Reee: How would bitcointalk community react to bitcointalk nfts

[nutildah]

I'm reee-ing this thread as it was opened and closed before I even saw it... and I do have a lot of responses to comments in it.

Personal plea: I'd appreciate it if respondents didn't just rehash knee-jerk opinions on NFTs for the sake of cranking out a post to fulfill their weekly quota, thanks.

Obviously OP realized pretty quickly his particular vision of the idea wasn't gonna fly with the community, so no need to belabor that point.

This idea will only be possible if theymos or other forum staff will give this a go signal to make this an official forum NFT.

I agree this should be the case when it comes to high-profile members, like satoshi and Hal... it wouldn't be right for just anybody to make them and sell them... or sell anybody's w/o the consent of the user themselves... would be interpreted as a cash grab.

I don’t know if this is possible but it will be good if we can make our avatar directly using NFT like what twitter planning to do.

Funny you should mention it -- this is actually what I did, but in reverse: your avatar IS the NFT. The image attached to the token changes when you change your avatar.

They are actually already being done - check out this thread by nutildah  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5411112.0

Thanks for bringing it up. And I'd just like to point out that this is all accomplished entirely on the Bitcoin blockchain. I thought it was cool because its sort of an identity token that represents who you are on the forum and the blockchain. Alternatively, you have the option of minting multiple copies so you can trade them with others (this can be done in a trustless fashion using the Counterparty DEX). It would be a fun way to collect Bitcoin-backed trading cards of other forum users. For the entrepreneurial, you could even wrap them and sell them on OpenSea, or any of the other NFT markets.

I was thrilled to have a wisened OG like philipma1957 volunteer to go first... There are 4 other members who expressed interest that I'm current waiting to hear back from.

NFTs today remind me so much of Bitcoin in 2011.  It's so obvious they're the future, but everyone is so dismissive.  It's like people think that this is some sort of 0 sum game and other people's success will take away from theirs.  When the grownups get around to dabbling in NFTs things will change.

Cryptocurrency (Bitcoin being the first and most prominent) is the digital representation of money. NFTs are simply the digital representation of everything else.

If you believe that society is headed into an era of digital expansion, where the idea of the metaverse becomes more prominent and maybe even a central focus point, you should root for blockchain-backed digital ownership to play an important role in this new paradigm.

If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?

[1713987850]

1713987850

[1713987850]

1713987850

[NeuroticFish]

Funny you should mention it -- this is actually what I did, but in reverse: your avatar IS the NFT. The image attached to the token changes when you change your avatar.

I will start that the other thread was not clear about that (or I've just missed it, and many others).
Still, some value their avatar, while many others don't, or just rent it. And here one point - maybe interesting for some - could be that maybe certain companies or signature/bounty managers could get interested in that.

NFTs today remind me so much of Bitcoin in 2011.  It's so obvious they're the future, but everyone is so dismissive.

NFT may be a good idea, but imho the implementation is bad, hence comparing it with bitcoin is inappropriate.

Many don't see in the current use of NFT more than childish images. Many have came with - imho good - points that currently NFTs are pretty much centralized (Open Sea) and the blockchain information points to an old school server / database with all the problems of that (mutable, prone to hacks).

If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe other bitcoiners are wrong too, but asking "If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?" is imho a big step in the wrong direction.

[nutildah]

NFT may be a good idea, but imho the implementation is bad, hence comparing it with bitcoin is inappropriate.

What exactly do you mean by "implementation"? The blockchain? That is what NFTs are implemented on. Some are even implemented on the Bitcoin blockchain (some of my favorite ones, as a matter of fact).

Many don't see in the current use of NFT more than childish images. Many have came with - imho good - points that currently NFTs are pretty much centralized (Open Sea) and the blockchain information points to an old school server / database with all the problems of that (mutable, prone to hacks).

OpenSea is a business, but its not where the NFTs are stored, so in essence the NFTs themselves are only as centralized as their blockchain. Sure, the metadata of some NFTs is mutable & prone to hacks but its a far cry from all NFTs... for some NFTs the metadata isn't important at all and its only the token itself that matters, which cannot be hacked, so much as a blockchain can be hacked. You're making sweeping generalizations to paint all NFTs with the same brush to further convince yourself that your pre-conceived viewpoint is the correct one. It's based on limited knowledge of an extremely nuanced subject.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe other bitcoiners are wrong too, but asking "If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?" is imho a big step in the wrong direction.

