Let's discuss the buying and selling of rare jpegs

Post your public wallet address and I'll send you an NFT. That's the best way to learn.

That's not how any of this works

How many rare pepe's do you own?

No rare pepes unfortunately but I have a beautiful CrypToadz

NFTs derive their perceived value in a lot of different ways. Some are pure speculation but others represent ownership of "land" in the metaverse, fractionalization of real word assets, ownership of ENS domain names, access to exclusive communities and on and on ad infinitum. There is as wide spectrum of "roadmaps" as there are NFTs. If you spend any time on related Discord channels you will discover that they are full of super smart/passionate people who have big ideas for future. If you think we will be spending more time online 20 years from now than we are today I would be long NFTs. OpenSea did 3 billion dollars in transaction volume in August and there are approximately 200,000 unique accounts. Do you think there will be more or less than that in the future?

So whatever happened to those NBA NFTs?

Stan Crowch said:

---

NFTs derive their perceived value in a lot of different ways. Some are pure speculation but others represent ownership of "land" in the metaverse, fractionalization of real word assets, ownership of ENS domain names, access to exclusive communities and on and on ad infinitum. There is as wide spectrum of "roadmaps" as there are NFTs. If you spend any time on related Discord channels you will discover that they are full of super smart/passionate people who have big ideas for future. If you think we will be spending more time online 20 years from now than we are today I would be long NFTs. OpenSea did 3 billion dollars in transaction volume in August and there are approximately 200,000 unique accounts. Do you think there will be more or less than that in the future?

---

I don't doubt it but that is a sh^t world. Basically the Matrix.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.

I have no idea. Would you research it for us and come back here with your conclusions and then we can all have a discussion about how that might or might be relevant to the bigger picture for NFTs. I think everyone would benefit from an exercise like that.

I think nft are the concept that will bridge the average person into smart contract language, and that's it. Owning a time stamp associated loosely with an image is not what I think of as innovative.

Something interesting I heard the other day is using NFT as ownership of time.

This was the MFM podcast I was listening to. But they were going to create an NFT that allowed the owner to redeem for a block of their show time.

But the interesting thing is that someone could buy it and hold it for 2 years expecting that 5 minutes of time to become more valuable as this podcast got larger.

Would be a real world use of the NFT.

Conceptually interesting but technologically unappealing as you still must rely on the 3rd party to honor that commitment. What recourse would you have should they decide not to honor it?

Now if it was tied to a multisignature wallet that held a smart contract stating if not honored within x days then y satoshis/bitcoin would be released. That'd be technologically appealing.

Why couldn't you do the second paragraph without the time limitation? The contract could be bought and sold on supply/demand. If a buyer wanted to redeem then the original creator would have the NFT back to redeploy themselves into the market place.

Sure.

But what isn't very interesting is that this is specifically is promise, not a contract. The only thing to lose on the topic is reputation.... which honestly is supposed to be immensely valuable in the post-bitcoin era... and I expect them to honor it, we're just debating in theory.

That's an interesting distinction and helps clarify my thinking. I also agree that NFTs are more conceptually interesting than they are technologically interesting.

They honestly look more like securities than anything else at the moment.

Stan Crowch said:

---

That's an interesting distinction and helps clarify my thinking. I also agree that NFTs are more conceptually interesting than they are technologically interesting.

---

If you look back on my posting history, I was very interested in how the concept developed. I'd love to be able to invest in a person at some level and make residuals over time for time/money spent on said individual/their work/etc... I find that conceptually appealing and hope it becomes normal.

Like imagine finding an individual hard on their luck and nursing them back into productivity or better... totally incentivizes people to care for the homeless, etc... little things that would remove the stigma of "useless flesh begging on street corners" into something drastically different.

It bothers the hell outta me the only way i see that technologically being reasonable is via some massive dystopia technocrats, unfortunately.

administrative errors said:

---

Stan Crowch said:

---

That's an interesting distinction and helps clarify my thinking. I also agree that NFTs are more conceptually interesting than they are technologically interesting.

---

If you look back on my posting history, I was very interested in how the concept developed. I'd love to be able to invest in a person at some level and make residuals over time for time/money spent on said individual/their work/etc... I find that conceptually appealing and hope it becomes normal.

Like imagine finding an individual hard on their luck and nursing them back into productivity or better... totally incentivizes people to care for the homeless, etc... little things that would remove the stigma of "useless flesh begging on street corners" into something drastically different.

It bothers the hell outta me the only way i see that technologically being reasonable is via some massive dystopia technocrats, unfortunately.

---

How much of a person's future earnings can you sell the rights to? 100%?!? IMO this would be JG Wentworth on steroids. Does one profession (I.e pro athlete) get to syndicate a higher portion of future earnings than the destitute?

While I agree it is interesting, the path to creating compassion is limited vs the likelihood of creating perverse incentives.

I'd imagine a market on every person, but that's as far I get before it dissolves into nothingness.

Instead I'd rather a money that incentivizes saving instead of getting into debt, and thenother problems will melt away on their own, as there's no need to find literally anything to throw your depreciating 'money' into to save the time spent earning that 'money'....

Sounds like it the way I described but I view it more like "people as corporations"

Just bc you brought someone up doesn't mean they owe you anything, they enjoy an appreciation in their reputation, not necessarily monetary comp from the receiver of charity.

Conceptually similar to an NFT and receiving royalties but different.

Concept is useless however except for reputation bonus pts [if that ever becomes a thing] or "social credit" in similarity to the Chinese system.

Like I said, sound money is way more revolutionary of a concept for humanity than any stupid charity incentivization as we won't constantly need to he searching for places to put our time/money into things because it gets debased underneath us.

I've seen this exact phenomenon happening. Someone with some value to offer issuing NFTs that give the holder some special access to whatever value this person has to offer. The NFTs get minted at whatever the mint price is then traded on the secondary market. Basically instant price discovery for that particular person's value proposition.

Stan Crowch said:

---

I've seen this exact phenomenon happening. Someone with some value to offer issuing NFTs that give the holder some special access to whatever value this person has to offer. The NFTs get minted at whatever the mint price is then traded on the secondary market. Basically instant price discovery for that particular person's value proposition.

---

Sounds like a more complicated form of auction. Also sounds like time shares.

It's more like a person IPOing themself

If a musician only released their songs using NFT's, is it impossible to pirate their music?

Is it impossible for you to make a pirated copy of anything? How would this be any different?

You wouldn't be able to "PROVE" you "OWNED" the song, nor would there be any reason to prove outside of enjoying collectibles.

administrative errors said:

---

😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/2zSUOw3vOf

— Bitcoinist.com (@bitcoinist) September 27, 2021

---

I've seen this one. Love it.

administrative errors said:

---

Is it impossible for you to make a pirated copy of anything? How would this be any different?

You wouldn't be able to "PROVE" you "OWNED" the song, nor would there be any reason to prove outside of enjoying collectibles.

---

I got you. Still trying to understand exactly what they are. So it's more of a copyright protection than an actual distribution protection.