Bitcointalk posts as nft

[Welsh]

However, the purpose of NFTs isn't about the content, but the rights of it.

Yeah, NFTs actually make quite a bit of sense in certain scenarios, though that's limited, and currently we're going through a phase of everything in the world becoming an NFT, which in a lot of instances doesn't really make all that much sense.

Especially, Bitconitalk posts. Doesn't make sense to me, and I'd say Twitter is the same. Though, I do accept that's the way the world is going currently. I do think its a phase though, and a lot of people will be looking back at this somewhat like the ICO craze a few years ago.

[BlackHatCoiner]

No, bitcointalk didn't join the ICO scams, it just advertised them for money.

Bitcointalk or some shitposters?

It didn't create it's own fork, it just censored the ones others worked on.

For your information, the scam known as BSV still has some fraudulent supporters on this very place with their own little thread in which they censor everybody. However, it's part of the rules to be as free as possible;

Q: Why haven't you banned <insert scammer username here> who is an obvious scammer?
A: Possible (or real, not for me to decide) scams are not moderated to prevent moderator abuse. If we start picking out which ones we call "scammers" and ban, we would make a lot of decisions based on biased opinions.

By, the way, BSV is a confirmed scam.

NFTs are the most functional and useful thing that has entered the crypto space in a long time and NFTs in gaming might be Bitcoin's first real use case that anyone outside of finance would give a shit about

First real use case of a currency outside finance. Of a currency. Outside finance. Seemingly absurd.

[OgNasty]

NFTs are the most functional and useful thing that has entered the crypto space in a long time and NFTs in gaming might be Bitcoin's first real use case that anyone outside of finance would give a shit about

First real use case of a currency outside finance. Of a currency. Outside finance. Seemingly absurd.

Let me take a wild guess, you got involved in crypto for the currency aspect? Not everybody is in this space only for the money. Some people want to build cool things. Whether you like NFTs or not, someday you won’t have the option to not buy one if you ever want to attend a concert or sporting event. What currency you use to pay for it will likely be up to you.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

My post was meant as a ridicule of most implementations of NFTs.

Lol.  I picked up on it!  After the second read-through, of course.  Sarcasm just doesn't translate well in forum posts for some reason.

If you can make an NFT out of a bitcointalk post--and if there's someone suggesting it--I think that's a sign that the mania is about to hit its peak.  IMO that peak can't come too soon, because I can't seem to avoid hearing about these worthless things no matter where I go.  Everyone is talking about them as if they're the new bitcoin, and how much money can be made from them, etc.  But somehow I never hear compelling arguments as to why they should be worth anything at all.

So what if you "owned" one of Satoshi's posts (or someone else's)?  Is that something you're going to treasure years from now?  Hand down to your kids?  Not likely.  More likely is that if you can't find a sucker to unload it to, you'll be stuck owning a piece of digital trash that doesn't truly represent anything unique and that no one will ever care about, much less want to buy at any price. 

[libert19]

If tweets can be sold as nft why not bitcointalk posts?

To be honest, I haven't understood why should tweets be sold in the first place.

Neither do I, but people buy them at amounts one would consider absurd.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Let me take a wild guess, you got involved in crypto for the currency aspect?

No, but that's what honestly kept me.

Not everybody is in this space only for the money. Some people want to build cool things.

They may aren't here to make some profit, but they are all for the money. Whether they see it as a get-rich-quick scheme, an investment, a store-of-value or a currency they are all for the money. All these are part of finance.

Yes, they want to build some cool things such as NFTs. I never said they're useless or that their reason of existence is exclusively speculative, but I can't deny that it's not part of finance. They're result of work on top of a currency. They cannot be realistically seen outside finance.

Whether you like NFTs or not, someday you won’t have the option to not buy one if you ever want to attend a concert or sporting event.

Until this happens, let me have my doubts it will.

[ultiex]

I think this is necessary, but needs a specific upgrade, nft can apply to meme icons, can also be a form of decoration for members, or an nft content creation.

