Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
NFT sponsorship
Comments
-
Lol, how?Glovepup said:Ffs, I don’t want to see this. NFT’s are bad news
0 -
I am exactly the same as you, someone tried to explain it to me and I was lost after 10 seconds. Actually that was Bitcoin, is that different to Crypto? I am absolutely clueless on it all.AFKABartram said:I’m not down at all to be honest, it’s like a whole world I have no idea how it works. Crypto, NFTs, my brain seems to have a digital block to it all.The Solana Blockchain sounds like a 2 star Magaluf hotel filled with on the cheap Northerners5 -
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...5 -
In 20 years you'll be buying your Charlton season ticket as an NFT. Ticketing is 100% going to go down the route of NFTs - it's a very easy way for bands/artist/entertainers to be able to get a cut from any scalpers.4
-
Stan Flashman is not impressedkentaddick said:In 20 years you'll be buying your Charlton season ticket as an NFT. Ticketing is 100% going to go down the route of NFTs - it's a very easy way for bands/artist/entertainers to be able to get a cut from any scalpers.0 -
Er, the average NFT generates 211kg of CO2, which is about 92 times more than a physical piece of art. Driving a car for 100 miles generates around 40kg. The carbon footprint of NFTs is absolutely enormous. The fact that the people who defend NFTs seem to know the least about them is extremely revealing. Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
10 -
I'd need a source for this - this seems utterly ridiculous, considering nearly all major mining operations use green energy. The problem here is that we need to move the grid to green energy, not stop mining. This is also (I'm guessing) on the ethereum blockchain, which is moving to proof of stake in september, drastically bringing down both energy consumption and gas fees. This particular sponsor uses SOL blockchain, which is a lot faster, cheaper and consumes far less energy than ethereum (for now).Garrymanilow said:
Er, the average NFT generates 211kg of CO2, which is about 92 times more than a physical piece of art. Driving a car for 100 miles generates around 40kg. The carbon footprint of NFTs is absolutely enormous. The fact that the people who defend NFTs seem to know the least about them is extremely revealing. Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
As for "incredibly common" again, i'd need a source for this, every digital artist i've spoken to has said NFTs have changed their lives.2 -
https://nftclub.com/eco-impact-of-nfts/kentaddick said:
I'd need a source for this - this seems utterly ridiculous, considering nearly all major mining operations use green energy. The problem here is that we need to move the grid to green energy, not stop mining. This is also (I'm guessing) on the ethereum blockchain, which is moving to proof of stake in september, drastically bringing down both energy consumption and gas fees. This particular sponsor uses SOL blockchain, which is a lot faster, cheaper and consumes far less energy than ethereum (for now).Garrymanilow said:
Er, the average NFT generates 211kg of CO2, which is about 92 times more than a physical piece of art. Driving a car for 100 miles generates around 40kg. The carbon footprint of NFTs is absolutely enormous. The fact that the people who defend NFTs seem to know the least about them is extremely revealing. Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
As for "incredibly common" again, i'd need a source for this, every digital artist i've spoken to has said NFTs have changed their lives.
3 -
Excellent, you go through to the methodology and it seems the big hit is mining on ethereum... which... won't be happening from september.tom_k said:
https://nftclub.com/eco-impact-of-nfts/kentaddick said:
I'd need a source for this - this seems utterly ridiculous, considering nearly all major mining operations use green energy. The problem here is that we need to move the grid to green energy, not stop mining. This is also (I'm guessing) on the ethereum blockchain, which is moving to proof of stake in september, drastically bringing down both energy consumption and gas fees. This particular sponsor uses SOL blockchain, which is a lot faster, cheaper and consumes far less energy than ethereum (for now).Garrymanilow said:
Er, the average NFT generates 211kg of CO2, which is about 92 times more than a physical piece of art. Driving a car for 100 miles generates around 40kg. The carbon footprint of NFTs is absolutely enormous. The fact that the people who defend NFTs seem to know the least about them is extremely revealing. Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
As for "incredibly common" again, i'd need a source for this, every digital artist i've spoken to has said NFTs have changed their lives.
