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 Northerners
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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).
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.
Excellent, you go through to the methodology and it seems the big hit is mining on ethereum... which... won't be happening from september.
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 IMHO
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.
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.
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.
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. As for environmentally destructive... how? Is electricity environmentally destructive? Better get rid of those wind farms then...
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.
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.
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.
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.
This thread reads like a Daily Mail comments section
Does it? How so?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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
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.
Do not put money in them as an investment, the value will not go up. Don't let the cryptobros persuade you otherwise.
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
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.