Reply With QuoteBasically bitcoin, but you get a free jpeg with your magic beans.
Could someone explain the principle of the above as it’s difficult to understand the concept of it. It seems it’s just a way of electronically selling and owning digital/online property?
I may be talking rubbish here but isn’t it a bit of a coincidence Ronaldo is now connected to Binance with NFTs and now there’s a huge s**t storm about him in the media?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Basically bitcoin, but you get a free jpeg with your magic beans.
Yet from my understanding you don't own the actual rights to its publication. So anyone can use the image??Originally Posted by Franky Four Fingers
"The ownership of an NFT as defined by the blockchain has no inherent legal meaning, and does not necessarily grant copyright, intellectual property rights, or other legal rights over its associated digital file. An NFT does not restrict the sharing or copying of its associated digital file, and does not prevent the creation of NFTs that reference identical files."
So yet another Gambling/Greed instrument...
Last edited by redmonaco; 17th November 2022 at 10:54.
It's a digital receipt that needs several rainforests worth of environmental damage to keep it working in perpetuity.
An NFT is just a pointer to a resource, usually someone elses hosted website. If that breaks, you have bought yourself a very expensive pointer.
NFT bubble has long popped, there was money to be made as long as people agreed that these things held value. Now the top of the pyramid scheme have cashed out, its just the people left holding the bag desperately trying to reclaim their losses.
My favourite analogy (not necessarily the most accurate) is having an NFT is like you proudly parading around the bedroom with your marriage certificate showing it to onlookers, as somoene else is having sex with your missus.
LOLZ...whatever happened to sounddood.
Basically digital tracking / proof of ownership of any digital asset, on a blockchain ledger
Nothing to do with bitcoin though, I believe you transact in Eth
(I'm no expert, and have stayed well away)
Different flavour of magic beans :-)
So much misinformation about NFTs. In reality they are blockchain verified, unique (non-fungible) token which can be assigned to anything, even your house, as proof of ownership as it's theoretically impossible to cheat. Just think of it as a unique digital certificate/deed attached to a unique item, real or digital. NFTs are also confused with crypto mining as they have been linked, however, NFT "minting" is literally just recording the transaction and they themselves don't expel any energy. But there is also huge difference between two methods of mining, the hugely expensive proof-of-work, vs the theoretically carbon neutral proof-of-stake (mind numbingly boring stuff). However, both of those methods have benefits and negatives, but that is independent of NFTs.
I own one NFT, which was given to me as it is of my work by the company who did it (they bought the art from me and the licence from the trademark owner to mint NFTs). But it's one of a series, so it was worth about £40 when new, and last I checked it was £25... The companies I work for have been slowly getting into NFTs, but have been very careful to try to avoid the bad press "proof-of-work" garnered. It's really hard to shake off the stigma though, once the public get a certain idea.
I personally think they are here to stay, but I think they could do with a rebranding to make it clear that they themselves aren't the product, but just a method of verifying the actual asset.
My understanding is you are buying a unique token, pretty much always with a web-link to a hosted jpg. So in reality, you don't even own what you see, the host could change what is at the end of that address.
I've not really understood why people buy them - 99% are dreadful jpg images created by random people. Once you've spend your money, its hardly a liquid market like crypto to sell your investment on.
I have noticed that it's become very popular as a product from dance music DJs, getting fans to buy NFTs - usually short gifs linked to a music track and to increase desire, they add incentive like buy the complete NFT collection and be part of a zoom meeting with the DJ.
Last edited by Christian; 17th November 2022 at 15:06.
This is CryptoPunk #5822.
CryptoPunk #5822 is an NFT.
CryptoPunk #5822 was bought for $23.7m USD (in crypto) in February 2022.
I clicked on CryptoPunk #5822 and saved the image, this cost me $0.
I'm confused. Very confused.
That is such a weird thing to be confused by. You have a copy of something, you do not own that specific art. Aside from the absurdity of that art and the price paid, the person who bought it actually owns it. Now if you are happy with a copy, fine, but it's an odd concept on a watch forum where authentication and certification is a very common concept.This is CryptoPunk #5822.
CryptoPunk #5822 is an NFT.
CryptoPunk #5822 was bought for $23.7m USD (in crypto) in February 2022.
I clicked on CryptoPunk #5822 and saved the image, this cost me $0.
I'm confused. Very confused.
It's like saying that you own shares in a company because you took a screenshot of someone else's account.
My confusion lies with the purpose of ownership…whats the point?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56371912
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Never a truer word spoken...the crux of the matter, well asked that man.
from the article Chris very kindly linked, thanks,
'The people actually selling the NFTs are "crypto-grifters", he said.
"The same guys who've always been at it, trying to come up with a new form of worthless magic bean that they can sell for money."
Former Christie's auctioneer Charles Allsopp said the concept of buying NFTs made "no sense".
"The idea of buying something which isn't there is just strange," he told the BBC.
"I think people who invest in it are slight mugs, but I hope they don't lose their money."
Last edited by Passenger; 17th November 2022 at 20:56.
Cheers.
So i take a picture this evening of my dog led in front of the fire and i post in on FB. I forget about the photo on FB and delete it from there and over time delete it from my phone but you save a copy of it in your camera roll. You use it as a meme and then 3 years later it takes off. How is the original ownership ascertained?
Who decides its going to be an NFT?
No, no, it's not unless it has a digital signature (which you own as the originator).