In fact it explicity states proof of stake as a good way of drastically reducing these emissions:
"Many Proof of Stake cryptoart platforms currently exist. They are smaller than their Proof of Work competitors, and have yet to generate the eye-popping sales figures seen in the news, but they offer a way to support NFT artists without absurd carbon emissions."
Solana (the chain this company is on) is an example of a proof of stake system, also.
So, generally, the need is to make the grid green, so that there will not be any carbon emissions at all. It's like saying we shouldn't drive electric cars because of the co2 produced to get the electricity. Move to green and renewable energy sources and we won't have that problem.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Garrymanilow said:
Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
Artwork and concepts are stolen all the time, its really not an NFT invention, go on ebay and youl find millions of reproductions. BUT if I want a Damien Hirst NFT, its easy to find out if its legit or not, where as theres been many fakes of his physical work sold through legit galleries.
I dont personally know of a single Artist whose work has been copied and sold as an nft3 -
shine166 said:Garrymanilow said:
Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
Artwork and concepts are stolen all the time, its really not an NFT invention, go on ebay and youl find millions of reproductions. BUT if I want a Damien Hirst NFT, its easy to find out if its legit or not, where as theres been many fakes of his physical work sold through legit galleries.
I dont personally know of a single Artist whose work has been copied and sold as an nft'I haven't heard of it therefore it isn't happening'. Brilliant.https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/nft-art-sales-are-booming-just-artists-permission-rcna10798
4 -
'I mean, I never said it doesnt happen' BrilliantGarrymanilow said:shine166 said:Garrymanilow said:
Regarding the verifiable blockchain thing, that works very well if there aren't huge numbers of scammers preying on people with little understanding of the system, which due to the deregulated nature of blockchains there are a huge number of. There's also the fact that it's incredibly common for people to find down the line that their artwork has been turned into an NFT without their knowledge and sold on by an individual, for which the artist receives absolutely nothing. It doesn't have to be this way, both in terms of the regulation and the emissions but right now it is.kentaddick said:
it quite literally is the opposite. Digital artists have made a fortune from NFTs. The entire point of blockchain is things are verifiable to everyone.Garrymanilow said:
There's not a single thing in there that is innovative or even necessary. It's mostly just ways of fractionalising an item, which the buyers do not get to own in any real way, in order to make yet more profit off it. In fact one of the things listed on that article is putting NFTs up as collateral for loans, which is an extremely excellent way to lose everything when your picture of a cartoon monkey loses 90% of its value overnight because it's a picture of a cartoon monkey with absolutely no regulation or real world value. And 90,000 other people have right clicked on the JPEG and put it on their Pinterest anyway because of course they have. And then actually someone else has sold that same picture to 100 different people after claiming they owned it when actually they didn't, because stealing artwork and scamming others is the cornerstone of the NFT market. And that's all without the ridiculous environmental impact that NFTs have. I am not psyched about our shorts advertising an environmentally destructive, unregulated pyramid scheme.No.1 in South London said:
So all NFT's are crypto Ponzi schemes........ https://queue-it.com/blog/exciting-future-nft-trends/Leroy Ambrose said:
Absolute fucking bobbins. There is no inherent value in NFTs. They're a cash out scheme for people stuck in the crypto ponzi. There is, and always has been massive inherent value in 'the Internet' - trying to compare the NFT scam to 'the Internet' because it might one day be useful in Web 3.0 is like trying to compare swapping panini stickers in the playground with global currency trading.No.1 in South London said:
If you look back at the advent of the internet, some people were wary of it's potential for good and were dismissing that potential before it had been developed in earnest. We are at a similar juncture with NFT's IMHOGarrymanilow said:
Not quite sure how this comparison was landed on. Sort of like saying you shouldn't be wary of magic beans if you're not scared of rain.No.1 in South London said:Nothing wrong with NFT's when they are used properly. In fact they will revolutionise certain industries that will become evident as Web3 develops over the coming years.