[OgNasty]

Whether you like NFTs or not, someday you won’t have the option to not buy one if you ever want to attend a concert or sporting event.

Until this happens, let me have my doubts it will.

You are always free to doubt friend.  I was in Bitcoin back in 2011, I'm familiar very much with people not understanding and then dismissing new world changing technologies before giving them a chance.  Luckily, your doubt cannot stop innovation and moving forward.  NFTs are here to stay and people who think it is only about art and no different then people who thought Bitcoin was nothing more than useless fake money in 2011.  Time will prove right those who can visualize the future.  It makes no difference what you or I think or even what we do.  I just hope Bitcoin can catch up as it's use cases have been dwindling for years while other chains are continuing to evolve the world into crypto.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Luckily, your doubt cannot stop innovation and moving forward.

If it's indeed innovative and brings something new to this world, I'll hug it tight. It's just that I don't think it's as useful as you think. Alright, so we'll walk out with self-custody on our concert tickets, so what? I may be forced to use it, but that doesn't change my attitude towards it. Hell, I'm even gonna be forced to use CBDCs.

NFTs are here to stay and people who think it is only about art and no different then people who thought Bitcoin was nothing more than useless fake money in 2011

Alright, would you mind telling me what else NFTs can do instead of *just* selling/buying rights of a product?

It makes no difference what you or I think or even what we do.

It does matter a little, though. If I was crazy about NFTs I would chin in the network effect by a lot. Same thing happened with bitcoin. There were people who did contribute by a lot; it shouldn't be imagined it just broke one trillion plainly by its existence.

I just hope Bitcoin can catch up as it's use cases have been dwindling for years while other chains are continuing to evolve the world into crypto.

I wish it won't, at least in a protocol level. I wish it stays as neutral as it currently is.

By the way, bitcoin did had NFTs, the so-called “Colored Coins”. What did it make those fail, Sherlock?

[OgNasty]

NFTs are here to stay and people who think it is only about art and no different then people who thought Bitcoin was nothing more than useless fake money in 2011

Alright, would you mind telling me what else NFTs can do instead of *just* selling/buying rights of a product?

Well, the example I gave was concert tickets, so I'll stick with that as it is a simple and easy to understand innovation.  Right now when a venue sells tickets, they have to deal with scalpers trying to resell their tickets for a profit.  This is a problem because for sold out events it forces would be attendees to purchase their tickets from these scalpers.  This results in endless heartaches for those who purchase fake tickets, or a financial drain for those who pay way too much from a reliable secondhand seller.  With NFTs, scalpers would be considered friends to venues instead of enemies.  Their secondhand sales could be contractually obligated to pay a % to the venue for resales.  Additionally, those buying from resellers could verify the tickets are genuine before making the purchase.  They can also see what other people are paying for tickets up to that very minute.  Just this one example decriminalizes scalpers, gives the venue a new revenue source, and gives customers the ability to make sure they are buying genuine products at a fair price.

That is just one example, but a game changer for crypto nonetheless.

I just hope Bitcoin can catch up as it's use cases have been dwindling for years while other chains are continuing to evolve the world into crypto.

By the way, bitcoin did had NFTs, the so-called “Colored Coins”. What did it make those fail, Sherlock?

Believe it or not, I'm well aware of colored coins as I was not only around before then, but was also managing an offering on the GLBSE (before your time but go ahead and look it up) so I'm certain I'm far more versed in not only the technology, but it's history than you are.  Answering your question, the blocksize limit killed any chance colored coins had to be useful going forward.  Since you namedropped colored coins, take a look at Namecoin NFTs and your mind will really be blown.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Well, the example I gave was concert tickets, so I'll stick with that as it is a simple and easy to understand innovation.  Right now when a venue sells tickets, they have to deal with scalpers trying to resell their tickets for a profit.  This is a problem because for sold out events it forces would be attendees to purchase their tickets from these scalpers.  This results in endless heartaches for those who purchase fake tickets, or a financial drain for those who pay way too much from a reliable secondhand seller.  With NFTs, scalpers would be considered friends to venues instead of enemies.  Their secondhand sales could be contractually obligated to pay a % to the venue for resales.  Additionally, those buying from resellers could verify the tickets are genuine before making the purchase.  They can also see what other people are paying for tickets up to that very minute.  Just this one example decriminalizes scalpers, gives the venue a new revenue source, and gives customers the ability to make sure they are buying genuine products at a fair price.

