Do these sites have any system in place to deal with revenge porn?
If you mean the NFT-generating sites then no. But you don't actually upload the images to create the NFT; you just link to an image hosted elsewhere and the NFT encapsulates the link. The other end of the link can be anything and can even change or cease to exist after the NFT is generated.
Do these sites have any system in place to deal with revenge porn literally any crime?
Fixed it and no. The best they can do is the NFT websites ban the people making the illegal content from using them and filter out the offending images/links, but there is no way to get them off the blockchain
There's also no way to prevent anyone from sending you anything they want. They will have to pay fees to do it, but eventually any active ethereum wallet will end up being sent tokens that are basically unwanted ad spam.
Do these sites have any system in place to deal with revenge porn?
If you mean the NFT-generating sites then no. But you don't actually upload the images to create the NFT; you just link to an image hosted elsewhere and the NFT encapsulates the link. The other end of the link can be anything and can even change or cease to exist after the NFT is generated.
Depending on the specifics info stored, it could still show a transaction for revenge porn took place even after removing the image
Do these sites have any system in place to deal with revenge porn?
If you mean the NFT-generating sites then no. But you don't actually upload the images to create the NFT; you just link to an image hosted elsewhere and the NFT encapsulates the link. The other end of the link can be anything and can even change or cease to exist after the NFT is generated.
Depending on the specifics info stored, it could still show a transaction for revenge porn took place even after removing the image
It's literally just the URI for the image (or whatever; it's a URI so I don't see anything stopping someone from getting an NFT for 'https://www.amazon.com'). I guess if the URI was "http://myimages.hosting.web/revenge-porn/my-ex-tracy" but I think it'd be difficult to make a legal argument that the URI itself constitutes revenge porn if the content (and any record of the content) no longer exists.
So I could rig up a URL that appears to be a fixed image but instead each request returns a randomly selected image obtained by a script that pulls random images sold via NFTs. I could then sell this URL via NFT.
I don't know what this would accomplish but I don't know what NFTs really accomplish either for that matter. It's all just arbitrary nonsense.
So I could rig up a URL that appears to be a fixed image but instead each request returns a randomly selected image obtained by a script that pulls random images sold via NFTs. I could then sell this URL via NFT.
I don't know what this would accomplish but I don't know what NFTs really accomplish either for that matter. It's all just arbitrary nonsense.
Domain name registration maybe
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited March 2021
Follow up:
So as I mentioned way back in the thread, I was planning on this being the last winter I do any ether mining. So now that things have warmed up, I have indeed ebayed off my secondary GPU (at GTX 1070) for basically the same price I paid for it back in 2016. And I was completely clear on having used it for wintertime crypto mining and that I had overclocked it some and that it had coil whine. Also it was a bit dirty in the pictures, and I didn't notice until I'd put it up. Didn't matter, sold almost instantly. Demand is... intense out there, even for these older cards.
All this meaning that, short of going to the weird old days of switching OS'es constantly in the winter to swap between gaming and mining, I'm basically done with proof-of-work-as-residential-heating. I haven't used my current card for any mining, and I don't ever intend to. I was planning on using the old card for something like rosetta@home next winter, but I couldn't really justify letting it rot in my closet over the summer given the shortages.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
People's Expensive NFTs Keep Vanishing. This Is Why
“There was no history of my ever purchasing it, or ever owning it,” said one confused NFT buyer. “Now there’s nothing. My money’s gone.”
Was it a glitch? A hack? Did Kuennen perhaps misunderstand how, exactly, NFTs work and how they’re stored? You can’t blame him; over the past few months, numerous individuals have complained about their NFTs going “missing,” “disappearing,” or becoming otherwise unavailable on social media. This despite the oft-repeated NFT sales pitch: that NFT artworks are logged immutably, and irreversibly, onto the Ethereum blockchain.
So why would an NFT go missing? The answer, it turns out, points to the complex working of NFTs that are often misunderstood even by the people willing to shell out large sums for them.
For Kuennen, though, this explanation was wholly unsatisfactory. He was doubtful that his NFT violated OpenSea’s terms and conditions, and he received no correspondence to that effect. No email, no warning, nothing.
