Aww yiss, motherfucking free markets!!!
A big part of why NFT's exist is specifically to enable stuff like this-- money pass transactions, illiquid trades booked at arbitrary values, etc. This crap about art is really 90% cover for money laundering, graft, and pump and dumps.
Sure, it might be fun to spend a couple bucks on a digital title to some art, but the millions (even hundreds of millions)-- being directed at NFTs is driven by motivations far less simple and clean.
Do you suppose that this doesn’t occur with physical artworks? I reasonably suspect that it is the primary purpose of “modern art”, which requires zero talent to create: - Have a brooding bipolar “artist” smear some random blobs of paint on a canvas—or throw some junk in a bin—or take a photograph of a urinal, or whatever.
- Pronouce it “modern art”.
- “Sell” it for $10 million between parties who want to transfer $10 million for other reasons.
If anybody ever questions this: “You are unsophisticated. You do not understand art.” I point this out, because I disagree with the FUD with NFTs. It is similar to the FUD with Bitcoin and so-called “money laundering”. See also my prior post about this, which nutildah ripped off. Yes, I have no doubt that Bitcoin is sometimes used for “money laundering”. Far more “money laundering” is done with bags of cash, shell corporations, layering with front businesses, and most of all, insider connections at big banks (HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, ...). Are you an old-school organized crime boss with a hundred million dollars to clean in a hurry? You don’t use Bitcoin for that! Instead, you call your banker. Yes, artwork NFTs will probably be used for some “money laundering”. But it will be a drop in the bucket compared to the monkey-business that already must exist in the art world. Please, let us not ruin a good thing with Four Horsemen of the Cryptocalypse type of fearmongering. Bitcoiners should know better than that! NFTs have great potential as a technology. They may sometimes be used for stupidity, just as Bitcoin has oft been used for stupendously idiotic “investments” ( especially in the early days). NFTs may sometimes be used for criminal activity, just as Bitcoin is sometimes used for criminal activity. But ultimately, the good will outweigh the bad by orders of magnitude. We will see that develop, if developers have the freedom to innovate without all the scare stories. A generalized means of conveying non-fungible value could and should do for numerous use cases what Bitcoin has done for fungible value, i.e., money. * nullius is now an avant-garde Neo-Dadaist offering a compact disc audiorecording of John Cage’s 4′33″ of silence which has been run through a Panasonic® microwave oven. It is an artistic statement on the technological hermeneutics of the social-historical nexus between transgressive musical innovation, crass commercialism, and the never-ending existential quest for food by oppressed classes struggling under neoliberal-technocratic global capitalism. It will be bought from the artist for $10,000 by a snobbish billionaire, who will “sell” it to another snobbish billionaire for $10,000,000. If you do not appreciate this art, then you are an unsophisticated rube: You do not understand art. Art is best understood by snobbish billionaires who want to send each other money for undisclosed reasons.
nutildah ripped off my writings without credit:Nullian Original (archive.is) (archive.org)Subject: [WO] NFTs are good!Proof that NFT technology will succeed: I see WOers slinging the exact same FUD against NFTs as has always been used against Bitcoin. Let’s see just how much this technology will totally take over the world: - “It’s a Ponzi.” ✔
- “The scarcity is artificial. Anyone can make perfect copies of it.” ✔
- “Drug dealers will use it to launder money.” ✔
- “Those fools will be burned when it is shut down by regulators (SEC, et al.).”2 ✔
I anticipate that as I keep reading WO posts about NFTs, I will be adding to this list... What's struck me as a touch ironic is that bitcoiners are criticizing NFTs for the exact same reasons nocoiners criticize bitcoin:
"Anybody can make one." ✓
"It's a bubble and a fad that will never catch on." ✓
"It's a highly illiquid market, or else it's all wash trading." ✓
"Its only used by money launderers and criminals." ✓
What am I forgetting?
That would get you expelled from any academic environment. To me as an original thinker, it is discouraging: Why should I contribute my original thoughts to this forum, so that nutildah can rip me off without even the slightest acknowledgment? There is only one nullius. nutildah’s unattributed paraphrase of my ideas is conceptually a half-step away from Faketoshi’s claim that he wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper. (nutildah does get extra chutzpah points insofar as he pretends to have me ignore-listed. Cue the plagiarism bingo card: “We had similar thoughts, including even the placement of Unicode checkmarks!”) I will report it on the plagiarism thread. Edit: Done. |
|
|
|
I was able to get a V NFT after buying a random one 20 x.
