Why would the tokens themselve have to be plentyful and cheap? Wouldn’t it suffice for transactions to be fast, cheap and nearly unlimited?
This is a common scam in all markets including art. An item is sold back in forth to artificially inflate its value. Then it’s sold to an outsider at the inflated price. The unwitting buyer ends up with something worth far less than he paid for it or something worth nothing at all.
2 Likes
Really, they buy an art just in hope to sell it again at an higher price. Why i am surprised…
That can just be thrill for people already have enough money and dont know to use it for good.
We need to quickly and easily be able to provide blockchain-style validation to millions of messages a day. The “computational burden” must somehow be made … “minimal.”
I think they’re hoping that gullible buyers will be dazzled by the “blockchain.” They won’t look upon it as … a market. They’ll be awed by the thought of “stupendous amounts of money,” and stop being as skeptical as they should be.
1 Like
I’m just gonna say that 1) as I said before, SCARCITY is ridiculous. Any true artist wants 10000000000000000 copies of their work everywhere, and 2) I’m not at all convinced cryptocurrency is a scam. India is going to do it’s own Digital Rupee very soon, for example. Like, from the government.
If you think NFT’s are catastrophic to our environment, read this:
Before you blame people for using too much energy, why don’t you stop eating beef and drinking coffee instead?
1 Like
Of course we have had “digital money” for a long time – credit cards, electronic funds transfers (EFT), Western Union.® You could even have a “digital rupee.” These have no physical existence yet they are exactly replaceable with physical legal tender and therefore they effectively are. When you use them, you are not bartering. When you use any sort of “bitcoin,” you are.
You can tell me that “that number” is worth $35,000. And, to anyone who for reasons of his own is willing to give you an equivalent amount of cash or other value, it is. To me, it is worthless. It’s a presently hard-to-compute number with novel mathematical properties. To me, it’s a curiosity that hasn’t been fully-invented yet. If you owe me $35,000 and offer me bitcoin, I am not obliged to accept it. If you hand me 350 authentic $100 bills, I am.
1 Like
The key word here is “speculate.” Otherwise known as: “gamble.”
The casino is open. But remember – casinos were not paid for by winners. The fact that they are “impossibly lavish” ought to tell you something.
1 Like
Not talking about the numbers itself, and yes beef and coffee should less consumed.
But showing others are more worse do not make crypto better. It is like a thief is begging for forgiveness just someone other kill somebody.
I see it more like one group of people upstream are using all the river water and only a trickle makes it downstream. So some people have moved up stream to get regular access to more water. Maybe they use so much that the people who previously had a monopoly on the river are only getting a trickle now, Maybe they use less and there’s enough water left for the older group of upstream people to continue living normally. Maybe they mingled into the existing community upstream and there’s no real competition between them. I think comparing it to “murder” is a bit overkill.
In my opinion, the linked article makes same strange assumptions. First it starts again with the usual argument, that ethereum will move to proof of stake instead of proof of work, but this project runs already for 6 years or longer as far as I could find out. So I don’t guess this changes soon.
Further saying, that the overall footprint is small compared to the rest of the emissions, is true, but quite unfair. If I start tomorrow emptying every day 100kg of pure CO2 into the air from a bottle of compressed gas (hoping that at some point in time someone will pay tickets to watch me), I could also argue this is fine since the amount of CO2 is small compared to the world’s emissions. Still it would be a very dumb idea.
Also the comparison using price per dollar is assuming a “cheap” price of 300$. What about all the artworks, that go for much less? Did someone do a research of what’s the average price of cryptoart?
2 Likes
Yes exactly, the people scream bloody murder, but its more like a pickpocket.
Both are crimes, but ones is indefinitely more serious.
I am not qualified to talk about the actual system, but what irks me is the gigantic hypocrisy around it.
I was watching a YouTuber who made a huge stink about it, and he had several iphone (8,9,10) unpackaging videos on his channel and was selling T-shirts on the side. He probably drinks a Soy-latte everyday and eats beef or expensive veggies that are shipped around half the globe.
Such a person looses all rights to the moral high ground and should not berate other about wasting resources.
I am inclined to believe that this NFT’s nonsense is not great, but neither is Google and Youtube when it comes to wasting resources. Nobody really thinks about these things any more.
People should put things into perspective, rather than overreact.
1 Like
But the way he made money was from making it big on Youtube and selling merchandise, it is far more in line with old-fashioned entrepreneurship than taking advantage of speculators.
The whole talk about people wasting resources (even in terms of just buying things with the money earned from running a business), could be seen as an argument for full blown communism (where you don’t waste resources because you can only have what the state gives you). Sure, there is the issue of people flaunting their possessions and being arrogant in the process, but that is not really an argument to punish success.
The tragedy of the commons is a universal notion, equally applying to all economic models.
1 Like
There’s nothing left of “the mighty Colorado River” by the time it makes it to the ocean …
Turns out that the “water compacts” which were made to allocate the water in that river were made at a time of extraordinary rain. So, they allocated more water than the river typically contains.
That is true, but seen from a pure energetic viewpoint both are forms of income and both “waste” energy.
From an environmental standpoint both are equal.
An amoral gambler that wastes less energy is better?
Yes, I agree with this statement, dealing with environment issues, energy consumption, pollution and similar industrial side effects is important, but the politics around it are often driven by political ideology, not to mention corruption.
This whole topic is a minefield as it touches the global warming debate, left vs right, communism vs capitalism, rich vs poor etc.
I rather not step into it, it’ll be super ugly.
Nope, but I can’t help but make fun of them, that’s my form of “social justice”.
Regarding NFT’s: I actually have no real idea, but the hype and the anti-hype is strong, my instinct tells me that both are probably wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
But I also like the Idea of cutting out the middle man.
1 Like
I don’t really understand what that article is trying to say. Just because other things are worse, doesn’t mean that we can ignore the bad things about Crypto. Why can’t we tackle all of these issues?
Instead of saying that we can’t do anything about crypto because it isn’t as bad as agriculture, we should instead be saying that they are both bad, and we should try and stop the harmful effects of both of them.
I doubt 3D artists are going to be at the forefront of reducing farming emissions, so instead, we should focus on what we can do to improve our area of expertise, and not using NFTs is a good way of doing so.
Doing something wrong and then pointing at someone doing it worse doesn’t mean that we are doing it right.
3 Likes
The Guru posted up a video on the NFT frenzy.