He said he couldn’t even find a record of the token itself on the Ethereum blockchain, though he was able to view the transaction in which he spent $500 and bought the image. This was truly disturbing, because even if an NFT artwork has been taken down, the signature should still be available.
Sam Williams, the founder of Arweave, an Ethereum file storage application, pointed to a recent OpenSea update in which the company began to mint tokens only after a sale is made to minimise losses from gas fees in the case of a botched sale.
As it turns out, however, the resolution to the riddle of Kuennen’s missing NFT record on the blockchain has to do with even more arcane Ethereum minutiae. Strap in.
NFTs are generally represented by a form of token called the ERC-721. It’s just as simple to locate this token’s whereabouts as ether (Ethereum's in-house currency) and other tokens such as ERC-20s. The NFT marketplace SuperRare, for instance, sends tokens directly to buyers’ wallets, where their movements can be tracked rather easily. The token can then generally be found under the ERC-721 tab.
OpenSea, however, has been experimenting with a new new token variant: the ERC-1155, a “multitoken” that designates collections of NFTs.
This token standard, novel as it is, isn’t yet compatible with Etherscan, said Williams. That means ERC-1155s saved on Ethereum don’t show up, even if we know they are on the blockchain because the payments record is there, and the “smart contracts” which process the sale are designed to fail instantly if the exchange can’t be made.
Kuennen did just that, and returned to us with something of a half-victory: A screenshot in the “collectibles” section of his new Rarible wallet showing, in place of a 404, a blank frame where the image should have been. The image was still either being suppressed or was removed at the source, but Rarible showed that the NFT existed—unlike OpenSea, which plans to replace its impenetrable 404 banner with a proper notification soon, said Atallah.
This is all illustrative of a common problem with Ethereum and cryptocurrencies generally, which despite being immutable and unhackable and abstractly perfect can only be taken advantage of via unreliable third-party applications.
I was looking at NFT auction sites just to get a better sense of what that world looks like and found a pretty magical rabbit hole.
First, I saw an auction for a 24x24 block of virtual land in The Sandbox. The last sale price was a few million dollars. The description said that if I won the auction, I should contact the generic support email for the game to tell them I have an NFT for land ownership and they’d be able to help me.
So, ok, let’s check out The Sandbox. Looks pretty Minecraft-like, uses voxels for some reason, and is somehow a blockchain based game that uses Ethereum. Weird I never heard of it but there’s a lot of these weird social games now.
Then I saw two things almost simultaneously:
1. The “Beta .4b” banner at the top of the page, and;
2. An invite link to a game jam for The Sandbox.
“Surely not,” you’d say, and be wrong.
By working on The Sandbox as a developer (using what look to be full-on dev tools, albeit simplified), you can earn virtual land. In The Sandbox.
Or you can pay millions for virtual land in The Sandbox, and hope it is eventually an actual game in which people will want to pay millions of dollars for virtual land.
So, real millionaires can buy NFTs to verify ownership of land in a game that only exists enough to be worked by virtual code-serfs who hope to one day create a virtual world where they own land and land has value.
Gonna re-write Blank Check, to be about a kid who puts NTF of his art for sale online, and it sells for 10 million. But turns out his art just happened to have the same name as a piece that was being used in a money laundering scheme.
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
In case you weren't sure exactly WHAT kind of dystopian hellscape we're living in currently: On April 1st, as an April Fools joke, the Teletubbies made an announcement that they were starting their own cryptocurrency. Everyone rightly and rapidly saw through that as a ruse and had a good laugh.
APRIL FOOLS! Sure, #TubbyCoin isn’t an actual cryptocurrency, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be yours as an NFT! The Teletubbies are auctioning 1 TubbyCoin as an NFT to benefit @KidsHelpPhone, adding to our $10K donation. 🚀Bid now!:
So, "The Teletubbies are actively involved in making climate change worse" is now a statement that is accurate. I realize it's technically for charity, but even so. Eeesh.