Here you've stated an opinion backed by zero reasoning, not much I can do with it.

[NeuroticFish]

What exactly do you mean by "implementation"? The blockchain? That is what NFTs are implemented on. Some are even implemented on the Bitcoin blockchain (some of my favorite ones, as a matter of fact).
[...]
OpenSea is a business, but its not where the NFTs are stored, so in essence the NFTs themselves are only as centralized as their blockchain. Sure, the metadata of some NFTs is mutable & prone to hacks but its a far cry from all NFTs... for some NFTs the metadata isn't important at all and its only the token itself that matters, which cannot be hacked, so much as a blockchain can be hacked.

The blockchain part is OK. But linking it to data stored by a business on its database is not OK. That's the implementation I was telling about.
Are there any NFTs that don't have "the metadata" on various companies' servers? I am not aware of more.

You're making sweeping generalizations to paint all NFTs with the same brush to further convince yourself that your pre-conceived viewpoint is the correct one. It's all based on limited knowledge an extremely nuanced subject.

This is the part that made me stop believing in NFTs as viable tech. Of course, if you have good example/explanation to prove me I'm wrong, I will be happy to see it's not everything lost.
For now I see it a hype based on an incompletely baked idea/tech. And hype is .. nuanced (see, I can say that without using strong words).

Here you've stated an opinion backed with zero reasoning behind it, not much I can do with it.

You didn't manage to convince me that my reasoning is incorrect.

[dkbit98]

If you believe that society is headed into an era of digital expansion, where the idea of the metaverse becomes more prominent and maybe even a central focus point, you should root for blockchain-backed digital ownership to play an important role in this new paradigm.

If you don't believe in any of this, then I have to ask, why do you believe in Bitcoin?

I saw your NFT project before and I think it has potential, but I really don't understand why I have to believe or not believe in any of this like in some religion.
Metaverse is just a stupid idea and I don't know how that crap has anything to do with Bitcoin or with NFT., unless you plan to stay locked at home for life with your metaverse helmet on  

[nutildah]

Are there any NFTs that don't have "the metadata" on various companies' servers? I am not aware of more.

Yes, hundreds of thousands by this point... Take this one for example, its what I am doing to build my Bitcoin Forum NFTs. The data which is presented in the Information tab is totally immutable: it cannot be changed by me, nor can it be changed by anyone b/c the file that contains it is stored in a decentralized database. More commonly used than this is IPFS, and an entire blockchain (WAX) already revolves around using it to store data for its NFTs.

You're making sweeping generalizations to paint all NFTs with the same brush to further convince yourself that your pre-conceived viewpoint is the correct one. It's all based on limited knowledge an extremely nuanced subject.

This is the part that made me stop believing in NFTs as viable tech.

You're basically saying a lack of understanding is what is preventing you from understanding NFTs. I've actually heard this line of reasoning from other forum members over the last couple months, though its still quite bizarre.

Of course, if you have good example/explanation to prove me I'm wrong, I will be happy to see it's not everything lost.

Sure, one of the clearest-cut examples is the earliest, which is Namecoin domain names. Namecoin names are, in essence, non-fungible tokens that provide a censorship-resistant method for website access. Because the Tor network and I2P achieve the same effect in a more robust manner, they never really caught on, but they could still serve a role in the future some day.

Other good, non-image uses involve NFTs that grants their holders rights, permissions, or special access. For example, there have been bots made for ETH, BTC and even DOGE NFTs that allow token-gated access to Discord channels, meaning you must own the token in your wallet in order to join the channel. Property rights have been conveyed via NFT, rights to music & video IP, and all sorts of media. Its quite possible that NFTs will be used to convey ownership of smart property, e.g. an apartment or car door that unlocks after proof of corresponding token ownership has been established. The most promising upcoming use case for NFTs in the future are related to identity.

Here you've stated an opinion backed with zero reasoning behind it, not much I can do with it.

You didn't manage to convince me that my reasoning is incorrect.

You didn't provide any reasoning with which to do so... you just made a statement, "I think this is a big step in the wrong direction," but you didn't say why.