Question: if I buy a random NFT for 50 BTC they is listed for more than 50BTC, who covers the difference? Does the seller get screwed out of the difference? Or does the forum cover the difference?
fractional reserve? I suspect that the “random fNFT” link creates new fNFTs out of nothing. That would actually place deflationary pressure on fake-BTC (which in itself has a terrifically unsound monetary policy). |
|
|
|
On second thought, fuck it. I am about ready to repudiate the whole concept of Bitcoin maximalism, if what it gets me is wasting time explaining things to people who don’t want to understand. People who would have rejected Bitcoin years ago—and probably did... If I have no patience remaining for people who think that “blockchain” is magic pixie dust they can just sprinkle around as a buzzword, why should I write long, patient explanations for people who don’t think through the problems that blockchains do solve? NFT using 'blockchain' and 'crypto tokens' is a big red flag for me...
Simple electronic signature would solve their authentication 'problem'. It's legally recognised and well regulated.
Assuming that 'problem' even exists, which I doubt, because there would be thousand startups in that space by now. Bitcoin using ‘blockchain’ and ‘crypto’ is a big red flag for me... Simple electronic bank payment would solve their money transfer ‘problem’. It’s legally recognised and well regulated. Assuming that ‘problem’ even exists, which I doubt, because there would be a thousand startups in that space by now.
P.S., I have said this before: If you want to point to all the idiotic uses of NFTs, perhaps first you should dig through the forum archives and examine all the idiotic uses of Bitcoin—especially in its early days. You will weep. |
|
|
|
I don't get the new NFT thing.
It's a digital certificate that says, "I own thing X". You can then sell/transfer that digital certificate to someone else. For the NFT use case of which you speak, I think of it as a digital autograph. In the physical world, a famous author may sign 100 copies of a book that has a print run of 10,000,000; and those special copies may command a hefty price. A movie star may autograph a photo of himself. And so forth... N.b. that in all such cases, the scarcity is more or less artificial insofar as the marginal cost of autographing an inexpensive item is negligible. Everybody understands how that works. Some people buy such things, some don’t—but everybody understands the concept. The problem with these April Fools’ fNFTs is that they are a SCAM. Many of these fNFTs are not originally issued or authorized by the party whose name is associated with them. For example, there is at this time a Satoshi fNFT; and there are currently two different Last of the V8s fNFTs for sale, even though V8s has been inactive since November. Obviously, you are not obtaining any sort of “autograph” from those persons... Real NFT sites have similar problems with fraudulent offerings. Fortunately, the scam here only reaps fake BTC which, I presume, will disappear altogether at midnight UTC. More generally, NFTs have many other use cases. For example, I think using NFTs to track real estate titles would be a great improvement over the current means of doing such things. If it were so, then when you bought a house, you would receive a blockchain transaction representing legal ownership of your house—just as today you receive a paper deed. The title could be passed on to another party in another tx, with a digital signature from your private key. Not your keys, not your house! For Bitcoiners, the concept should be easy to understand.
NFT using 'blockchain' and 'crypto tokens' is a big red flag for me...
Simple electronic signature would solve their authentication 'problem'. It's legally recognised and well regulated.
Assuming that 'problem' even exists, which I doubt, because there would be thousand startups in that space by now. Not so. Simple digital signatures do not solve the problem of atomically, transactionally passing a value from one party to another, with a transaction ordering that prevents double-spends (double-transfers). Satoshi invented the blockchain as we know it for the purpose of solving these problems; he applied the solution to currency, but it can also be otherwise applied. If you have a simple digital signature on a deed passing ownership of a house, how do you prove: - The time at which the deed was signed? (To at least the accuracy and precision represented by a blockheight.)
- That person making the signature did not first sign another deed transferring the house to another person?
Furthermore: How do you create an immutable record of the deed and its conveyance from one party to another—with an audit trail that can neither be forged, nor be altered after the fact?Blockchains also provide a framework for helping to solve one of the biggest problems with digital signature systems such as PGP: Associating an identity with a key. (Obviously, blockchains do not magically solve this problem all by themselves...) In short, the blockchain performs for a cryptographic digital signature many of the same functions for which pen-and-ink signatures require a system involving a notary public, a government recording clerk, etc. Note: Legal terminology of “electronic signatures” is mostly insecure nonsense. Many jurisdictions accept as an “electronic signature” a form submission that has no cryptographic authentication whatsoever. Above, I refer to digital signatures in the cryptographic sense—which may or may not have any special status, depending on jurisdiction. Even a cryptographically secure digital signature does not in itself solve the problems that I have briefly sketched in the foregoing (or others I have not mentioned). Obviously, laws and legal systems will need some time to catch up to the point where blockchains can be used to keep chains of title for real estate, etc. |
|
|
|
Looking at that list, a lot of these people are seriously overestimating their own value, including, but not limited to, myself.