The process of creating (or “minting” as it’s known in crypto-speak) and then selling an NFT can cost anywhere from less than a dollar to more than $1,000. In a piece for OneZero, Allen Gannett walked readers through how he paid $1,300 to make four NFTs featuring an image of famous paintings that he’d downloaded for free from the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Gannett put the works up on Rarible and received a $76 bid for one of them—a long way from a profit, and he still had to pay another $88 fee to accept it. The other three don’t appear to have sold, meaning Gannett lost over $1,000.
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited April 2021
Out of all the problems with NFT and how folks use NFT, it is kind of ironic that the climate impact might be the one to actually make people think twice, and yet it is also the one we already have a technical solution for, today, just that nobody is bothering to use.
There is absolutely no technical reason that any NFT has to be backed by a Proof of Work blockchain specifically. Even if you were 100% in favor of NFT and are certain they are the future of ... whatever, this approach of just tacking them onto a PoW blockchain absolutely can not be the way we go about implementing them. Even a cursory consideration of the energy costs makes clear how absurd this entire situation is.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
Out of all the problems with NFT and how folks use NFT, it is kind of ironic that the climate impact might be the one to actually make people think twice, and yet it is also the one we already have a technical solution for, today, just that nobody is bothering to use.
There is absolutely no technical reason that any NFT has to be backed by a Proof of Work blockchain specifically. Even if you were 100% in favor of NFT and are certain they are the future of ... whatever, this approach of just tacking them onto a PoW blockchain absolutely can not be the way we go about implementing them. Even a cursory consideration of the energy costs makes clear how absurd this entire situation is.
Because it could be backed by a proof of stake block chain?
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
NFTs are a failure in concept to begin with. They are an attempt to engineer scarcity into a system that has little or no scarcity, simply because people are taught that scarcity is good and valuable.
NFTs are a failure in concept to begin with. They are an attempt to engineer scarcity into a system that has little or no scarcity, simply because people are taught that scarcity is good and valuable.
It's backwards thinking from the ground up.
Well it was created solely with the intent to try and fleece people from their money and enrich the already rich some more, not actually introduce something of actual worth and value (not in the monetary sense but the practical sense) to the world.
Out of all the problems with NFT and how folks use NFT, it is kind of ironic that the climate impact might be the one to actually make people think twice, and yet it is also the one we already have a technical solution for, today, just that nobody is bothering to use.
There is absolutely no technical reason that any NFT has to be backed by a Proof of Work blockchain specifically. Even if you were 100% in favor of NFT and are certain they are the future of ... whatever, this approach of just tacking them onto a PoW blockchain absolutely can not be the way we go about implementing them. Even a cursory consideration of the energy costs makes clear how absurd this entire situation is.
Proof of Work is the very thing that gives the people who got in early a very inflated value to their stake. Without proof of work, you kinda just have a distributed ledger, and that could actually be a useful technology, but then it wouldn't be a get rich quick scheme.
So unfortunately that's not gonna fly with the tech bros who are holding multiple millions worth of bitcoin or ethereum.
There's other crypto technologies out there that have abandoned proof of work, but they're rarely featured in news media since there's hardly any interest since it lacks the flashiness of $$$$ or the angle of criticism that looks at the waste of resources.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Also, any random person can make an NFT and stick it on the blockchain as long as the convince people to take it by paying a processing fee?
But, who is going to care about Jim Nobody from Dondelane Arkansas issuing a random NFT?
You want the NFT from ArtScamsTM, the trusted authority for Meme NFTs.
Is there anything stopping them from both issuing an NFT for the same URL?
Because if the (perceived [by idiots]) value of an NFT is dependent on the authority that issued it...
Don you have any idea how fucking cool and useful PKI actually is, without destroying the planet?
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Right? so what different does it really make?
Well Proof of Stake systems do not require the same amount of processing power as Proof of Work, so a transaction on a Proof of Stake system requires far less electricity and other resources when compared to Proof of Work. The NFTs themselves are not mined, but they do require a transaction to process to be updated just like anything else on a blockchain. At least by my understanding, I know there are some shenanigans with exchanges holding coins in their own wallets and keeping a record of who is supposed to "own" any given coin or fractional coin, which removes the need for a transaction to do anything with your crypto but whoops, now you're trusting a single repository to not screw you.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Right? so what different does it really make?