[NeuroticFish]

Take this one for example, its what I am doing to build my Bitcoin Forum NFTs. The data which is presented in the Information tab is totally immutable: it cannot be changed by me, nor can it be changed by anyone b/c the file that contains it is stored in a decentralized database. More commonly used than this is IPFS, and an entire blockchain (WAX) already revolves around using it to store data for its NFTs.

This is the first interesting thing I've read about NFTs in a very long time. Can you tell more about the "decentralized database" the (this specific) image from your NFT is stored in?

You're basically saying a lack of understanding is what is preventing you from understanding NFTs. I've actually heard this line of reasoning from other forum members over the last couple months, though its still quite bizarre.

When the vast majority of NFTs one sees are images like made of 5-years old kid in Paintbrush (ok, I'm generalizing badly, but I think that you get the point), all on OpenSea, I would not be surprised that people gets sick and tired of it.

Explaining that the things can be better, explaining at least to those open to read the explanations, debunking the incorrect info, is something that maybe should be done (or done better) now and then.
For now you have given me a nice surprise, still, I am still somewhat wary and I need more details (or links).


Also, exactly because many share "my" opinion, my suggestion would be to add somewhere in the top post some (very) short debunking information, to keep the rest of the posts on-topic.

LE: I will continue here, to mot create too many posts. This is about the original topic and it's something I've also said in the other post.
One problem with the idea of using NFT for bitcointalk could be that it would look like bitcointalk is endorsing NFT technology. So maybe using the name bitcointalk in this could be somehow avoided? I don't know, just an idea.

[Lafu]

Just to answer the question and the title of this thread , i wouldnt react in any way about bitcointalk nfts i guess .
Because i have not a single NFT or something like that and i dont want a NFT , for sure if theymos will be decide to make some i would think about.
But for now i guess its nothing that would help Bitcointalk or the community , it would be only another thing that someone makes profit from it.
Just my 2 cents here on that.

[Welsh]

Personal plea: I'd appreciate it if respondents didn't just rehash knee-jerk opinions on NFTs for the sake of cranking out a post to fulfill their weekly quota, thanks.

It's not even that for me. I just think there's been opinions which have been sort of standardised, if that makes any sense. It's become socially acceptable in a sense to absolutely dog on any sort of altcoin, including NFT's whenever possible. I've gotten that impression for a while, and while I don't necessarily blame people for having that opinion, I'm pretty sure it's become just a saying, without the user actually finding it out for themselves. I think the right term would be herd mentality, and following social norms, which this forum definitely does have, as does literally every place you look. I've followed social norms, as well as you, and others. There's nothing wrong with this, but it does frustrate those that aren't following them at that time. The thing is, we need pioneers in this world to generate any sort of new technology or success. 

Of course, the altcoin scene is pretty wild, and there's a lot of crap out there which is why I do understand why it has the reputation that it does. However, that doesn't mean everything is crap. There's a few examples which I'm sure a few people could give that are actually fairly exciting. For example, I'm quite interested in the mimble wimble technology which I actually think could potentially be a good implementation. Grin obviously stirred up a storm when it was announced, partly due to theymos announcing grin was accepted for certain things on the forum, but some of that was also genuine interest.

So, while NFTs are definitely the fad right now, some users don't realise they've actually technically been part of our lives for some years now, they just haven't been labelled or introduced to them like NFTs. I do think a lot of NFT implementations are crap, but that's the same as crap implementations of altcoins. There is, and will always be interesting ideas which are being tested, which Bitcoin doesn't have.

When the vast majority of NFTs one sees are images like made of 5-years old kid in Paintbrush (ok, I'm generalizing badly, but I think that you get the point), all on OpenSea, I would not be surprised that people gets sick and tired of it.

Explaining that the things can be better, explaining at least to those open to read the explanations, debunking the incorrect info, is something that maybe should be done (or done better) now and then.
For now you have given me a nice surprise, still, I am still somewhat wary and I need more details (or links).

Which is an important point to make. Although, everything that's been successful will have people jumping on the bandwagon, and trying to make their own version in an attempt to make a lot of money. I think there's a saying "failure of your own success". Technically, Bitcoin has been copied a million times by now, and while a lot of users will roll their eyes at a new up, and coming altcoin it's because they're attempting to create the success of Bitcoin, in their own way. Obviously, most are copies or just badly implemented, but there are the exceptions.

