[rfd4sgmk8u]

Most NFTs are pretty much a scam, but:

This is the kind of joke for people that think they are clever but don't really understand the situation. Its kind an ignorant position, reminds me of a 'brb downloading RAM' joke. Or sending someone a plastic Bitcoin. or Faxing dollar bills.

Someone made a web site, ok. Guess we don't need fancy Blogging platforms now.

[rchaud]

I imagine the ownership rights granted by minting on CSV would hold up in court exactly as well as NFTs minted on OpenSea.

The RAM joke is quite obviously a joke because everyone knows that RAM chips are physical goods that are obviously finite in supply.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

You don't even need a cryptographic signature if it goes to court. It helps, but not specifically required. Also, a court has no power to overturn a blockchain transaction - unless they have a bunch of miners and energy to rewrite the chain.

Some other differences include append only nature of blockchains. I don't know the ledger has not been modified or reordered or had entries removed. Also if the author doesn't like you, he could ignore your transactions or even drop the entry from the CSV. With say, Ethereum, you would be able to know all these things up front.

[literalsunbear]

C'mon now.

[rfd4sgmk8u]

The point of this joke site is to say "look NFTs are just a set of records", while missing the whole point of

trustless, censorship resistant, append only, peer to peer ledgers

The thing is, we saw these jokes about Bitcoin 10+ years ago. Its easy to point fun at things that one doesn't really understand. I imagine lots of people see this joke and go "Ha! See! You dont need a blockchain" while missing the point entirely.

[boopboopbadoop]

> The thing is, we saw these jokes about Bitcoin 10+ years ago.

The bulk of which are probably still valid today, but you can’t understand because you have conflated price with value.

[throw_nbvc1234]

> you have conflated price with value.

This is a key point of discussion. You and OP probably have very different definitions of value; you can be 100% right from your perspective and 100% wrong from theirs. And if that's the case, you need to unify your definitions of value before you can discuss the merits of anything built on top of that definition. Or just agree to disagree.

[boopboopbadoop]

True. And good general advice.

Frankly I find it hard to do, when depending on who you’re talking to, the intended utility is not even definitive (e.g. a currency vs a “store of value”). Maybe this points at something larger.

[somebodythere]

The site certainly helps make the case for a blockchain.

"Send an email to kick off this manual process with lots of waiting for another human to do a thing, and once he has your money, he may or may not do what he said he would, and if he does, hope he types in your information correctly, and if he does, hope that the one copy of the ledger hosted on some guy's computer doesn't go down, and if it doesn't, hope you don't have to sell because the marketplace is charging 10% rent on transactions and you have no alternatives..."

[Stratoscope]

This site is not trying to be some kind of meaningful commentary on NFTs and blockchains.

It is just to have fun!

Don't take my word for it, look at the hilarious comments in this discussion.

No one took it seriously and thought "NFTs are just a set of records" or "you don't need a blockchain."

[timeon]

> censorship resistant

Not always.