta verse?

So you actually only one in that digital world that owns it? Or supposedly limited quantity?

Only can be transferred via Blockchain?

 

[Thaldor]

A blockchain, nothing stops anyone from making another Openseas and starting it all over again with minor tweaks (like blackjack and hookers). As with all cryptos, just scream loud enough "verified", "open" and "token" and you get enough people interested that you might get somewhere.

 

And last time I checked someone had NFT'd THE Mona Lisa and it most likely wasn't Louvre and even more unlikely Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

Doing something about these problems would mean some kind of central control and restrictions included with actual verification of the ownership (not just A blockchain but like there's 3 or 4 REAL Mona Lisa paintings and we pretty well know who owns them and I think they wouldn't be happy about someone claiming owning THE digital Mona Lisa which is just photo/scan of one of the Mona Lisas) and probably so far we all know what is like the garlic and sunlight to vampires to the crypto community.

[Kisai]

Just now, James Evens said:

I don't understand the entire art market but I think NFT fit.

Why is van gogh  starry night  worth 100k times more worth then a near perfect copy? With this in mind you can see why NFT might actually work for the art market.

It's a form of money laundering when it involves, actual tangible art. Intangible art, can be infinitely replicated, manipulated, and can't be "stolen" in the same way tangible art is.

 

Just now, James Evens said:

Just like the current art market. What it is doesn't matter. Who it is counts.

It's more than just art. Give that video a go if you want to see how the rabbit hole gets made. It doesn't even cover money laundering.

 

Here's the thing, is that there is a lot of things that are "collectable", but only of value to one kind of collector, and that puts it squarely in the same idea of physical gachapon (the capsule machines, not the lootbox trash in games.) Beanie Babies, Barbies and Coca-Cola merch are collectable, but most people under the age of 30 don't even care what these are.

 

 

[RejZoR]

The more people try to explain what NFT's are and how they make sense, the dumber whole thing sounds. Just WHY. Who gives a shit about proof of ownership of an image. If it's stored on my drive, it's mine. I can delete it, edit it, change whatever I want with it and also give it to anyone I damn well want. Or having an "in-game" helmet with 0004 "printed" on it. Why? I bet it's same pretentious pricks who buy all the microtransactions there is right now is who cares about that shit the most.

[Brooksie359]

12 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Holy shit the members of the LTT forum have no idea how decentralized finance and NFTs work. It's sad to see so many choose to live in ignorance than learn about the technology. You don't have to like it but posting things like save as, it's a fad, and so on makes you look absolutely brainless

Or maybe people do understand the technology and yet come to the same conclusion of its kinda pointless? Also the save as is clearly a funny joke so idk why you have to be mad about it. I mean the point is that alot of people are buying nfts of jpegs that people can get for free super easily. 

[Moonzy]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Who gives a shit about proof of ownership of an image.

In term of who cares about ownership of an image, it's common practice today that people give credit to artists/photographer/creator of images that they post online in the commercial space, so people do actually already care about it

 

In term of proof of ownership, recording proof of ownership of anything at all matters, unless if you don't own anything

NFT is just another way to record ownership

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

If it's stored on my drive, it's mine. I can delete it, edit it, change whatever I want with it and also give it to anyone I damn well want.

Other than copyright laws, I guess?

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Or having an "in-game" helmet with 0004 "printed" on it. Why?

It's fine if you don't like it, but do respect people that enjoys such aspect of life

[RejZoR]

I can't respect people who are so dumb to toss insane amounts of money into virtual shit that's literally worthless.

[spartaman64]

2 hours ago, Moonzy said:

In term of who cares about ownership of an image, it's common practice today that people give credit to artists/photographer/creator of images that they post online in the commercial space, so people do actually already care about it

 

In term of proof of ownership, recording proof of ownership of anything at all matters, unless if you don't own anything

NFT is just another way to record ownership

 

Other than copyright laws, I guess?

 

It's fine if you don't like it, but do respect people that enjoys such aspect of life

except its not that ownership. you cant even put it on a tshirt and sell the tshirt LUL the original owner can come and sue you if you did that. so what sort of ownership do you have? you basically own an imgur link and nothing else

[Mark Kaine]

19 hours ago, DildorTheDecent said:

*right-click*

"Save Image As"

 

ez

can be blocked however,  or you just get the low res version. 

[SADS]

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

It's a form of money laundering when it involves, actual tangible art. Intangible art, can be infinitely replicated, manipulated, and can't be "stolen" in the same way tangible art is.