Well Proof of Stake systems do not require the same amount of processing power as Proof of Work, so a transaction on a Proof of Stake system requires far less electricity and other resources when compared to Proof of Work. The NFTs themselves are not mined, but they do require a transaction to process to be updated just like anything else on a blockchain. At least by my understanding, I know there are some shenanigans with exchanges holding coins in their own wallets and keeping a record of who is supposed to "own" any given coin or fractional coin, which removes the need for a transaction to do anything with your crypto but whoops, now you're trusting a single repository to not screw you.
Are proof of stake transactions less expensive, or just the coin creation? My understanding is the latter.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Right? so what different does it really make?
Well Proof of Stake systems do not require the same amount of processing power as Proof of Work, so a transaction on a Proof of Stake system requires far less electricity and other resources when compared to Proof of Work. The NFTs themselves are not mined, but they do require a transaction to process to be updated just like anything else on a blockchain. At least by my understanding, I know there are some shenanigans with exchanges holding coins in their own wallets and keeping a record of who is supposed to "own" any given coin or fractional coin, which removes the need for a transaction to do anything with your crypto but whoops, now you're trusting a single repository to not screw you.
Are proof of stake transactions less expensive, or just the coin creation? My understanding is the latter.
Transactions happen as part of the coin creation process don't they? Like a coin is minted whenever a block gets added (though this isn't required). I don't actually know how (or if) Proof of Stake adds coins, but I would guess it is similar in that it happens when a block gets added to the chain.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Right? so what different does it really make?
Well Proof of Stake systems do not require the same amount of processing power as Proof of Work, so a transaction on a Proof of Stake system requires far less electricity and other resources when compared to Proof of Work. The NFTs themselves are not mined, but they do require a transaction to process to be updated just like anything else on a blockchain. At least by my understanding, I know there are some shenanigans with exchanges holding coins in their own wallets and keeping a record of who is supposed to "own" any given coin or fractional coin, which removes the need for a transaction to do anything with your crypto but whoops, now you're trusting a single repository to not screw you.
Are proof of stake transactions less expensive, or just the coin creation? My understanding is the latter.
Transactions happen as part of the coin creation process don't they? Like a coin is minted whenever a block gets added (though this isn't required). I don't actually know how (or if) Proof of Stake adds coins, but I would guess it is similar in that it happens when a block gets added to the chain.
Duh, so I thought you werw purposing PoS blockchain as an alternative to PoW blockchains for implementing NFTs.
Yeah. PoS blockchain are a simple scam where rich early adopters just get richer, without having to do anything. They're less bad for the environment, and don't hurt the GPU market.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Right? so what different does it really make?
Well Proof of Stake systems do not require the same amount of processing power as Proof of Work, so a transaction on a Proof of Stake system requires far less electricity and other resources when compared to Proof of Work. The NFTs themselves are not mined, but they do require a transaction to process to be updated just like anything else on a blockchain. At least by my understanding, I know there are some shenanigans with exchanges holding coins in their own wallets and keeping a record of who is supposed to "own" any given coin or fractional coin, which removes the need for a transaction to do anything with your crypto but whoops, now you're trusting a single repository to not screw you.
Are proof of stake transactions less expensive, or just the coin creation? My understanding is the latter.
Transactions happen as part of the coin creation process don't they? Like a coin is minted whenever a block gets added (though this isn't required). I don't actually know how (or if) Proof of Stake adds coins, but I would guess it is similar in that it happens when a block gets added to the chain.
Duh, so I thought you werw purposing PoS blockchain as an alternative to PoW blockchains for implementing NFTs.
Yeah. PoS blockchain are a simple scam where rich early adopters just get richer, without having to do anything. They're less bad for the environment, and don't hurt the GPU market.
Well I mean NFTs look like a scam either way, so if it's going to be a scam I'd prefer it being a scam that doesn't destroy the environment and devour the world's supply of GPUs. Really if people want to do something like an NFT, I'm sure there is some sort of Library of Congress repository or something that could be used for the same purpose without being a scam, though it would require trusting a central authority and wouldn't be able to extract maximum wealth for minimum effort, so I guess it's a non-starter.
