stabby_cicadaone more shitty techbrofad down
I have to say, the technology behind cryptocurrencies is brilliant, but unfortunately, it got misused and got ironically centralised.
NFTs are stupid.
Now with hype train dying, we could see some real use of AI.
NFTs are stupid.
Now with hype train dying, we could see some real use of AI.
NateNate60NFTs of art was really not supposed to be anything more than a proof of concept. I think the original purpose of NFTs was to be able to have an NFT representing title to land or something that you could then barter or sell on the blockchain.
Snot FlickermanNFTs were created in a code jam and had no intents to become title transfer tools.
It was and always be limited by the amount of data the NFT can contain. They went with URLs because they are small enough to fit. An actual land deed title document? Too big to fit into an NFT. Simply not enough bytes to go around.
This was the strict limitation from the very beginning. The only thing an NFT actually verifies “ownership” of is a URL.
While the NFT can’t contain the entire title document, it can contain the hash of the title document, and then the title document is simply recorded elsewhere on-chain.
I agree with this. A title to land ownership is in itself just a piece of paper, it’s not the land you’re owning. It’s effectively serving the same purpose as the hash idea you’re suggesting
Unfortunately it only is useful in proving title when normal processes have failed, and in the places with title proven by a line of titles stretching arbitrarily far back, it’s only as good as the proof that got it in the block chain
It’s better in places like Australia where title is a record on a government database and block chain would protect against destruction of government records (eg from war or revolution), but there it would probably only be useful if something like the old government regained power (the Nazis had no intention of returning stuff to Jews)
But in places like Australia you wouldn’t want to add another step to the users, perhaps it could be a land titles department job
In places with title via history of title I don’t think it could defeat a result from a title search, so maybe it’d be next to useless unless it was backed by a court order or some other authoritative full stop
Mossy Feathers (She/Her)Nfts legitimately confuse me.
“Why can’t you put the whole image in an nft?”
“It’s too big”
“Why is it too big?”
“It’d take too long to generate.”
“Okay, but why?”
“Because nfts can’t hold that much information.”
“Okay, but why?”
“Because it’d take too long to generate.”
“Okay, but why would it take too long to generate???”
“Fuck you, stop wasting my time.”
“Oooookay. I really don’t understand but okay, fuck you too I guess.”
Does anyone know why nfts are so small? Everything I’ve read says that they’re fucking tiny, but nothing explains why they can’t be larger, why being larger would be too slow, and so on. They honestly seem like a decent answer to the digital ownership problem of “I want to resell this game like I could 20yrs ago but I can’t”, however I get sent in a circle whenever I try to figure out what makes nfts so unwieldy and impractical.
(Not that I think anyone should be able to own a digital good; I pay for digital things because I want to support people, not because I think digital ownership is a legitimate concept. Imo, because digital things can be copied as many times as you want, you can’t truly own a digital item, and nor should anyone be allowed to try and revoke said item unless said item is illegal for other reasons. However… As long as we live in a capitalist society hell-bent on applying the concept of ownership to a system that’s only limited by your hardware, I think people should have the ability to actually “own” their digital goods, which includes things like the right to not have a company take them away whenever it feels like it and the ability to sell digital goods like an IRL market.)
Start with basic networking and learning why counting bits matters. It’s a limitation of network technologies.
Does anyone know why nfts are so small?
Because storage space on “The Blockchain” is very expensive.
The blockchain is a complete list of all transaction made with a cryptocurrency. You have heard of miners. What they do is collect transactions and append them to the blockchain. Every miner must have a complete copy of the whole chain. So whenever a new NFT is created, lots of copies have to be stored and kept forever. It’s just not a good solution from an engineering standpoint. But for the popular currencies, that’s the smaller problem.
Every miner wants a fee for their services. That fee depends on the value of the cryptocurrency. There is no relation to the actual storage cost.
Besides, crypto does not offer any kind of DRM. If it did, the copyright industry would be all over it. Anyone can download anything on the blockchain.
The reason you can’t resell games is, because the publishers don’t allow it. For example, Steam has a marketplace. It would be no technical problem to make games transferrable between users. The rights-owners don’t want that.