 

It's more than just art. Give that video a go if you want to see how the rabbit hole gets made. It doesn't even cover money laundering.

 

This video and the subject matter of which, is exactly what I think about when I read most of this topic and its comments. Although there are actually genuine game collectors that are being shafted by these antics.

 

The only people that seem to see the "value" in NFTs and similar (see crypto) things are the people that are buying them or selling (hustling/pushing) them. Which is fine for them, but for them alone.

Don't try to buy my car from me with an image of a cartoon monkey matey....

[Fasterthannothing]

20 hours ago, DildorTheDecent said:

*right-click*

"Save Image As"

 

ez

Just wait till they declaire that hacking and piracy you know since your messing with the html embedded image

 

Link for the uninformed:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/10/14/mike-parson-st-louis-post-dispatch-hacker/

[WolframaticAlpha]

The only use I can see for NFTs is that if you get a copyleft of tie image, is distribute it and modify it. Even then their value would be an infinitesimally small fraction of what they sell for rn. Like even most ardent of fans admit that it is just a purely speculative element. NFTs are art, and a superior form of it imo(no preservation, easier transport etc etc). But they are dumber than art as NFTs are a pretty stupid investment, becaus you don't get a tax rebate, nor can they be privatized.

[BuckGup]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Or maybe people do understand the technology.... I mean the point is that alot of people are buying nfts of jpegs that people can get for free super easily. 

This right here. If you understood the technology you would realize how hypocritical this statement is

[pas008]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I can't respect people who are so dumb to toss insane amounts of money into virtual shit that's literally worthless.

time is money

 

and the amount of time you spend just talking about is irony along with playing games in virtual worlds

[Brooksie359]

53 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

This right here. If you understood the technology you would realize how hypocritical this statement is

What do you mean? This is has happened many times at this point so I am unsure what your point. If people can get the same image without buying the nft then all people are buying when they buy the nft is some stupid certificate that they own a copy of the image. This isn't even to mention that people have actually taken images from other artist and sold nfts of their work with their consent making the whole thing such a big joke. I'm sorry but no matter how well intentioned the tech of nfts are the current implementation is nothing more than a dumpsterfire of scams. 

[pas008]

1 hour ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

The only use I can see for NFTs is that if you get a copyleft of tie image, is distribute it and modify it. Even then their value would be an infinitesimally small fraction of what they sell for rn. Like even most ardent of fans admit that it is just a purely speculative element. NFTs are art, and a superior form of it imo(no preservation, easier transport etc etc). But they are dumber than art as NFTs are a pretty stupid investment, becaus you don't get a tax rebate, nor can they be privatized.

i'm not sure yet but imagine if you own the NFT on a pair of nike jordans or darth vader helmet

block chain proves you are owner while you can make a copy or copies(prolly pay for each game world) a csgo skin or an ESO skin or in meta which then in game you could trade or sell off

game company makes money for you uploading it but you potentially can make money distributing it in that game world

 

kinda what it sounds like to me seeing how all these companies are getting involved (protect their products and brands also) but honestly I have no clue

[BuckGup]

6 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

What do you mean? This is has happened many times at this point so I am unsure what your point. If people can get the same image without buying the nft then all people are buying when they buy the nft is some stupid certificate that they own a copy of the image. This isn't even to mention that people have actually taken images from other artist and sold nfts of their work with their consent making the whole thing such a big joke. I'm sorry but no matter how well intentioned the tech of nfts are the current implementation is nothing more than a dumpsterfire of scams. 

It's not about the item it's about proof of ownership of a virtual asset using the blockchain. It's like a Title for a home but this time it's validated by the blockchain and can be virtual. The blockchain is incredibly robust to fraud almost absolute when compared to traditional banking as the current systems in place have been designed with an acceptable level of fraud. I agree that monkey NFTs and ponzi schemes are stupid but don't confuse the technology and the social use.

[StDragon]

22 hours ago, Spotty said:

They probably have a library of some fantastic images, but why sell them as NFTs?

Money laundering would be the most likely guess. Need to influence the media? Well, just pay off the press. NFT would be an instrument to do that.

[Brooksie359]

27 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

It's not about the item it's about proof of ownership of a virtual asset using the blockchain. It's like a Title for a home but this time it's validated by the blockchain and can be virtual. The blockchain is incredibly robust to fraud almost absolute when compared to traditional banking as the current systems in place have been designed with an acceptable level of fraud. I agree that monkey NFTs and ponzi schemes are stupid but don't confuse the technology and the social use.

