BitCoin: "The Most Dangerous Project We've Ever Seen"

Uh....okay...but what can you DO with it?

Launder money with it mostly.

I get the plagiarism and spam parts, but what's the difference between a "fake" NFT and a "real" one?

One example is that after tv appearances by celebrities spruiking it, clones of Bored Ape Yacht Club spring up for short times to try and catch newcomers.

Facebook's Crypto Project Is Officially Dead

This girl out of Austin is a really great guitar player and some NFT tools stole her catalog.

Site is already while they "listen".

Apparently it just scraped the entire Spotify library of listings, and the owners didn't make themselves anonymous at all which is going to be fantastic once the well-paid lawyers start coming for them.



(Eddie Van Halens son)

I don't like either one.

Good thread about those tools:

TL;DR version: Tools have ties to the industry and their plan is to counter the incoming DMCA lawsuits by saying, "We've got the biggest marketplace for such things, so why don't we cut a deal?" They also hope to yoke artists to various brands, meaning that you'll only get a label deal and big promotion if your music is something that can be used in advertisements, movies, TV shows, and video games.

It’s kinda clever. The AI star-finding, label functions, and brand ties are the real goals, and don’t need the NFTs. The mass-infringement + NFTs is just a media stunt. When it gets old, they’ll fail to respond to a DMCA request and get themselves sued for more publicity. They’ll take the L and stop doing that about a day after the news cycle ends to get themselves a fresh one, then continue on, mission accomplished. They don’t care one whit if every single artist they scrape sends them a DMCA. In fact, they’d love it. The bigger the artists that send the DMCAs the better. More news stories. It’s basically the Trump campaign playbook, but for the music industry. It’ll ultimately live or die based on the success of the core services: the label, the AI, and the brand ties. If it still exists in 5 years, the NFTs will be totally irrelevant. And like, I guess the brand ties are bad? but it’s not like this isn’t something that happens now, or at least people have tried to make happen already. I’m mostly out of the industry these days, so I don’t know how successful they’ve been. But I don’t think the NFT publicity stunt is going to affect its chances of product-market fit. Best thing to do is ignore it. Anything else just feeds it.

I understand not one goddamned word of this.

You know how a country will pin its currency to that of another country? Yeah, it's like that, only dumber.

Okay, I've finally heard of a use for the blockchain that makes really good sense. And I mean damned good sense that only an idiot would be willing to object to. Say you buy a digital download of something, be it a book, movie, videogame, or similar. Once you're done with it, you can opt to sell it to someone else, the way you might a book, DVD, etc., and not only are you transferring your ability to access the item, but the original creator gets a percentage of the sale.

Granted, if you sell a DVD on eBay (for example), whomever originally produced that DVD won't get a cut of that sale, but if you buy a digital copy of a movie or TV show, you can't resell it to anyone after you've watched it. This would at least give folks who bought a digital copy of something that they no longer cared about a way to pass it on to other folks without violating copyright laws, and a way to make some money back off of their purchase of something they don't want any more.

Another way that something like the blockchain could be beneficial is in a "flexible copyright" manner when it comes to derivative works. Imagine, if you will, that you're a George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry type, who comes up with an idea where lots of fans want to create their own stories that fit within that universe. So you create a blockchain where other folks can put their fanfic (in a variety of mediums) and it directly links back to your original idea, and you get a cut of any money they make off of their ideas. If someone decided to fork the idea that someone else had based on your original idea, you'd get a cut of that, as well as the person who had the idea and the person who forked it. Folks would be able to adhere to strictly canonical ideas if they wanted to, or branch off at any given point, and fans would have a clear delineation of what's canonical, just fan stuff, and what was once fan stuff but is now canonical.

To make that work, you'd need to put the actual content, not just a link to it, on the blockchain, more like a multi-gigabyte bitcoin than an NFT, and then you have an accessibility problem (not to mention a chain size problem) -- how do you encourage a fandom if only one person at a time can see it? Otherwise, you're back to right-clickers, so this still isn't any better than a centralized system to handle the same thing. There's no reason you can't have residuals contracts without a blockchain.

What might be genuinely doable in that vein would be something like that Wu-Tang Clan album where there was only a single copy. That could have been put on the blockchain, at some expense and difficulty for the network.

Like Order2Chaos said, none of that requires a blockchain system. If any of these publishers of copy protected digital goods wanted to allow resale right now they could do it with centralized systems, with the bonus for them that they control the marketplace.

Not entirely wrong, but there ought to be a way for folks to do this (with their own unique works) that aren't tied to the big publishers. There are more than a few cases where someone has their book, music, movie, etc., rejected by the big publishing houses, record labels, movie studios, etc. and when they release it as an indie project, it suddenly takes off, leading to them getting offers from the big established organizations. They take them because that's how one gets on the gravy train, but imagine if they could avoid having their works co-opted by a big organization, while still making piles of money and allowing things like fan-fic to flourish.

NFTs still don't help with that though.

Yup, that's a platform (in the Wordpress or Shopify, not Facebook, sense of the term) that doesn't exist yet, but surely could.

A big thing with people right now is trying to argue that NFTs will allow players to resell in-game items and take them from one game to another, which is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the tech that it's actually quite amusing.

So if I made an NFT of Mike Lindel's evidence of the election being stolen would that implode the warp bubble the republicans live in, or would it cause an artificial quantum singularity?

No, he’d use it as an excuse to never show anyone what it “is”.

https://pix11.com/news/local-news/m...dly-worth-11-7-million-comes-to-central-park/

A giant chunk of wealth that sits there doing nothing useful, does nothing artistic either, just sinks massive resources into its creation and maintenance? Sounds like blockchain currency to me!

After player backlash, video game companies are quietly scrapping their NFT plans

I think NFTs are perfect for the online video game industry for one reason. The players want to brag and have an official link to their online avatars and accomplishments, but those remain the IP of the companies. The NFT allows the gamer a wallet where they would have some verification of their characters and accomplishments without giving them ownership of those properties. It would also allow for transfering of those bragging rights through the selling of those NFTs when you sold the account.

It is a lightweight way of giving players some "ownership" of their accounts without giving them legal ownership of intellectual properties.

None of that requires NFTs and could be more easily and securely done in other ways.

I am not saying it does, but easily and securely are not necessarily the goals of game devs.

90% of game devs all think NFTs as proposed are nonsense for games.