Far better to offer yourself for too high a price than for too low. You certainly don't want to acquire a reputation for the latter.  For the record, I myself was the very first to list my own fNFT for 21,000,000 BTC. And at the time, that was the highest listing. I am not cheap. |
|
|
|
satoshi-IX (1000000 BTC)  Best NFT I've ever seen  Who was able to get the satoshi NFT? Whoever gets this should get an actual prize. I propose a prize of 1 satoshi. Or 9 satoshis. Or if rarity is exponential, 2 9 satoshis; if my long-term price predictions are correct, that could someday be worth anywhere from about 5 to 50 of today’s dollars! Of course, delivery of the dust prize would require Lightning Network or other offchain transfer. Anything more seems excessive for what I infer to have been effectually a lottery winner who bought a random fake NFT for fake bitcoins, in a fake system that was created as a joke. |
|
|
|
We are using a state-of-the-art blockless-blockchain-database to avoid any annoying fees or wait times.
First thing I noticed, after reading that, was the sound of my jaws hitting the table. Yes, it is kind of like XRP... ... or using Coinbase as “your” wallet.Not your keys, not your fNFTs! But then I realised the Date Well done! |
|
|
|
As the future Administrator of this forum, I demand to know where you obtained that. Why does everyone use screenshots? |
|
|
|
Been thinking about selling the equation in my avatar ... how do I collect royalties if someone invents something incredibly lucrative using it? I have been intending to inquire about that equation. Not for any economic reason, but for a spiritual reason—for the coin of curiosity. I want to know what it is. Either I am showing my ignorance, or you have shown some subtlety. Either way, it has been driving me crazy for a long time. |
|
|
|
<seriously>An easy way to obtain financial patronage for specific posts would be less liable to incentivize spam, compared to paid signature ads. Spam posts have no value, in and of themselves. To have value as the object of an NFT, a work must be creative—most of all, it must be special. Advertising misaligns incentives and misdirects value. A properly-designed NFT patronage system properly aligns incentives, and properly directs value. How many Bitcoiners would pay laszlo for a collectible, limited-edition digitally autographed copy of his iconic pizza post? It is an historically important post! I would consider buying that—although as for myself, I would pay more for a copy of the original CoinJoin post digitally autographed by Greg Maxwell. If such a system had existed last October, I probably would have impulsively offered Lauda a significant sum for the OP in her goodbye thread. And I would never sell it! I would keep it forever. (On the same grounds, I spent two and a half months adding merit to that post until I hit the 100-merit per-user per-post limit.) And if thoughtfully designed, this system should replace the merit system altogether. I have realized that forum merits are just a shitcoin proxy token coveted by sigspammers who want to “rank up”. Like my posts? Don’t send me merits: Send me money.The merit button should be replaced with a micropayment tip button which offers a low-rarity, unlimited-edition NFT; and of course, authors should have a means to offer high-value, limited-edition NFTs for posts so well-loved that fans will pay the price. N.b. that this system avoids one of the merit system’s biggest problems: The initial distribution of tokens. Nobody would have “source” status. Instead, anyone who possesses real value could send real value; and on the flipside, people would only click that button for things that they truly valued at least a little bit. The author of a work, or his heirs, successors, or assigns, are the only people with the right to offer NFTs based on it. That is not a matter of so-called “intellectual property” law: It is a matter of fraud and SCAMS, and should be treated accordingly. Therefore, there can be no Satoshi-post NFTs. And now, no Lauda-post NFTs. laszlo may still be around somewhere, even though his user account has been inactive; I do not know, and I would not use that as an example if I didn’t there was a reasonable chance that he could reappear. Note: If this system is ever implemented, then I expect that this hereby post in itself will have significant value as the post which inspired the development of the new system. </seriously>I have filed for a patent on the foregoing business method, patent pending #_________. April fools’!
|
|
|
|
The only logical choice is to continually roll for random user fNFTs until you get a satoshi one
It is possible to get satoshi, but the probability is only about 0.03% per roll, so someone will have to get awfully lucky. I don't think this is right. Satoshi's NFTs are not listed for sale. Unless buying a random NFT will allow you to get a NFT not listed for sale?That appears to be the case. And I have been repeatedly complaining about it since the beginning of this thread. It is not right for anyone to be able to trade on someone else’s name, without that person’s authorization (at least for the initial of an NFT). |
|
|
|
Grab them before theymos notices the bug and they're gone forever!  *No liability for UI glitches caused by unexplained fungibility.@theymos, is this a bug?  I just saw 1miau-II Nft have offered for 3 times. I though each Nft member's name is contained with different roman symbol It seems that none of us read OP: - You automatically get the full set of fNFTs in your own series, from lowest rarity (I) to highest rarity (up to XI). The number of fNFTs in your series depends on your activity. Note that more than one copy of a particular fNFT can exist in the system: they're like trading cards, with rarities.