I think this is the fundamental difference between my opinion and yours. You can't simply separate how the technology is being used right now especially when it is mostly used for scams at this point. Also we already have existing ways to show proof of ownership so again I don't see the point of nfts. 

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

time is money

 

and the amount of time you spend just talking about is irony along with playing games in virtual worlds

some NFTs sell for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. My time is worth around $15 to $20 an hour. The amount of time I spend talking about NFTs for playing games does not come close to the price some NFTs sell for.

[DJUNGELSKOG]

I want to say that most of the people throwing around words like blockchain to explain the concept of NFTs have no idea how it works, and probably bought in for the wrong reason.

 

To put it simply, NFTs are essentially trading cards (but virtual). Anyone can produce trading cards. Like their physical tangible counterparts, on a basic level, they are worthless (the equivalent of how phyiscal trading cards are nothing more than paper and ink). Demand and "scarcity" is what drives the market and therefore the value. NFTs are not a currency, they are bought, sold, and traded, so they are a barter device.

 

Oh, but what about the part where NFTs being made from real objects/art? Think of it this way. Is a baseball card made from the actual player? Or is it just a representation of the idea of the player? Just like how you can't print a baseball card with A-Rod on it without permission and licensing from both the player, and the photographer/artist that created the image depicted on the card, creating NFTs from art you don't own is (from a copyrights and rights holder standpoint) theft. 

 

Can't I just right click "Save As" and essentially do the same thing? Not exactly. An NFT is an "authenticated" "trading card." It's like the difference between Googling a photo of a first edition holographic Charizard Pokemon card, and printing it out; and actually owning the real thing encapsulated and authenticated by a card grading company. Remember, you're owning the "trading card," not the idea of Charizard.

 

But why are people buying them? FOMO. People saw the rise of tech stocks in the stock market and realized they missed out. People then saw cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin emerge and explode, and realized that they missed out. Now with the emergence of NFTs being promoted by companies and celebrities, people are blindly buying in hoping to cash out on the next big thing. Also, some people just have the money to spend on something they think they can brag about. 

 

So why are NFTs worth so much? Because there's a market for it. People are willing to pay money for virtual trading cards that they think will appreciate in value. Whether they will actually appreciate in value, I can't say. Everything "of value" carries the value because people are willing to pay that amount for it. You can have a one-of-a-kind object, but it will be worthless if no one wants to pay money for it. On the other hand, you can have something that seems worthless to most people, but are worth a lot to those who collect them. Remember that time an artist duct taped a banana to the wall and someone paid £90,000 for it? Same idea. 

 

So will NFTs die out or crash? This is hard to predict. Most things that become popular will have a lingering fanbase (especially in the collectibles world). I would imagine that NFTs will lose a lot of value once the demand levels off, before things stabilze, and die hard fans/believers will keep it alive for NFTs to hold some value.

 

Where does the blockchain come in? Like physical trading cards where you send them in to grading companies to get them authenticated, NFTs essentially come pre-authenticated (pre-registered as genuine). Also, every time they change ownership, it is public record. That is really all that the blockchain does for NFTs. If you're trying to use the blockchain to justify anything else regarding the existence of NFTs, you probably need to read up on what you're talking about. Just because it's authenticated doesn't make it valuable, there needs to be a demand. You can go to Target, buy a pack of Pokemon cards, and send them all to a card grading company to be graded, authenticated, and encapsulated, but that alone does not make them valuable.

 

What about people using it to launder money? What if I told you that you can do that with literally anything that carries a market value? Like actual tangible art?

 

tl;dr - NFTs are essentially virtual trading cards that have value because people are willing to pay. It's not very different from any other kind of collectible. It will always look dumb and worthless to people who aren't interested in it. Also some people are buying them as an investment, where only time will tell whether it was a good idea.

[Radium_Angel]

....so....is it time to convert all my beanie babies to NFTs yet?

Or should I hang on to them next to my Dutch Tulips?

/h obviously, I don't understand any of this, but I"m enjoying the flamewar.

[pas008]

40 minutes ago, poochyena said:

some NFTs sell for hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. My time is worth around $15 to $20 an hour. The amount of time I spend talking about NFTs for playing games does not come close to the price some NFTs sell for.

ok how does this go to my point i was making with someone? read the quote I had and my response

 

fyi I dont value my free time at my hourly wage, its worth much more cause its limited per day per week per month etc etc hence overtime pay is what it is