Alright, so why can't this happen in the venue's back-end database? Why should there not be trust in this procedure since venues and only venues can mint the tickets? Everything happens from the venues' website.

Wanna drop me some other, more convincing arguments from an article maybe?

[OgNasty]

Well, the example I gave was concert tickets, so I'll stick with that as it is a simple and easy to understand innovation.  Right now when a venue sells tickets, they have to deal with scalpers trying to resell their tickets for a profit.  This is a problem because for sold out events it forces would be attendees to purchase their tickets from these scalpers.  This results in endless heartaches for those who purchase fake tickets, or a financial drain for those who pay way too much from a reliable secondhand seller.  With NFTs, scalpers would be considered friends to venues instead of enemies.  Their secondhand sales could be contractually obligated to pay a % to the venue for resales.  Additionally, those buying from resellers could verify the tickets are genuine before making the purchase.  They can also see what other people are paying for tickets up to that very minute.  Just this one example decriminalizes scalpers, gives the venue a new revenue source, and gives customers the ability to make sure they are buying genuine products at a fair price.

Alright, so why can't this happen in the venue's back-end database? Why should there not be trust in this procedure since venues and only venues can mint the tickets? Everything happens from the venues' website.

Wanna drop me some other, more convincing arguments from an article maybe?

How would you propose this happened in the venue's backend?  Don't ask me to put in place and demonstrate a dumb process to you.  You do it and I'll pick it apart for you to show you why that would be a poor centralized version that requires a ridiculous amount more involvement while giving a subpar experience to the end user requiring invasions of their privacy and enforcement through threats of violence.

I'm not sure those currently writing articles on NFTs are experienced enough with NFTs or their decade long existence on blockchains to have written an article more insightful than my example.  Feel free to do the legwork yourself and post one you understand more clearly if you'd like.

[pooya87]

You do it and I'll pick it apart for you to show you why that would be a poor centralized version that requires a ridiculous amount more involvement while giving a subpar experience to the end user requiring invasions of their privacy and enforcement through threats of violence.

If you read your own process again you'll realize how much centralization is involved in that approach already. Which mean there is no benefit in trying to squeeze a decentralized step such as NFTs into the whole thing.

I'm familiar very much with people not understanding and then dismissing new world changing technologies before giving them a chance.

You are making a big assumption here to justify your statements. How do you know people haven't already given the chance to these "token platforms" and their supposed technologies and were gravely disappointed?

[LoyceV]

Alright, so why can't this happen in the venue's back-end database? Why should there not be trust in this procedure since venues and only venues can mint the tickets? Everything happens from the venues' website.

I remember the days when Ethereum started with "code is law" (something they abandoned the moment it was convenient for the ones in control), and one of the examples they gave for smart contracts in real life was renting a car. I instantly wondered how that would work, as you need to manually check for damages and confirm that with the rental company, but nobody seemed to care. And now, years later, not a single rental car uses very expensive transactions on the centrally controlled Ethereum blockchain. It's used for many scam tokens though, and I expect NFTs to have a similar ending.
There's no point to use a blockchain for anything tangible, as long as it relies on a single company. They can just as well do it internally. The same applies to digital tokens in online games: if the game gets shut down, it's all gone with or without NFT.
Car ownership could work as a NFT, but that would require a government agency to run the blockchain. Many people lose their current registration papers, and if it relies on a private key many people will lose ownership of their car forever. That would be a bad solution for something that isn't even a problem (I currently pay €10.40 to transfer ownership of a car in a centralized database).
NFTs are "a solution looking for a problem".