[pooya87]

How would bitcointalk community react to bitcointalk nfts

I would ask again: WHY?!
Then I'll encourage them to read bitcoin paper (again). It is a good experience for people to understand why bitcoin is successful.
Also in that paper the purpose of bitcoin is clearly explained and the problems it solves are clearly outlined. Learn from that style and try explaining what problem a "bitcointalk NFT" solves and what purpose it has.

Until then I react the same by shaking my head in disappointment for seeing the same fundraising scheme over and over.

Personal plea: I'd appreciate it if respondents didn't just rehash knee-jerk opinions on NFTs for the sake of cranking out a post to fulfill their weekly quota, thanks.

You can't complain about receiving the same respond for creating the same exact topic!

[nutildah]

This is the first interesting thing I've read about NFTs in a very long time. Can you tell more about the "decentralized database" the (this specific) image from your NFT is stored in?

Arweave is IMO the best decentralized file storage solution currently available. There is a long history of failed attempts, going all the way back to Maidsafe which technically started before Bitcoin and still isn't finished. Also included are Storj, under construction since 2014, and Filecoin, which relies on IPFS.

The idea behind Arweave originally was to be a permanent backup solution for website archives, kind of like the Wayback Machine, but decentralized, in that anyone can be part of the network by contributing storage space. They are then rewarded with AR token, which is required by uploaders to upload website data, or any file. I am using it specifically to host JSON files containing token metadata.

I just think there's been opinions which have been sort of standardised, if that makes any sense. It's become socially acceptable in a sense to absolutely dog on any sort of altcoin, including NFT's whenever possible. I've gotten that impression for a while, and while I don't necessarily blame people for having that opinion, I'm pretty sure it's become just a saying, without the user actually finding it out for themselves.

This place has institutionalized the behavioral conditioning of shitposting leading to rewards. Nobody needs to bother learning anything new or challenge their preconceptions with incoming information when they can just make a post off the top of their head and get paid, like this one:

Dude didn't take one second to attempt to understand how my project works or what I'm attempting to accomplish, as such his post is not worth responding to.

[pooya87]

Dude didn't take one second to attempt to understand how my project works or what I'm attempting to accomplish, as such his post is not worth responding to.

It's funny how you hid behind someone else and avoided answering my questions but still proved me right.

It is 29 years later and nobody is "collecting" tokens because they like them or they solve any real issue in the real world or think they are "fascinating cryptographic art".
People "buy" tokens as speculators because they are trying to make a profit like gamblers making a bet (something that can be done using literary anything else).

Even one of the first replies your own topic in Digital goods receives was how can that token be "traded"!

P.S. There is a good reason why every other idea and projects (including Hal's) that existed long before Bitcoin failed but Bitcoin was the only one that succeeded.

Edit: I didn't realize that OP is looking for an echo chamber where everyone praises the token he is trying to sell. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.
In any case I started an experiment here which may interest some of you about the point I raised here.

[nutildah]

Again, this is totally ignorant nonsense, written purely for the sake of upping your weekly shitpost count. I'd say you were trolling if you weren't getting paid to do it -- its quite obvious that's your motivation behind writing anything on this forum.

Are you familiar with the idea of a collectible? I don't care about your personal take on their innate value -- that is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. Just a simple acknowledgement that collectibles and collectors exist would be enough, but you really needn't bother. You are utterly misguided and wrong in more ways than your ego could possibly let you realize, ergo there's no reason to waste any more time with you.

[NotATether]

Something sets apart BTC's NFT market from Ethereum's: It's not full of spam and eggs (yet).

So while this place is calm like 2000s-era Twitter, I ordered some NFTs from you.  

I'd hate to see that community devolve into something like OpenSea's gallery which is full of 99% pickpocketers (which are almost completely unmoderated BTW) and %1 actual collectors. It draws some strange parallels with social media.

[AB de Royse777]

I'd hate to see that community devolve into something like OpenSea's gallery which is full of 99% pickpocketers (which are almost completely unmoderated BTW) and %1 actual collectors. It draws some strange parallels with social media.

A friend of mine made good money from NFT, still he is making. According to him they list on secondary market, they buy it then again they buy it. It's actually moving it from one address to another address. This way they create a demand for the specific NFT before someone else buy it from them. I don't know how exactly it works but that's what I was able to understand from the conversation. My head is too full to understand NFT. But the concept of collection is a good idea however I never looked deep at it to understand them correctly.

