Discord Pushes Pause on Exploring Crypto and NFTs Amidst User Backlash (techcrunch.com) 22
Discord founder and CEO Jason Citron sought to reassure users Wednesday that the company doesn't have impending plans to shift its business toward NFTs. From a report: In a tweet earlier this week, Citron shared an image of crypto wallet MetaMask integrated into Discord's user interface with the text "probably nothing" -- shorthand language in the NFT space for something that's about to be a big deal. He contextualized the previous tweet Wednesday evening, noting that Discord has "no current plans" to integrate crypto wallets into its app.
People know a scam when they see it (Score:2)
Apparently people have realized that NFTs are a scam.
It's hilarious seeing posts on Twitter from NFT buyers expressing their outrage that people used the right-click menu to "steal" their property. Talking about how something needs to be done about right clicking.
People have been taunting them, writing scripts to scape popular NFT websites and bulk download all the "art" there.
Most of it looks like garbage anyway, badly drawn anthropomorphic monkeys and pixel art that looks bad even for a ZX Spectrum game.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I agree with you that its a scam. But the value of NFTs is proving that you have the artist's agreement on owning the original. You are the exclusive holder of the original copy (or how many copies he sold) of that object. NFTs make sense as far as proving that.
Of course, there is a small hitch. Who the fuck wants to own the original, signed, pristine version of a digital meme? Or of anything digital, really. I would understand if collectible, one-of-a-kind physical objects gain value simply because
Re:People know a scam when they see it (Score:4, Insightful)
With physical art there is some benefit to owning the original, rather than a photograph of it. A painting has texture that a flat photo can't capture. It was made by the artist, by their own hand.
A JPEG file can be copied easily. The copy is exactly the same as the original, it has no more and no less utility. In fact there is no way you could even tell the copy from the original, and even the copy you own is just a copy of the one on the artist's hard drive that they uploaded somewhere.
As for having the artists agreement, a lot of NFTs are "stolen" in that someone just registered a URL or image hash as an NFT on the blockchain before the artist did. In any case a lot of art is bought and sold without the artist's permission.
Re: People know a scam when they see it (Score:2)
Just that minor difference in buying Scarlett Johansson's (pre)worn panties vs my pre(worn) panties !
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the same as between owning the physical cartridge of an old, obscure game and the same game in a game collection sold with a miniature version of the console running an emulator on a RasPi. It's the same game, plays identically and there is no difference in the experience whatsoever, but the repro console with 100 other games on it costs like 50 bucks while that old, obscure cartridge costs a couple 100s: Collector's value.
No, I don't get it either. But apparently something that is rare is expe
Re: (Score:2)
> but the repro console with 100 other games on it costs like 50 bucks while that old, obscure cartridge costs a couple 100s: Collector's value
Sometimes pricing of old games is an outright scam. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of smart people are looking at NFT mania right now and thinking "It can't possibly be that dumb, I must be missing something here"
You're not. It is exactly that dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the difference? Mostly that you also get the data storage media on top of the data when you buy the cartridge, but what else is the difference? If you look at the cartridge sensibly, what you get is a bit of plastic, some fairly generic chip and a adhesive sticker with some graphics printed on it. Aside of that, it's the same as the NFT: A few bytes of data.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Who the fuck wants to own the original, signed, pristine version of a digital meme?
Apparently people with more money then brains. /s
> But when you have the original, and I have a 1:1 perfect copy of the same thing because its a string of 1s and 0s.... what's the point?
Greed.
I know you were referring to original digital items but I wanted to share another POV.
As someone who owns originals of Apple 2 games on floppy disk I want digital copies because I can backup a copy and make sure it stays pristine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's only a scam if there was deception involved in the sale. All an NFT is is a contract, or a link to a contract, and where the NFT is associated with a physical or digital artwork, that contract defines what rights, if any, you have over the artwork. Many digital art NFTs don't indeed seem to confer any rights other than the right to say "I own a unique digital token associated with this artwork issued by the artist." To me, this seems not very valuable, but each to his own. If people are being intention
Re: (Score:2)
If people understood what an NFT was then fair enough, but evidence suggests that many of them are being lead to believe that it's like owning a painting. You see them telling other people to delete copies they made because it's "theft", and lobbying browser developers to remove the "save image" feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Which lends weight to the idea that NFT's are inherently stupid. Personaly I think they're expressly designed for two main purposes. 1) Parting the stupid from their money. 2) Money laundering.
Re:People know a scam when they see it (Score:4, Insightful)
NFTs ain't stupid. NFTs are basically just numeric expressions of graphics along with a tag of some more numbers, and they can by definition not have a level of intelligence.
The people buying them, on the other hand, ...
Re: (Score:2)
I hope people start selling NFTs of the scraped NFTs.
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea !
Think I'll knock up an HTML page at the weekend that has an image (probably a "hitler" cat picture or something) which is wrapped with a "A" tag pointing to a page containing an NFT. Then try selling that as an NFT.
That's got to be worth a billion at least.
Re: (Score:2)
I just think the use case for them is currently stupid. Signing data has been around even in the dos days, and signing a bit of data to say "This person now owns this data" and all NFT does is slap a blockchain onto it so it can be verified even if the original private key was lost. It doesn't stop copying a work, it just says "I am the one who originally owned this data and now this guy does." So the owner is responsible for controlling the ip, DCMA takedowns and the like.
I mean if I was making a game an
There Were Open-Source Alternatives to Pigsnout (Score:2)
The correct response ... (Score:2)
Discord: We're thinking of NFTs
Everyone: No "Fucking" Thanks!
(Credit to my coworker for that one.)
Nobody knows what an NFT really is (Score:1)
Yes, in the spotlight today are all these "million dollar" images that are sold as NFTs, but that is an awful use-case that barely scratches the surface of what NFTs can really be. This isn't supposed to be a way to copyright stuff or prevent others from accessing it when you bought it. It's all on a public ledger, so of course others will be able to copy-and-paste it.
An NFT allows verification of the transf