Ah, okay. That makes sense. I missed the, “the whole chain has to be on everyone’s PCs” part. I figured it was more like BitTorrent where you don’t actually have to have the whole thing, it works as long as everyone has all the parts to put the whole thing together (but the parts can be distributed across a bunch of PCs).
LucidlethargyAI is useful, you just have to use it right. Most “titans of business” think it’s a replacement for humans. It’s infinitely obnoxious correcting then in a business setting.
You see, no one actually wants a digital currency. There have been several (nano was my favorite) that functioned especially well as a currency, because it used very little compute power to perform or verify transactions.
But a currency is stable. Which means you don’t magically make money by holding or trading it. So it doesn’t get attention, and therefore doesn’t get widely adopted.
Everyone likes Bitcoin because it’s speculative digital gold.
There are plenty of people who want a digital equivalent to cash from a privacy perspective.
Crypto is the exact opposite of private. You literally share all your transactions with everyone.
JacobCoffinWritesI really enjoy reading about the investigations that follow any big crypto heist, where they track the stolen money through various exchanges etc. The Swindled podcast just did one about a pretty poor attempt to launder crypto (see Razzlekhan) and Darknet diaries did one on the much more competent (suspected North Korean) heist of eth from Axie Infinity and their various laundering efforts including through Tornado cash. It’s surprisingly transparent in a lot of ways. It seems like stealing the money is often the comparatively easy part, and getting their huge sums out of crypto and into something they can use (while thousands watch the money like hawks) is much harder.
getting their huge sums out of crypto and into something they can use (while thousands watch the money like hawks) is much harder
That, my friends, is what NFT are is perfect at.
“Oh, what, tax authority? No, I didn’t steal this money. I earned it legit by selling my newly-minted monkey NFT to some sucker for 100 ETH.”
That gets your money into crypto, not out of it.
The full scheme works like this—
You go ahead and do that and see how it turns out.
CryptagionismisogynistName one stable currency. All currency fluctuates. But yes, crypto is very volatile comparatively
explodicleHow many more decades do you think until crypto stabilizes?
I don’t think investors in crypto want it to lose volatility. But again, all currencies are subjected to volatility. No currency is perfectly stable.
That was my point, in essence. Crypto fails as currency because the people in that market don’t want it to be less volatile, making it bad for typical currency uses.
While yes, the relative values of currency fluctuate over time and in relation to one another, it’s orders of magnitude less and driven by far more predictable and based on actual real world factors. Instead of Fomo, whims, market whales, and indecipherable white papers.
It’d be nice to have a singular system for payment around the world. I work on e-commerce sites that take payment in many different countries, and some of those payment providers are better designed than others.
nano was my favorite
Hello, fellow Nanite!
I recently tried Nano-GPT and had a very good experience (see feddit.org/post/3081522/2172497), so there is at least some real-world usage – it’s cool and kind of impressive technology, though spam during certain periods was always an issue and I don’t know how resilient the network is currently.
funnily, the tech to do crypto currencies existed long before they got used for the grift. similarly, the plausible use cases for machine learning will mostly suffer from association with the fad of llms.
I think AI has some specific uses that it would be great at, but it’s getting shoved into places it doesn’t belong. (Kind of like how everything had touch buttons for a while.)
Yep. I see it a bit like asbestos. It’s being added to everything as the new cure-all to every problem imaginable. And similarly I think we’ll see some pretty rough repercussions down the line.
totally whiffed on crypto.
at least 130 countries are working on developing national cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin goes from $15 to $62,000 in ten years
crypto market cap goes from $11 billion to two trillion dollars in ten years.
The only people calling crypto a failure are ig’nant or covered in salt.
at least 130 countries are working on developing national cryptocurrencies.
CBDCs aren’t cryptocurrencies.
As for the rest, “It’s good because it’s making lots of money” isn’t as persuasive an argument as you think it is.
“CBDCs aren’t cryptocurrencies”
Love to hear how you think digital currencies aren’t digital currencies.