BTW I think it's a load of old nonsense, but I understand the principle.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
This must be a wind up? Surely?
So the digital signature is assigned to the original image, im assuming you mean by the device, in this instance my iPhone?
I don't think a mobile phone pic would be considered an NFT.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I think i need to read up some more, I've periodically throughout the day tried to understand this but its way over my head
Turns out there's an App for that,
https://www.infobae.com/en/2022/03/2...om-your-phone/
I am not that informed myself TBH - a mate has invested (only a few £100's) in some comic art NFT's and he is happy at the spend.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
You know those novelty certificates you can buy that say you own a distant star and it’s named after you, except you don’t and it isn’t? NFTs are like that.
Spot on.
Well I see it taking off on a big way; especially once some players hit Metaverse NFT’s
Adidas is one of the top-ranking brands among branded NFTs, according to a recent data aggregation. Though Nike is far in the lead thanks to its Rtfkt acquisition, with earnings of more than $185 million as of this August, Adidas’s more than $11 million in revenue (also as of August) is nothing to scoff at. Puma, for instance, has garnered an estimated $1.3 million in primary and secondary sales. In secondary sales, Adidas has made more than $176 million ( compared to Nike’s more than $1.3 billion), but beat out all other branded NFT offerings studied.
It's just a matter of time...
That's a good analogy. Especially as I can look at that star without paying any money.
If you have the time, this two hour (!) video is an excellent primer, and will tell you everything you need to know about NFTs and crypto-currencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
Thread revival
Worthless NFTs:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/...nt=top-article
Normally when you own something, you get some sort of benefit from it's ownership. That may be income or value e.g. equities/property, or it may be the pleasure from using it e.g. cars/watches. But NFTs seem to give you no tangible benefit unless they increase in value, which is highly dependant on other people's idea of worth rather than any intrinsic value.
I believe a lot of luxury brands will start using them as proof of ownership of things like watches and handbags. Essentially a digital proof it’s yours and therefore will be able to be verified against a certificate. I might be wrong, but I think we will see more of that.
I sort of get the crypto currency but the NFT thing blows my mind. People must of really suffered some losses with these things, those board Apes were going for a fortune.
an NFT is just a way to verify the authenticity of an (usually digital) item. A person/company can create something (art, picture, video, piece of work) and put it somewhere (blockchain) which is open for anybody to confirm its the real thing. This has been best suited to digital art/monkees, and unlocks lots of potential uses (like rewarding holders with other digital items, but just not currently!)
It really is perfect for the luxury goods industry.
Anything that is this difficult to explain is unlikely to achieve widespread adoption.
Yeah it still blows my mind but thank you for the response.
Absolutely.
I'm none the wiser for reading this thread.
M
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
It really is perfect for the luxury goods industry.
Don’t understand, could you explain that a bit more?
But it's not difficult to explain, it's just a digital certificate of authenticity/ownership, a serial number recorded on a network. The stupid apes, etc., really messed up the optics of an otherwise sound technology.
I bought a Prada jacket a couple of months ago that is recorded on the blockchain as proof of authenticity. I thought it was interesting that they are avoiding calling it an NFT, probably due to negative connotations, but that's what it is.
I buy a Rolex from the local AD. They give me a receipt and i know its authenticity…..why do i need an NFT in that instance?
You don't. You know it's real. However, Rolex will have a record of it in their systems, by recording the serial number, etc., and will be able to verify it. NFT is the same thing, but on a global blockchain system.
I am not advocating for or against it. I genuinely don't care, but I don't mind the technology.
Im not questioning you btw, I genuinely still don't get it. Rolex would also now its real and verify it like they've done for 100 plus years, they could remove the back, look at the serial number etc etc. Why add complication to something? God I'm a Luddite
I just think of it the same way as when records got digitised. Authenticity or ownership of anything used to be recorded on paper and filed in books, etc., but have since been digitised on computer hard drives, then on digital systems in the cloud. NFT technology is just an attempt to take that further by giving items unique serial numbers on the interconnected network which is in theory very difficult to cheat or hack.
I don't actually know whether it's an answer to a question no one asked, but for digital assets it did seem like a good way to verify authenticity on a decentralised system open to public. But the rollout of it and the terrible publicity definitely did it a lot of damage, maybe permanent.
So, if you were to sell your jacket, could the buyer ascertain that you are the owner and you could update/add NFT for the new owner?
I think I understand the basics of it but I don’t get its worth and not to the extent of thousands of pounds.
I don't know if it records owners, but it has a microchip linked to the blockchain to verify its authenticity. It played no part in my decision to buy it BTW, but I found it interesting.
Prada, LVMH and Cartier are all part of the same system.
Interesting, thanks.
I think you’re right. Also digital proof of identity is long overdue. It’s all a bit big brother but the chaos in the online world is rife.
Richemont too - https://www.watchpro.com/panerai-iss...ery-new-watch/
You are right, Rolex would know, you would know. And that's been fine for as long as Rolex sold watches. When you buy used, you probably would like B&P, you might even want to do the deal at an AD after getting it verified first. And you do it cos you want to be sure it's authentic. So can digital receipts help this? Do Rolex want this? If all the data is out in the open for luddites to see, is that even safe?
Luxury brands are already dabbling in selling products with NFT tech, but it's still very very early days. I've seen how some products, the digital token is transferred by just tapping the NFC tag so can be very easy to use.
Posting Permissions