this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
1486 points (95.9% liked)
memes
14440 readers
4108 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
NFT was the worst "tech" crap I have ever even heard about, like pure 100% total full scam. Kind of impressed that anyone could be so stupid they'd fall for it.
The whole NFT/crypto currency thing is so incredibly frustrating. Like, being able to verify that a given file is unique could be very useful. Instead, we simply used the technology for scamming people.
I don't think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn't a way to verify if there isn't another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
I didn't know this and it's absolutely hilarious. Literally totally undermines the use of Blockchain to begin with.
No, it doesn't, it just means that Non-Fungible Tokens are...
Fungible...
So, they’re FNFT? Or just T?
wouldn't it be just FTs?
Copying the info on another contract doesn't mean it's fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it's associated to the right contract.
Let's say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn't recognize the "same" NFT if it wasn't linked to the right contract.
But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the "right contract". If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It's no longer a decentralized.
Yes and no, with the whole blockchain being public it's pretty easy to figure out which contract is the original one.
Lets say you don't have a central authority declaring one is official. How would you search the entire blockchain to verify you have the original NFT?
The NFT is useful with a central authority though, it's used to confirm the ownership of digital goods ex: if it's associated to digital games then the distributor knows which contract is the original since they created it in the first place...
Sure for bored apes pictures you copy the code and you go on a random websites and it can tell you the result of the mix of features based on the code, but on the original website it wouldn't work.
Incorrect. An NFT is tied to a particular token number at a particular address.
The URI the NFT points to may not be unique but NFT is unique.
The NFT is only unique within the contract address. The whole contract can be trivially copied to another contract address and the whole collection can be cloned. It's why opensea has checkmarks for "verified" collections. There are a unofficial BoredApe collections which are copies of the original one.
Yes, the URI can point to the same monkey jpg. But a different contract address means it is a different NFT.
Completely agree, but the guy I responding to thinks the monkey jpeg is unique across the whole blockchain, when that isn't true. The monkey jpeg can be copied. There's no uniqueness enforced in a blockchain.
It's crazy that people could see NFTs were a scam but can't see the same concept in virtual coins.
I'm not defending other cryptocoins or anything, they might be a ponzy scheme or some other form. But in the end they at least only pretended to be that, a valuta. Which they are, even though they aren't really used much like that. NFT's on the otherhand promised things that were always just pure technical bullshit. And you had to be a complete idiot not to see it. So call it a double scam.
A large majority of "real" money is digital, like 80% non-m1 m2. The only real difference between crypto and USD is that the crypto is a public multiple ledger system that allows you to be your own bank.
I've heard the sales pitch, it's a ponzi scheme with receipts. An open pyramid, so to speak. At best a volatile store of wealth.
Potentially volatile right, since who knows if/when various stablecoins might depeg
You're not sold on the concept of money? I guess that fits right in on Lemmy.
Because the pyramid scheme is still going strong with them, exactly because new victims are continually falling for them. NFTs lost their hype so quickly that the flow of new victims basically completely stopped, and so the bottom went out of them much faster.
because there are some buisness that accept some crypto, mostly grey or black market ones, but respectable companies none the less.
It's crazy that people see crypto as a scam but can't see the same concept in fiat currencies.
But it's totally legit brah, it's just like trading cards but on a computer bro, you can make jay pegs totally unique bro, nobody else in the world can have the same image as you brah, it proves you're the only owner of it bro, trust me bro it's super secure and technological bruh
We got to use the word fungible a lot though, so that was cool
But it has no relation to fungi, which is not cool
You know, I'm something of a fun guy, myself.
I always liked the response "go funge yourself."
You know what? Fuck you!
Funges all your tokens
NFTs could have been great, if they had been used FOR the consumer, and not to scam them.
Best thing I can think of is to verify licenses for digital products/games. Buy a game, verify you own it like you would with a CD using an NFT, and then you can sell it again when you're done.
Do this with serious stuff like AAA Games or Professional Software (think like borrowing a copy of Photoshop from an online library for a few days while you work on a project!) instead of monkey pictures and you could have the best of both worlds for buying physical vs buying online.
However, that might make corporations less money and completely upend modern licencing models, so no one was willing to do it.
I think there’s a technical hurdle here. There’s no reliable way to enforce unique access to an NFT. Anyone with access to the wallet’s private key (or seed phrase) can use the NFT, meaning two or more people could easily share a game or software license just by sharing credentials. That kind of undermines the licensing control in a system like this.
So like disks? Before everything started checking hwids. Just like the comment said, it would make corporations less money so they wouldn't do it.
Well, that's the point. In order for that system to work as described, you would need some kind of centralized authority to validate and enforce it. Once you've introduced that piece, there's no point using NFTs anymore - you can just use any kind of simpler and more efficient key/authentication mechanism.
So even if the corporations wanted to use such a system (which, to your point, they do not), it still wouldn't make sense to use NFTs for it.
Blockchain with a central authority.
Yeah IDK...
Exactly. That's why it's so pointless.
I mean, the same goes for a login. People share Steam accounts too.
There is nothing you mentioned which couldn't already be done, and is in fact already being done, faster and more reliably by existing technology.
Also that was not even what NFTs was about, because you didn't even buy the digital artwork and NFTs would never be able to include it. So it would be supremely useless for the thing you are talking about.
The issue is this doesn't solve a problem that isn't already solved. One of the big arguments I always heard was an example using skins from games that can be transfered to other games. We can already do that! Just look at the Steam marketplace for an example. You just need the server infrastructure to do it. Sure, NFTs could make it so the company doesn't control the market, but what benefit do they get for using NFTs and distributing the software then?
99.9% of the use cases were solutions looking for a problem. I could see a use for something like deeds or other documents, but that's about it.
Yeah, Sort of.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of NFTs and do think there's easier ways, but I would agree that taking market control away from the companies owning it would kind of be the point (but I do think you can probably still do this concept without any NFTs).
Sure, steam could allow game trading right now with no need for NFTs whatsoever, but the point would be that I can trade a game I bought through Xbox, to someone on Steam, and then go buy something on the Epic store with the money.
And all of it without some crazy fee from the involved platforms.
But that also would probably still require government intervention to force companies to accept this. Because, again, none of the companies would actually want this. NTF or not that doesn't change.
Yeah, it only works if they agree to honor it, which they have no obligation to do. If the government wants to step in and force them to, there's still no need for NFTs. There could just be a central authority that the government controls that handles it. Why would NFTs need to be involved? NFTs are only as useful as the weakest point in the chain. As soon as whatever authority (the government, Steam, whatever) stops working or stops honoring it then it's useless.
I know people TODAY that collect limited release, hard to get into, exclusive NFTs. The grift is still grifting, but it's hidden in the corners of the Internet.
Non-technical people believing in magic that can make them rich.