“As for the rest, “It’s good because it’s making lots of money””
That’s your own fault, a response to your own failure to connecting nfts and cryptocurrency(how you are judging nft failure).
cryptocurrencies are exceptionally popular tech with very active communities developing new technology that is constantly gaining popularity and value.
Go ahead, try to make a valid point as to how a popular, increasingly valuable and advanced technology is “hype”.
by your flawed metrics, solar power is “hype”.
Love to hear how you think digital currencies aren’t digital currencies.
Not all digital currencies are cryptocurrencies. CBDCs are digital implementations of government-backed fiat currencies. If you don’t understand the difference I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.
by your flawed metrics, solar power is “hype”.
Solar power produces energy. Cryptocurrency produces nothing and wastes energy doing it.
two swings, two misses.
but hey, you swung.
Strange hill for them to die on… A quick search makes it obvious that CBDCs use cryptography
haha, yup, they must have realized the hole they’re digging isn’t getting any shallower.
but with six.
Hahaha, this is so funny.
Strange hill to die on. A quick search makes it obvious that credit cards use cryptography.
Hey dude, cryptography != cryptocurrency. Cryptography just says “yes, this person made this transaction, I am sure of it as a computer because this math checks out”.
Wait, so you’re telling me that every time I swipe my VISA and smugly explain to the cashier that I’m a crypto bro, I’ve been the fool all along? Please excuse me while I begin to question everything in my life
Neither of the C’s stand for cryptography and they don’t even require a blockchain, but can use one.
glad somebody’s reading.
keep on.
Zos_KiaI don’t think GP is arguing that crypto is a good thing here. They are refuting the meme which calls crypto a dead fad.
As mind boggling as it may sound, crypto is still a very strong industry, raising about 10 billion per year. Sure it has gone down by more than half since the hype years but that’s still very comfortable numbers.
Again, not saying it is a good thing. But just because it doesn’t make mainstream headlines anymore doesn’t mean it’s dead.
I agree with everything you’re saying except crypto is not down by more than half since it’s peak.
You know what you’re right, i was mistakenly taking 2022 as a baseline. I’ll edit my original comment to reflect that.
commenting again cause the other poster’s remark prodded me into digging the numbers on fundraising and it’s pretty interesting :
So the best year for crypto was 2021 with >30B$ raised. 2024 is projected for 10B$ raised so indeed that’s a divide by 3, pretty grim picture, right ?
Except if you take a look across industries, it’s obvious that 2021 was an anomaly year everywhere. For example Healthtech peaked around 60B$ in 2021 before going down to 15B$ in 2024. Surely you don’t think that Healthtech is a dead fad, do you ? That pattern is consistent across industries.
Sorry, I’m a bit confused by the “fundraising” terminology. Is this in regards to investments in the cryptocurrency industry, such as exchanges and other corporations, or individual purchases of the raw assets?
Looking at market cap, Bitcoin peaked earlier this year at $1.43 trillion and is currently at $1.23 trillion. That’s only a 14% drop. If you look at the global cryptocurrency market cap, it peaked in 2021 at $3.07 trillion and is currently at $2.26 trillion. That’s a 26% drop. I understand that you don’t think crypto is dead, but there’s a lot of delusion in this thread. Surely, if cryptocurrencies are dead, Disney (down 53% from peak) and Intel (down 67% from peak) are on life support.
Good point, the health of the speculative market (“people buying and selling btc and other cryptos”) is a different thing from the health of the industry (“people starting crypto projects and raising VC money to fund them”).
By fundraising, i meant the second one. I find it to be a better indicator because it sends the message that people are building projects with promises of value convincing enough that VCs invest in them. I personally think those promises are bullshit but if VCs are pouring 10 billion bucks a year in an industry you cannot credibly call it dead or dying.
