[peoplefromibiza]

> If you have things to sell and you have the copyright or license to sell these things

then you don't need to sell NFTs, you need a government that issues those licenses and protects your copyright by maintaining a (very expensive) judicial system and a PayPal account

> are you of the belief that anything in the NFT format (a set of software methods with a getImage() method) is a scam?

since there is no way yo verify in the chain the validity of the proposal, you have to assume that it is not valid.

it's simply logic

if someone says to you "see? I'm the author because I have this document that certifies I made it" then you can simply give the guy your money and buy the item

he will give to you a signed piece of paper that says 'this is copy #N of the series XXX made by AUTHOR'S NAME' in exchange

done

what does the NFT add to the process, except the (scammy) prospect of being a remunerative investment?

would you buy the same item if there was no 'get rich quick' label attached to it?

[vmception]

> would you buy the same item if there was no 'get rich quick' label attached to it?

I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications, so yes I would continue to interact with them. I would not rule out buying one either, no different than I wouldn't rule out buying a ticket, or rule out buying an in-game trinket for access. If an artist was releasing a work digitally that I liked, I would consider purchasing the NFT version as well. so of those categories the answer is yes.

I also don't mind selling, or reselling, in that form.

For things I wanted the option to resell, I don't mind if the market dries up. I'm fine waiting, or never getting a bid. Far easier to notice when a bid is available than with some consumer electronics or art pieces I have.

It is not possible for me to put a different higher standard on NFTs, as the similarities are too great to other consumptive goods. Anything NFT specific is either the same experience as something else, or better. Including with the authenticity aspect, I gain consensus over any specific NFT very quickly by checking with the artist or their community and double check the published contract addresses with the one I'm considering to interact with. And there are indeed times when I don't care. Its like if someone made a record of all the volume of prada knockoffs sold on the side of the street, all you see is the number of times people - the buyers - don't care. The NFT is just showing that record of consumer sentiment that has existed for a very long time.

[peoplefromibiza]

> I participate in with NFTs no different than I participate with badges on gamified applications

badges on apps are released by the app itself, they have value because a central authority emits them.

> If an artist was releasing a work digitally that I liked, I would consider purchasing the NFT version as well. so of those categories the answer is yes.

give the money yo the artisti directly, so they don't have to pay a fee to the (useless) platform minting the (useless) NFT

pay them to send you an email if you need proof of ownership

[vmception]

I would prefer the NFT version in both circumstances. They inherit current possession and I like the standardized interface. In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account, an NFT may be valuable but I care more about the standardized interface. Most of your discussion has been an assumption of purchasing, not all NFTs need to be purchased or require me to bear the gas fee to obtain current possession. A centralized issuer on their platform is not a feature, to me. Given the choice I would take centralized issuer on the NFT version as I would be relying less on their platform, and even less if they can be inspired to use onchain imagery. There is a thread every day here about a user or their content being deplatformed on some web 2.0 service, now the option for the user is there.

Every circumstance involving an NFT is case by case, one very specific case that I don't actually know bothers you much more than other cases and you are applying it to the entire concept of NFTs. To me, an artist emailing me a proof of ownership is the exact same as an artist messaging me a NFT contract address, to you, the latter suddenly does not satisfy your proof that were you messaging the correct artist, which is an absurdity just because the medium received was an NFT? I personally don't care about the difference. This is going to be a fun conversation to look back at.

[peoplefromibiza]

> In app badges are not valuable and have no standardized interface whether for vanity or transferring to another account

not valuable in monetary sense, but valuable as "recognized as having a meaning"

they can be assumed to be valid exactly because they are emitted with a non standard interface by some centralized entity who's the solely authoritative source allowed to do that.

on the other hand NFT standard interface is meaningless, because the source cannot be verified.

What value have an NFT emitted by opensee identical to one emitted by opensea?

None.

They both signed through a very complex and superfluous mechanism the same bytes, but that means absolutely nothing.

Everybody can do that and when everybody can emit something, its value as unique item is NULL.

Standard interfaces around say app badges could easily be solved by a wrapper api, assuming someone would want to do that. I assume nobody would want to, because the value is not in the interface, it's in the assurance that the "1 million karma points" can be assumed to be factually true, not just an arbitrary hash in an arbitrary list of meaningless transactions.

> one very specific case that I don't actually know bothers you much more than other cases and you are applying it to the entire concept of NFTs

NFTs solve no problem, but they create a lot of them.

The only problem they solve is money laundering (crypto killer App!)

You might not know it, but if you take a picture of Paris and publish it in a book, yo should pay the city of Paris.

You might not know that it's illegal to take pictures of the tour Eiffel at night (I swear it is).

If I publish those items as NFTs I can potentially make a lot of money and nobody can stop me.

What do you think the incentive of such a black market would be?

Find a cure for cancer or scam people?

they are only another way for scammers and market abusers to transfer money from consumer pockets into their own, with the false promise that they will keep growing in value, while the infrastructure they rely on could easily die tomorrow and reach zero value overnight.

With the current rise of energy prices and winds of war in Russia, crypto mining is exactly the first thing that's going to disappear, it's natural selection baby.

[vmception]

any economist will say those are valuable things. a market is a market. I am the market, you are the market, I say it is recognized as having meaning to me, as well as recognizing the monetary sense, and that's all that's necessary. It fits my risk profile to take the risk of ongoing possession using a blockchain medium, and it fits my risk profile on a case by case basis to spend money on one whether there is an assurance of a future buyer or not.

Every "issue" you have with an artist or issuer making money simply says it is a functioning market. Which is the only standard of markets possible. I don't push potential external behaviors of the participants onto the concept of whether there are transactions happen ("curing cancer or scamming people" as if mutually exclusive), it is completely boolean to me:

if(isTransaction() == true) isMarket(true);

the consumers should check if it fits their risk profile.

[peoplefromibiza]

that's over simplifying things

selling illegal guns is a market too

and far more lucrative than NFTs

the issues that a market has make the difference between an healthy market and an unhelathy (or sometimes criminal) one