This looks nothing more than a "Panini stickers" type use of NFT's and will be harmless enough and I suspect of little interest to the majority and average Charlton fan.
If you didn't hide under the table during the advent of the Internet, you should be fine with NFT's in the future.
And don't even bother trying to paint me as someone who might have been 'scared of the Internet' (🤣🤣🤣), since I've forgotten more than you and every other cryptobro will ever know about technology.
As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
Artwork and concepts are stolen all the time, its really not an NFT invention, go on ebay and youl find millions of reproductions. BUT if I want a Damien Hirst NFT, its easy to find out if its legit or not, where as theres been many fakes of his physical work sold through legit galleries.
I dont personally know of a single Artist whose work has been copied and sold as an nft'I haven't heard of it therefore it isn't happening'. Brilliant.https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/nft-art-sales-are-booming-just-artists-permission-rcna10798
Completely ignore everything else I said if it helps you feel more informed than others. Im clueless about a lot of things, but making and collecting Art is pretty much all I do know.2 -
NFTs are a scam.
Do not put money in them as an investment, the value will not go up. Don't let the cryptobros persuade you otherwise.10 -
are you calling Charlton's new sponsors scam artists? Be very careful what you say.SELR_addicks said:NFTs are a scam.
Do not put money in them as an investment, the value will not go up. Don't let the cryptobros persuade you otherwise.8 -
Or from today if you support Lazio.kentaddick said:In 20 years you'll be buying your Charlton season ticket as an NFT. Ticketing is 100% going to go down the route of NFTs - it's a very easy way for bands/artist/entertainers to be able to get a cut from any scalpers.1 -
This thread reads like a Daily Mail comments section4
-
CAST have requested a meeting with the club because we are aware that some fans have concerns about this.4
-
Don't worry CAST we're all going to be millionaires.2
-
Does it? How so?Rothko said:This thread reads like a Daily Mail comments section
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
All the stuff about how dangerous they are, and the environmental stuff about a block chain which is pretty low energy. Yes they can be risky, but no one is paying £20k for a Logan Paul video here, or the shitty Socio crypto coins that a lot of clubs have signed up too.Leroy Ambrose said:
Does it? How so?Rothko said:This thread reads like a Daily Mail comments section
My guess is these will be more like digital Pokémon cards, not overly priced ape jpegs, will probably be given away; and Kent Addick will want them all.
found this more balanced
https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq
2 -
Think I'll stick with Premium Bonds.Covered End said:Don't worry CAST we're all going to be millionaires.1 -
Having read this thread twice, I’m still none the wiser what NFT’s are. All of my money is staying firmly under my mattress2
-
If you want to support an artist by buying a JPG and computer code be my guest.
The idea that they hold value and are an 'investment' is a con.4 -
I have loads of NFTS, I used ctrl-c to get most of them.off twitter..........7
-
Any mention of these on the Savings and Investment thread?0
-
What exactly is the difference between owning some art and owning an artist’s NFT? Art is a respectable, but can be risky investment. Nft art is similar.SELR_addicks said:If you want to support an artist by buying a JPG and computer code be my guest.
The idea that they hold value and are an 'investment' is a con.
the technology and ideas behind NFT’s are very much the future. We will buy tickets as NFT’s, the deeds to our homes will be NFT’s.1 -
Digital ponzi schemecharltonkeston said:I haven’t a clue what a NFT is.
Can someone, in simple terms and few words, explain briefly what and why.9 -
Winner winner, chicken dinnerCroydon said:
Digital ponzi schemecharltonkeston said:I haven’t a clue what a NFT is.
Can someone, in simple terms and few words, explain briefly what and why.3 -
NFTs are like playing pass the parcel. There's money to be made if you shift it on in time, just don't be the last one holding when it all goes tits up.4