Regarding bitcointalk nfts, since I have zero knowledge, I will follow others instead of giving any input.

[NotATether]

A friend of mine made good money from NFT, still he is making. According to him they list on secondary market, they buy it then again they buy it. It's actually moving it from one address to another address. This way they create a demand for the specific NFT before someone else buy it from them. I don't know how exactly it works but that's what I was able to understand from the conversation. My head is too full to understand NFT. But the concept of collection is a good idea however I never looked deep at it to understand them correctly.

That sounds a lot like wash trading on exchanges. Grey area, but nobody's getting ripped off at least.

[nutildah]

Something sets apart BTC's NFT market from Ethereum's: It's not full of spam and eggs (yet).

So while this place is calm like 2000s-era Twitter, I ordered some NFTs from you.  

I'd hate to see that community devolve into something like OpenSea's gallery which is full of 99% pickpocketers (which are almost completely unmoderated BTW) and %1 actual collectors. It draws some strange parallels with social media.

Thanks.

It also draws parallels with early Bitcoin scams (scam exchanges, investment schemes, casinos, dice games, etc.) and the altcoin market where 99% is simply speculative investments... Stories of scams and ludicrous returns tend to dominate any sort of news coverage and resulting conversation because they stick in the craw of the human psyche.

However, that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of innovation is quietly taking place in this space on daily basis, led by projects trying to distinguish themselves from the noise by providing something unique that hasn't been done before, whether it is in terms of aesthetics, community or utility.

No need to lie about it: a lot of NFTs worth $$ now are gonna go to zero. They won't be able to retain the social momentum required to keep new buyers interested as the market expands and attention gets diverted to an ever-expanding array of new projects.

However, that's not what my Forum NFTs are trying to do... They are meant to be uniquely-crafted, personalizing mementos that you can use to either identify your forum profile on the blockchain or trade with others and collect.

A friend of mine made good money from NFT, still he is making. According to him they list on secondary market, they buy it then again they buy it. It's actually moving it from one address to another address. This way they create a demand for the specific NFT before someone else buy it from them.

Yeah that's called "wash trading"   its a common practice... an underhanded one but pretty easy to identify if you can read a block explorer. Nearly every crypto ever to be listed has done this with exchange bots for years.

[ABCbits]

Other good, non-image uses involve NFTs that grants their holders rights, permissions, or special access. For example, there have been bots made for ETH, BTC and even DOGE NFTs that allow token-gated access to Discord channels, meaning you must own the token in your wallet in order to join the channel. Property rights have been conveyed via NFT, rights to music & video IP, and all sorts of media. Its quite possible that NFTs will be used to convey ownership of smart property, e.g. an apartment or car door that unlocks after proof of corresponding token ownership has been established. The most promising upcoming use case for NFTs in the future are related to identity.

That sounds like privacy disaster. Analytic company could download whole blockchain (which used by the NFT) and analyze the data to find out how much asset you have or your personal taste, then sold it to government or advertising company. It's totally different case if they zero-knowledge proof cryptography, but i never see any NFT which use such cryptography.

[nutildah]

That sounds like privacy disaster. Analytic company could download whole blockchain (which used by the NFT) and analyze the data to find out how much asset you have or your personal taste, then sold it to government or advertising company. It's totally different case if they zero-knowledge proof cryptography, but i never see any NFT which use such cryptography.

This post is too broad to answer meaningfully... I don't know what aspect of my previous post you are referring to. At the very least, the assumptions you are making about how these things are actually being developed and implemented are too broad.

This is a tactic adopted by nocoiners to discredit bitcoin: put forth "what if the sky falls"-type hypotheticals based on an incomplete understanding of the subject at hand.

Certainly every blockchain has potential privacy issues; to think the people who are actually basing their careers around building new products on it haven't considered this aspect is not giving them enough credit.

[nutildah]

I was referring your post which mention good example/explanation of NFT technology. And while it's true i didn't check technical details of how they implement NFT, i know most of them is build on top of blockchain (such as ETH, SOL, BSC and MATIC) which only offer pseudonymity.

All NFTs are built on top of blockchains.

Its possible that identity-based tokens will be put in a new wallet containing nothing else from a master distribution wallet. A signature is required by the wallet owner to show proof of ownership, and nothing else is required, no other further input or output transactions. In that way the owner could potentially remain anonymous, depending on what the signature is needed for.