[neuralzen]

"my other complaint is that you’re just creating a speculative instrument that doesn’t really do anything except hope someone else will pay more for it."

So like bitcoin? - The value is in what someone believes it is worth to be provably in control of a given asset. It also provides a great deal of social currency...certain NFT owners have identity wrapped up in them such that owning it extends social latitudes, as the reputational harm which could be done for being a ingeniousness actor far outweighs making a quick buck.

[larsiusprime]

Yes I think Bitcoin is bad as well. Speculation is not productive, and this particular form of it has negative externalities - costs the rest of society is forced to pay, which is both bad and unfair.

Proof of work is far too expensive and wasteful, and the necessary private key discipline to not lose all your coins puts it out of reach of normies (immutability is a bug not a feature for normies), and it’s deflationary which discourages circulation, and it’s got high transaction costs and slow speed, and just massively inefficient. So it fails as a currency, which it was originally pitched as.

Lightning network papers over this (an admission of failure in many ways) but just trades off with new vulnerabilities and further degradation of the original promises.

Make whatever digital assets you want and attach value however you like but own up to the limitations and costs. And pay for your own negative externalities, don’t force them on others.

In most of these projects I feel like it’s the aura of blockchain that’s being sold and not the substance because the actual promises of blockchain (immutability, trustees, decentralization) are always undermined in some way. I wish people would just be more honest about that.

[neuralzen]

I agree PoW is bad, and I'm hopeful for the future of Proof of Stake. Just like using coal and oil to fuel our industries is bad, and we are moving more and more towards renewable energy it is a path of progression. You have to start somewhere and grow, but I think it is somewhat disingenuous to discuss them as if they are static states which are not seeking and progressing to more ethical models.

[larsiusprime]

I will, sincerely, believe it when I see it.

Until then criticizing the status quo, which is doing harm right now, is absolutely valid and not disingenuous in the least.

[neuralzen]

I suppose I see is like noticing that a house is being built, and then criticizing it because no one can live in it, and the builder's tools are loud, and pieces of building material are strewn around. If you don't like houses at all, then it's certainly fair to be critical of them at any state of their development, but if you admit they are useful to exist, albeit in a more developed state than not, it seems like a conflict. - I do appreciate your discussion here, and I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic by saying your position is disingenuous, I just see it as a process of growth, some of which is not so tenable...like a screaming child vs an adult who creates something that contributes something that is a boon for society in their life. I also admit it remains to be seen, but there is meaningful evidence which supports a net positive outcome.

[coopierez]

But in the case of the house, I've seen many completed houses before, so it's a bit of a false equivalence.

[int_19h]

Bitcoin has utility, though - it's genuinely useful for money transfer in some situations (and locations).

But NFTs don't appear to have any practical utility whatsoever. They intentionally lack exactly the parts that make Bitcoin useful.