For my part, I got the workings of the numbers backwards. So— higher numbers are more valuable. (I confused them with the serial numbers in a limited edition.) I have zero familiarity with trading cards; I don’t know how they work. Thus, the highlighted portion didn’t make much sense to me when I first saw this. |
|
|
|
|
Bloody hell. Last of the V8s-II is up for sale—and he is not even here to see this trade on his name, let alone to authorize it. I wonder what whore is currently offering it for 4200 BTC.
The way these things go, it will probably wind up being one of the highest-selling fNFTs. Rarity. Popular personality. Missing in action. What a world.
|
|
|
|
BTW are there any women on this forum ? I know that being a woman on internet is difficult but still, there should be more of them I would think.
Yes.. there is a woman on this forum. Jay just won the thread. All 28,527 pages of it. infofront, please lock; it is over. |
|
|
|
Question: if I buy a random NFT for 50 BTC they is listed for more than 50BTC, who covers the difference? Does the seller get screwed out of the difference? Or does the forum cover the difference?
LOL. You are just here to buy an alia scandal NFT, as I suggested a few posts back. Re: KYC now requiredIf that girl actually came to the forum, she could probably get a lot of merit. Just look at how much alia got from pretending to be a girl in only two months. I wonder if banned users have fNFTs created for them. For a piece of salacious forum history, what would you pay for an alia scandal fNFT autographed by nullius? What a stunning piece to add to your collection! It is impressive that you remembered that more than a year afterwards—and at a time when I myself was deeply disappeared in the Void of Nullity. I will take that as proof that the above-proposed fNFT would fetch a high price on the collectors’ market! —But you asked a good question—which raises another question. @@@theymos!!! Are fNFTs manually listed for sale still available for random buys? 
Can we have a burn NFT feature? ^^^ This. I also wanted to ask for that. @ @ @ mr. thermos Sir ! ! ! Important features, please Sir!
We need a sell back option for a small loss.
So says every crypto n00b who makes a bad buy in a volatile market. (Or every wannabe day-trader in the stonck market. Or...) Don’t invest what you cannot afford to lose! |
|
|
|
farmed accounts like old times
Didn't take long...  Crikey. You are not even capable of letting an April Fools’ thread go unspoilt by your obsessive personal grudges, psychotic fantasies, and accusations based on no evidence. Quicksy’s fNFT will moon such much more than yours will. |
|
|
|
🐻 Newsflash:Dump your 👻bitcoins, and 🔥 BUY YACOIN!!! 🔥 It is a coin so bad that it is literally ridiculous. Being thus ripe for ridicule, it is an even better joke than Dogecoin—which Elon Musk said is superior to Bitcoin. And that is why Yacoin will beat Bitcoin: Because humans are stupid hairless monkeys who inadvertently learned to talk.Yacoin’s official new motto, as peremptorily decreed by nullius: Empowered by human stupidity.®Fuck 👻 Bitcoin. Boring. Underperforming. Only up a measly 500% in the past few months, LOL. Too smart. Too conservative about the security of the network. Let’s go TO THE MOON with Yacoin! 🚀
Disclosure: I am currently trying to figure out how to receive some Yacoin, so that I can dump it after I am done pumping it. Unfortunately, the coin is so bad that it is impractical to run a node. |
|
|
|
Note to moderators: Yes, this post is really about Bitcoin. It is a satirical meta-commentary on Bitcoin’s value.
TL;DR: Bitcoin is dead. It has died so many times that it is extremely dead. It is too good to succeed, or even to survive. In this world, the bad wins over the good; therefore, you should buy the worst coin of all: Yacoin.