[PrimeNumber7]

Well, the example I gave was concert tickets, so I'll stick with that as it is a simple and easy to understand innovation.  Right now when a venue sells tickets, they have to deal with scalpers trying to resell their tickets for a profit.  This is a problem because for sold out events it forces would be attendees to purchase their tickets from these scalpers.  This results in endless heartaches for those who purchase fake tickets, or a financial drain for those who pay way too much from a reliable secondhand seller.  With NFTs, scalpers would be considered friends to venues instead of enemies.  Their secondhand sales could be contractually obligated to pay a % to the venue for resales.  Additionally, those buying from resellers could verify the tickets are genuine before making the purchase.  They can also see what other people are paying for tickets up to that very minute.  Just this one example decriminalizes scalpers, gives the venue a new revenue source, and gives customers the ability to make sure they are buying genuine products at a fair price.

Alright, so why can't this happen in the venue's back-end database? Why should there not be trust in this procedure since venues and only venues can mint the tickets? Everything happens from the venues' website.

Having concert tickets tracked via a back-end database operated by a concert venue would mean the concert venue could arbitrarily transfer a ticket from one person to another, without the consent of the owner. If there is a dispute, there is no real way for a ticket holder to prove their case, other than their word.

With a NFT on the other hand, a venue could mind a number of NFTs up to the capacity of their venue for a particular concert. Any time the NFT changes hands (is transferred) this transaction is visible on the blockchain, and the buyer can be certain that a ticket was in fact issued by the venue. If a buyer were to buy a concert ticket, the buyer might similarly check the authenticity of the ticket via the venue's website, however unlike with a NFT, if the ticket is for some reason invalidated, there would not really be any way to know what happened, or who was responsible.

With a back-end database, a venue could potentially scam x percent of customers undetected. With a NFT, the issuer cannot scam a customer without it being obvious they have done so.

I might note that most NFTs do not currently work as above described. To my knowledge, there is no real way to confirm the authenticity of any given NFT. The same would likely be true for any bitcointalk post sold as an NFT.

[BlackHatCoiner]

How would you propose this happened in the venue's backend?

Same like affiliate links work, but for scalpers.

You do it and I'll pick it apart for you to show you why that would be a poor centralized version that requires a ridiculous amount more involvement while giving a subpar experience to the end user requiring invasions of their privacy and enforcement through threats of violence

If they make the purchase using some sort of KYC or via a bank, yeah, it will harm their privacy. However, if they pay using bitcoin, they'll get the same privacy they would using Ethereum. Getting the tickets that're stored in a centralized database using a decentralized currency sounds fine to me.

I still don't get why they should be distributed to the world decentralized-ly.

Having concert tickets tracked via a back-end database operated by a concert venue would mean the concert venue could arbitrarily transfer a ticket from one person to another, without the consent of the owner. If there is a dispute, there is no real way for a ticket holder to prove their case, other than their word.

But, you have to trust the venue either way. Alright, so why can't I say the same with NFTs? Don't I have to trust their words they'll allow me to join in? Can't they simply deny my enter with no excuses?

LoyceV said it;

There's no point to use a blockchain for anything tangible, as long as it relies on a single company.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I do think its a phase though, and a lot of people will be looking back at this somewhat like the ICO craze a few years ago.

It's definitely a phase, exactly like you described it except the ICO craziness involved a lot of straight-up scams, whereas the NFT mania seems to be a digital version of the tulip bubble (and yes, I know there are scams in the NFT space).  Something like this could only happen in a world where people have too much time and money on their hands.

Well, the example I gave was concert tickets

Sure, NFTs would be a great innovation for that--but wanna bet the music/concert venue industry never adopts it?  All of those ICO projects had ideas about solving real-world problems with blockchain technology.  How many of them do you see around you right now, having been implemented?  I sure as hell don't see a single one, and I'm predicting NFTs won't be used for any useful purpose either.  

Time will tell, and we could all argue endlessly about what the future holds, but in the present NFTs represent digital art primarily and those art pieces are going for crazy prices (not all of them, but more than is justified IMO).  The market is in a bubble, plain and simple.

