Memes

And the picture itself is just a randomly generated picture of a money or a picture of Donald Trump photoshopped into something from the first page of Google images.

Imagine buying a hyperlink 😭

That being if you can get yourself some Monero anonymously. I can see valid use cases for that, for example in the drug busines...

Maybe I'm not very knowledgable, but even Monero seems sketchy to me. I've clicked into what I thought were blogs about privacy that ended up being sites that exist only to promote Monero, once you look into them. That and the way certain accounts will do nothing but praise Monero just seems very greasy to me. I also wonder how it solves some of the other problems inherent to crypto, such as the environmental concerns.

For things like drugs like the person mentioned below, I don't think I'd trust someone who didn't just use cash.

NFTs

Note: this is how you spell it. Apostrophes are for possession & contraction …not making words plural.

Came here to say this. It's a silly way to look at it, but these dorks are basically saying "no, using the 'internet' is not going to catch on silly techies." It's a kind of technology, not a vehicle specific to capitalism or big funds. NFTs could be proof of ownership over anything.

Consumers want true ownership, even if it requires a kind of tokenized-receipts system.

This is because you (in theory) need the whole blockchain to validate an NFT, so you want to keep it as small as possible.

But since you store the Cryptographic Hash of the image too, you can validate that the image on the server is actually the same one referenced by the blockchain. You could even move it to another server, but it will break the link obviously

The tech is interesting and has applications

I used to say that, but I've given up on that idea. I've never seen a use of blockchain yet that didn't boil down to being virtual money. NFTs could have had potential as a method of trade if they were tied to real ownership of things instead of just receipts saying you bought a cartoon monkey jpeg.

But every time I think something would be a problem blockchain solves, I can always think of an existing, typically better, solution to that same problem. I think that space is too infested with grifters to attract anyone with a truly novel idea.

I got 99 problems, but a blockchain solves none

The point of blockchains is decentralization, and as Lemmy users we know that decentralized services are difficult to make popular, even if they're an improvement over their competitors.

What the fuck. I've been to many, many clubs and shows with creative lighting, and never once heard of or experienced a problem like this. This had to be reckless ignorance on the event planners to result in something like this. Holy shit.

Oops

Why are they asking for fiat currency?

For government documents you need nothing but a plain old certificate to create a digital signature. If there is a single instance of trust (such as a government) there absolutely no point in using a blockchain.

Decentral NFTs for concert tickets would only make sense if you were looking for a solution to liberate the second market, i.e. people selling tickets to other people without involvement of the host of the concert. Such a model is neither beneficial for the hosts (as they wouldn't benefit from the second market sales) nor the visitors (as the second market typically leads to even higher prices). If you meant a way to return/trade tickets on a platform controlled by the host / the original issuer of the tickets, then there's again no need at all for crypto aside plain old, stupid certificates.