Bitcoin has a problem: The Core developers take things too seriously. They cannot, must not drop a trillion dollars in value on the floor. They must not break the network. Bitcoin is now so big that a major technical flaw could cause a mass economic catastrophe. Core must be maintained as the safest, most secure, most reliable financial software in the world. All code gets reviews, more reviews, and yet more reviews by scary-smart crypto-geniuses. Core’s process is a masterpiece of open-source software engineering; and the code is accordingly good. As a result, Bitcoin is boring. Sure, its reference implementation is safe to trust with the world’s money. But who cares? I had a moment of enlightenment when Dogecoin recently spiked. For you see, last year, I had considered buying DOGE at 25 sats. Doing my due diligence, I examined the state of Dogecoin development. I found that both the Doge full node and the “official” light client were essentially abandonware; and Reddit was full of complaints about bugs. Only an idiot would trust the DOGE network with nontrivial, non-toy amounts of money.It’s ok. DOGE started as a joke, right? Then, of course, Elon Musk tweeted; and,— BOOM! Of a sudden, idiots were trusting billions of dollars to a cryptocurrency run on bug-riddled abandonware. This is PROOF that Dogecoin is superior to Bitcoin. For you see, so-called “humans” are merely hairless monkeys who have inadvertently learned to talk. They do not care about facts, logic, or basic competence; they care only about the meme. Doge has a cute meme. Therefore, Doge = MOON. Now, I have discovered an even better meme: The power of human stupidity.® It is best exemplified by Yacoin.
Yacoin’s code is worse than Doge’s. Much worse. It is so bad that according to a Yacoin supporter, Yacoin lacks exchange listings because exchanges are unable to run Yacoin nodes. Yes, it sucks just that much! Therefore, it is the best. Consider the following PROOFS that Yacoin beats Bitcoin as an investment. 0. Confirmed maths: A price of “N/A”, “NULL”, or “NaN” can only improve!Yacoin does not have zero value: It has no value, because it has no market. Therefore, if it attains any value at all, that will be market performance of >∞% ROI. I mean, what can you multiply by NaN to get a number? 1. Yacoin is Bitcoin^Ethereum!Yacoin combines aspects of Bitcoin and Ethereum development processes. Therefore, I expect its performance to be Bitcoin exponentiated by Ethereum:- Bitcoin: Move slowly. Don’t break things.
- Ethereum: Move fast and break things. Because, fuck it: We want to get rich quick!
- Yacoin: Move slowly and break things. The code quality sucks, development has been moribund for years, and the whole thing is riddled with design flaws. It is so bad that to avoid the impracticality of sync, people are told to download the blockchain from a Yacoin developer’s Mega account, and import it without validation (!). Trust me. And its codebase is derived from Bitcoin Core v0.8.6, apparently without further merges from upstream; this means that its development process is even more conservative than Bitcoin’s: The Yacoin devs keep all the obsolescence of an ancient Bitcoin version, plus all the bugs and design flaws that they themselves added.
Bitcoin Core development is like programming the Space Shuttle. But Yacoin will go TO THE MOON!
For the foregoing reasons, I may dump my Bitcoin to BUY YACOIN!!!11 Or perhaps, I may simply tell people to send me Yacoin so that I get rich when it moons someday never. I have not yet decided; and I face the small practical problem that I do not yet have a Yacoin address, because the software is too bad to run. This thread will be updated with more more reasons why Bitcoin is too good to succeed, and of course, with instructions for sending me the best worst coin: Yacoin.TO THE MOON!
Claimer: The foreging constitutes financial advice, because I like it when idiots lose money. It is a stupidity tax. You = bagholder, so go BUY YACOIN RIGHT NOW on its nonexistent market. Lulz.
Disclaimer: Thsi post was written buge like doge shit because I am drukn, or pretending to be.
|
|
|
|
As an empirical experiment in forum shitcoin economics, let’s use one forum token to screw with another. I will send 1 merit to whomever buys mprep-III from me at its current listing price of 10,000 fake-BTC. I will send 10 merits to whomever buys nullius-I from me at its listed price of 21,000,000 fake-BTC. I reserve the right to renege if the fNFT purchaser is a scammer, spammer, or bounty-chaser, in my exclusive judgment—or if a Global Moderator or Administrator tells me not to do this; n.b. that I do not care about DT members’ opinions. I myself think that this is a bad idea; however, someone will do it, so I may as well be the first. Deal?
Observation: I think that the fake-BTC supply is being dissipated, as people mash the random-buy button in hopes of grabbing something valuable. As a result, nobody has the funds to buy the most desirable fNFTs currently being listed.
Is this another Howie Coin grab for donations from unsuspecting newbies?
Actually, it's occurred to me that this is this years' April Fools day prank.
No shit, Sherlock.
I am way ahead of you. See my above posts on this page. - You can get a random fNFT for 50 BTC. A great deal, no? How could you not make money long-term?
So, a forum member can unwillingly and unwittingly have his name attached to an NFT being traded by others. How very evil. That was written after I saw V8s up for sale. Someone must have gotten that on a random purchase. (But most random purchases will be worthless luser account fNFTs.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