To the more general point of the meme… some people only consume headlines. Their pattern is easily recognizable :
- the mainstream (as in non-tech) news cycle has calmed down a bit so they think AI is on the brink of death
- big names like Sam Altman come across as insufferable assholes so they think that’s representative of the tens of thousands of people currently working the field
- they don’t keep up to date on the subject so they have no idea how far everything has gone in just the past 12 months
- they over-invest on marginal news like the “model collapse” paper which was reposted a million times on Lemmy and Reddit
It’s the same energy as QAnon when they were convinced that Trump would parachute from a helicopter at Biden’s investiture to commandeer the US army and publicly execute Hilary Clinton. They really do believe the “AI hype” is about to simmer down and then they’ll have been right all along lmao
Crypto is a speculative market. That doesn’t make it a good currency - in fact, it makes it a very bad currency. Bitcoins changing in value so much and so rapidly makes them awful for use as a daily currency, and they’re backed by fiat currencies anyways because otherwise, they’d have no value.
The only reason people care about crypto is because they think they can make a lot of money off of it when they hand the bag off to somebody else.
“[Fiat currency] is a speculative market. That doesn’t make it a good currency - in fact, it makes it a very bad currency. [Dollars] changing in value so much and so rapidly makes them awful for use as a daily currency, and they’re backed by [gold] anyways because otherwise, they’d have no value.”
yes, yes, go on.
“The only reason people care about [fiat] is because they think they can make a lot of money off of it when they hand the bag off to somebody else.”
It’s really good that fiat currency never really got a foothold anywhere or it looks like you wouldn’t have any argument at all here.
Bitcoin dropped 0.68% 2 days ago, rose 1.13% yesterday, and has dropped 0.93% today. By comparison, the dollar dropped 0.00995% in the last 24 hours compared to the Euro, with the largest change being a +0.14703% change compared to the Australian dollar.
On Jan 1st, 2018, 1 bitcoin was worth $15,196.60. One year later, it was worth $3,851.92. As of this moment, it’s worth $61,721.47, has dropped 6.11% this week, and gone up 10% in the last 30 days - making it worth $5,613.31 more than it was at the start of September.
Since 2017, 1 bitcoin has gone up 1,291.05% in value. 1 USD in 2017 is worth $1.28 today - an increase of 28% over 7 years and an average inflation rate of 3.64%. The current inflation rate compared to the end of last year is now 2.53%. If this number holds, $1 today will be worth $1.03 next year.
Tell me which one is the more stable currency to base your product’s prices on. Pricing things in Bitcoin is like pricing them in stocks.
or like gold, silver, fiat or commodities when they first appeared in the market.
Good thing none of those panned out or you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
EccitazeOh, yes, let me go and buy me weekly groceries with a lump of gold like I’m a fucking leprechaun, because clearly gold and silver are still used as currency all around the world. /s
good luck.
It’s an interesting idea, but it’ll be tricky to pull off because governments and corporations have convinced you and everybody else that pieces of paper and promissory digital notes are more valuable than gold.
Let me clarify since apparently you’re too fucking dense (or realistically, willfully obtuse for the purpose of trolling) to get the point:
There’s not a single store, anywhere in the world, that will allow me to directly exchange gold for goods. At best, they will convert that gold into dollars using a third party exchange, and then conduct the transaction using dollars. If you’re comparing crypto to gold, silver, or the commodities market, then that means cryptocurrency has failed at its stated goal of providing a digital currency.
“There’s not a single store, anywhere in the world, that will allow me to directly exchange gold for goods.”
although you are incorrect since pawn shops obviously accept gold as currency, It’s cool that you’re agreeing with me that most businesses won’t take it because governments and companies have convinced you the digital promissory notes and paper are more valuable than material resources.
“If you’re comparing crypto to gold, silver, or the commodities…”
I’m comparing cryptocurrency to other currencies.
It’s very funny that currency confuses you the way it does, but cryptocurrency has very much succeeded at providing a digital currency.
they are literally digital currencies that you can use to exchange for goods.
The success and convenience of digital currency is the reason 130 countries are developing National currencies.
digital currency started as bank accounts, moved on to debit cards, then credit card, then direct payment systems like UPI in India or WeChat in China, which are cryptocurrencies.
cryptographically secure digital currency.
You’re so entirely wrong, hahaha.
literally just type your thoughts into a search bar first to avoid these types of mistakes.
you can read the information, critically analyze and adjust your lazy assumptions, and then write them down.