You can think of NFTs as the digital equivalent of stadium naming: T-Mobile Park is not owned or even used by T-Mobile. But they paid for everyone to see their name attached to it. That's all NFTs do, which is not much, but it is not actually a new concept.https://twitter.com/fiddlemath/status/1442576159548399616 …
-
Show this thread
-
As with all things crypto, the hype around them is completely unwarranted. But, like crypto, they _do_ correspond to something we have done already in the physical world, and to the extent that anyone actually wants to do that digitally, well, here you go.
6 replies 1 retweet 30 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @cmuratori
NFTs are just receipts for things you bought eg game DLC.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @grumpygiant @cmuratori
Sort of. Without an authority to honor and enforce those receipts, they are useless. Game DLC is enforced by game clients and servers, which raises the question of what value blockchain adds if that system needs to be replicated anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BartronPolygon @cmuratori
It has value for the consumer, as they can second-hand trade DLC, right? Still trying to figure out if there’s a producer advantage.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @grumpygiant @cmuratori
They can trade receipts. The content isn’t encoded on the blockchain. I don’t see how it’s better than trading DLC within a walled garden?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The advantage of a common ledger I can think of is that you could trade unrelated assets, and also that you'd need just one set of software/credentials/servers/etc. But, I think you could just have e.g., the Post Office run that common ledger though, and save the planet...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chadbarb @BartronPolygon and
At its core, all the expenditure is to preclude double-spending without having a trusted third party. So just.. trust a third party. An issue with the common ledger is that e.g., ticketmaster doesn't *want* a secondary trade in their assets(tickets) they don't get a piece of.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Tickets are an interesting use case because the event itself can’t be duplicated and happens in one location. Check the blockchain at the door. For digital, I’m trying to picture how e.g., Unity Asset Store would use it unless a consortium of asset stores agreed to interoperate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But the blockchain isn't even "useful" here, because the authoritative thing is _the person at the door_. Either they let you in or they don't. That's the part everyone seems to not get.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Since the person at the door who either lets you in or doesn't is authoritative, there is no point in a blockchain. Whoever controls the door controls the right of passage, and therefore they can just _pick_ the data they want to trust. It need not be blockchain.
-
-
Yeah, on that point, another cool thing about a trusted party w/ a ledger is they don’t have to dole out the whole thing to everyone, blockchain style—just transactions the client has participated. I.e., solves privacy. The ledger is an sql database behind a web api or whatever.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sure! How do you know which trusted third party to verify with? Do you pick the most trusted one?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.