Edit:

<snip>

Dang, you wrote pretty much what I did.  Should have read this whole page first, but there's a lot of bickering.  You're on point about the whole solution-in-search-of-a-problem thing.  That phrase has been uttered since at least 2013, because I remember reading it on that forum for skeptics that James Randi owned before I joined bitcointalk.  Back then they were saying it about bitcoin, but it's just as applicable to NFTs.

[PrimeNumber7]

Having concert tickets tracked via a back-end database operated by a concert venue would mean the concert venue could arbitrarily transfer a ticket from one person to another, without the consent of the owner. If there is a dispute, there is no real way for a ticket holder to prove their case, other than their word.

But, you have to trust the venue either way. Alright, so why can't I say the same with NFTs? Don't I have to trust their words they'll allow me to join in? Can't they simply deny my enter with no excuses?

LoyceV said it;

There's no point to use a blockchain for anything tangible, as long as it relies on a single company.

There are a limited number of reasons why a venue would deny someone access to an event they have a valid ticket for. Most venues have some kind of concession stand and/or a "gift shop" that generates revenue, so they have an incentive to have as many people inside the venue for an event as they can get.

Similarly to the above, if a venue sells 100 tickets to an event, there is the expectation that not every (current) ticket holder will show up. So if a venue expects 90% of current ticket holders to show up, they might sell 108 tickets for every 100 people worth of capacity the venue has, so they can maximize their revenue. If a venue were to sell tickets as NFTs, something like this could be easily detected.

Some entertainment events also have specific seat assignments. If you have a ticket for a specific seat, if you have an NFT ticket, you will know with certainty the venue did not issue another ticket for that same specific seat.

If you are denied admission to an event, after the fact, if you have an NFT ticket, you can prove that you actually had a valid ticket to the event if you were to complain. If you had an electronic ticket linked to the venue's private database, the venue could potentially deny that your ticket was valid.

So yes, you still need to trust the venue if you are using NFT tickets, but the level of trust needed is reduced.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you are denied admission to an event, after the fact, if you have an NFT ticket, you can prove that you actually had a valid ticket to the event if you were to complain. If you had an electronic ticket linked to the venue's private database, the venue could potentially deny that your ticket was valid

So what's the incentive of the venue to actually issue NFTs instead of back-end tickets? With the latter their customers will have less access to their business.

So yes, you still need to trust the venue if you are using NFT tickets, but the level of trust needed is reduced.

The level of trust isn't reduced. The scenario where the venue rips you off remains and it's the only problem with or without NFTs. What to do the proof of the ticket ownership if the venue does not want to accept it either way?

[PrimeNumber7]

If you are denied admission to an event, after the fact, if you have an NFT ticket, you can prove that you actually had a valid ticket to the event if you were to complain. If you had an electronic ticket linked to the venue's private database, the venue could potentially deny that your ticket was valid

So what's the incentive of the venue to actually issue NFTs instead of back-end tickets? With the latter their customers will have less access to their business.

Creating a system in which ticket holders can transfer tickets to others is very possible but is not trivial, nor free. With NFT tickets, transferring tickets would be done via software used by ticket holders.

I don't think NFTs would give more access to a venue's business. The price tickets are selling for directly from the venue is public. The capacity of a venue is public, and actual attendance is often publicized. Venues do not typically participate in the secondary market for their tickets.

So yes, you still need to trust the venue if you are using NFT tickets, but the level of trust needed is reduced.

The level of trust isn't reduced. The scenario where the venue rips you off remains and it's the only problem with or without NFTs. What to do the proof of the ticket ownership if the venue does not want to accept it either way?

As I mentioned in my last post, venues have incentives to maximize actual attendance because one more person attending an event results in expected additional revenue via concession sales. So if you have a valid ticket, and there is space for you, the venue is going to try to get additional money from you by letting you in and trying to get you to buy concessions.

So issuing NFTs as tickets would allow customers to detect (and trust that a venue is not) overselling tickets to their events.