It’s a technology, simple as. But since we’re back at the start, who profits the most from not moving status quo?
What other viable and available technology options are there for a system where the consumer can somewhat freely do what they want with digital assets?
What other viable and available technology options are there for a system where the consumer can somewhat freely do what they want with digital assets?
But it does work? And just fundamentally why wouldn’t it as a concept?
Gods Unchained, immutable X. NFT is a back-end tech and no one should buy anything just because it is a NFT. The whole idea is to add to the value proposition for the customer/end user
No, it does not work. It’s a URL that’s attached to a blockchain. That’s it. The URL can disappear, or you can create a parallel blockchain with the same URL given to someone else.
What’s with the straw men? Make your point only instead.
That could be applied to anything, stuff on Steam only exist as long as Steam does or allows it to, however does the “URL” have to be accepted if it’s out of network? I don’t think it does. Still, there are inherent flaws in a blockchain system.
Much like I can make a fake cd key and try to use matlab, but they won’t accept it
You’re asking me to prove a negative. Making fun of that isn’t a strawman.
Steam works because we all decide to trust it. Same with fiat currency. There is no singular trustworthy blockchain, and I don’t think there will be. Even then, owning a URL in the system doesn’t solve any problem.
I didn’t, the premise that anyone can copy the blockchain and gain access to the assets is flawed. You’ll have to look up the Immutable X implementation, it was too long since I read about it, if you’re curious. Like I don’t think there will ever be a digital version of ownership that isn’t “a url” since, well it’s digital. The url and wallet is connected to the thing blabla
But you don’t own your things. Steam even restricted my access to my things because I hadn’t bought anything from their store in an arbitrary amount of time, I bought from other places and entered the cd key. The “web2” way of centralisation is also flawed.
Is it the one and true only answer, I don’t know, probably not in its current form albeit it is functional (immutable X). But the arguments against NFTs are mostly against these ducking pictures that ruined any possibility of working towards a goal where we as consumers could get more value.
It’s a technology, simple as. But since we’re back at the start, who profits the most from not moving status quo?
What other viable and available technology options are there for a system where the consumer can somewhat freely do what they want with digital assets?
And wtf simping? Wat
NFTs do nothing to help this.
How do you figure?
In that they do nothing to fix it. How do you figure they would work? Or do you expect me to prove a negative? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
But it does work? And just fundamentally why wouldn’t it as a concept?
Gods Unchained, immutable X. NFT is a back-end tech and no one should buy anything just because it is a NFT. The whole idea is to add to the value proposition for the customer/end user
No, it does not work. It’s a URL that’s attached to a blockchain. That’s it. The URL can disappear, or you can create a parallel blockchain with the same URL given to someone else.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
What’s with the straw men? Make your point only instead.
That could be applied to anything, stuff on Steam only exist as long as Steam does or allows it to, however does the “URL” have to be accepted if it’s out of network? I don’t think it does. Still, there are inherent flaws in a blockchain system.
Much like I can make a fake cd key and try to use matlab, but they won’t accept it
You’re asking me to prove a negative. Making fun of that isn’t a strawman.
Steam works because we all decide to trust it. Same with fiat currency. There is no singular trustworthy blockchain, and I don’t think there will be. Even then, owning a URL in the system doesn’t solve any problem.
I didn’t, the premise that anyone can copy the blockchain and gain access to the assets is flawed. You’ll have to look up the Immutable X implementation, it was too long since I read about it, if you’re curious. Like I don’t think there will ever be a digital version of ownership that isn’t “a url” since, well it’s digital. The url and wallet is connected to the thing blabla
But you don’t own your things. Steam even restricted my access to my things because I hadn’t bought anything from their store in an arbitrary amount of time, I bought from other places and entered the cd key. The “web2” way of centralisation is also flawed.
Is it the one and true only answer, I don’t know, probably not in its current form albeit it is functional (immutable X). But the arguments against NFTs are mostly against these ducking pictures that ruined any possibility of working towards a goal where we as consumers could get more value.
Edit: appeal to ridicule is also a fallacy