@kuba dzięki. Muszę wrócić do tego projektu, nie opublikowaliśmy tam z @cguess niczego od miesięcy.

Some can agree NFTs could come to have good uses but at the time being are more of a work in progress (needs more regulation and strict standards) and anyone wasting too much money on those is doing so at their own risk.

Hating and cancelling the whole tech and the people using it is just as lame as hating and cancelling gamedevs for selling games online (when that was a new thing) instead of on disks and cartridges.

@tuneintodetuned that's just, like, your opinion, man. 👍

But game devs selling games online were not making such completely bonkers claims as NFT peddlers make.

Also, these were the game devs selling their games online, not somebody profiting off of work by artists who have never had anything to do with the NFTs that are being sold:

So, your analogy doesn't hold up on multiple levels.


@tuneintodetuned the long and short of it is:

1. NFTs do not do what their peddlers claim they do (let anyone "own" art).
2. NFTs are used to "sell" art by artists that never agreed to that.
3. NFTs are used for money laundering and fraud.
4. NFTs are absolutely shit for the environment.

It's not my obligation to fix these things, nor to give NFTs the benefit of the doubt -- they've been around for a while.

Until these things are fixed, it's fair game to call them what they are: harmful.


Not a good idea to generalize so much. That's what you should've understood.

Long and short answer is:
1. All ownership proofs have their flaws. Always be ready.
2. So are most physical and digital works whose authors have lost control over.
3. So is USD, both physical and digital.
4. So is USD, both physical and digital.

Don't blame the tech. Blame the people making a bad use of it. Demonizing tech is pretty amish. If you don't like it don't use it. If others do let them be.

@tuneintodetuned @krita so now you've checked two boxes on my cryptobro standard defense bingo:
✅ USD has those problems too
✅ "a few bad apples" defense

The first one is called Whataboutism:

And yes, I am going to blame the tech. The specifics of the tech define whether it supports or discourages certain uses.

For example, NFT smart contracts could have been designed such that artists get paid every time an NFT gets sold. They were not. It was never about the artists.

@tuneintodetuned @krita and the fact that something else (USD, for example) has some of these problems, doesn't make it okay to create yet another system that is rife with them.

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated until coinbros get that simple basic fact.

Wait. You didn't know NFT sales can be set up so they report royalties to the original artist?

@tuneintodetuned @krita I didn't say "report", I said "paid".

According to EIP-2981:

> The royalty payment must be voluntary, as transfer mechanisms such as transferFrom() include NFT transfers between wallets, and executing them does not always imply a sale occurred.

Payment is *voluntary*. It could have been made *mandatory*. And yet, here we are.

I am not going to debate the nitty-gritty. The point stands. Until NFTs get fixed, they are crap.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!