I know that Proof of Stake is a thing that people are touting to replace Proof of Work, but doesn't that just end up being the already rich making the rules? With Proof of Work you "trust" the people that have wasted the resources to win the hash cracking lottery, but with Proof of Stake you "trust" the people that already have a lot of the coin in question right? The only aspect of it that seems to be an improvement is that at least people aren't hoarding hardware and wasting electricity on this nonsense, but there must be plenty of people just salivating at the chance to abuse a Proof of Stake system in ways I can't think of right now but assuredly exist and haven't been accounted for.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Well, no. Proof of Work secures the network from fake transactions by making the transactions too difficult to fake and then trusting the longest chain of blocks, hence the 51% attack: if you’re the majority, you can say what goes and everyone trusts you because you have the longest chain. With Proof of Stake, the transactions are easy to spoof, so an alternative method of detecting spoofs is required. In Etherium’s case, their proposed solution is running trusted nodes that are the final authority on all transactions.
So it’s not the rich making the rules, it’s just ETH doing it. The rich just have money funneled to them.
Posts
If you mean the NFT-generating sites then no. But you don't actually upload the images to create the NFT; you just link to an image hosted elsewhere and the NFT encapsulates the link. The other end of the link can be anything and can even change or cease to exist after the NFT is generated.
Fixed it and no. The best they can do is the NFT websites ban the people making the illegal content from using them and filter out the offending images/links, but there is no way to get them off the blockchain
There's also no way to prevent anyone from sending you anything they want. They will have to pay fees to do it, but eventually any active ethereum wallet will end up being sent tokens that are basically unwanted ad spam.
Depending on the specifics info stored, it could still show a transaction for revenge porn took place even after removing the image
It's literally just the URI for the image (or whatever; it's a URI so I don't see anything stopping someone from getting an NFT for 'https://www.amazon.com'). I guess if the URI was "http://myimages.hosting.web/revenge-porn/my-ex-tracy" but I think it'd be difficult to make a legal argument that the URI itself constitutes revenge porn if the content (and any record of the content) no longer exists.
You can just have the computer serve the same imagine for any request that matches a given pattern.
You don't need to go through the trouble of uploading it a bunch of times.
That doesn't sound very decentralized, also, "owner a server" sounds way to normal.
You should just make it a bit-torrent link, externalize those costs, internalize the profit!
I don't know what this would accomplish but I don't know what NFTs really accomplish either for that matter. It's all just arbitrary nonsense.
this nft does not exist?
Domain name registration maybe
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So as I mentioned way back in the thread, I was planning on this being the last winter I do any ether mining. So now that things have warmed up, I have indeed ebayed off my secondary GPU (at GTX 1070) for basically the same price I paid for it back in 2016. And I was completely clear on having used it for wintertime crypto mining and that I had overclocked it some and that it had coil whine. Also it was a bit dirty in the pictures, and I didn't notice until I'd put it up. Didn't matter, sold almost instantly. Demand is... intense out there, even for these older cards.
All this meaning that, short of going to the weird old days of switching OS'es constantly in the winter to swap between gaming and mining, I'm basically done with proof-of-work-as-residential-heating. I haven't used my current card for any mining, and I don't ever intend to. I was planning on using the old card for something like rosetta@home next winter, but I couldn't really justify letting it rot in my closet over the summer given the shortages.
Explanation of NFTs.
First, I saw an auction for a 24x24 block of virtual land in The Sandbox. The last sale price was a few million dollars. The description said that if I won the auction, I should contact the generic support email for the game to tell them I have an NFT for land ownership and they’d be able to help me.
So, ok, let’s check out The Sandbox. Looks pretty Minecraft-like, uses voxels for some reason, and is somehow a blockchain based game that uses Ethereum. Weird I never heard of it but there’s a lot of these weird social games now.
Then I saw two things almost simultaneously:
1. The “Beta .4b” banner at the top of the page, and;
2. An invite link to a game jam for The Sandbox.
“Surely not,” you’d say, and be wrong.
By working on The Sandbox as a developer (using what look to be full-on dev tools, albeit simplified), you can earn virtual land. In The Sandbox.
Or you can pay millions for virtual land in The Sandbox, and hope it is eventually an actual game in which people will want to pay millions of dollars for virtual land.
So, real millionaires can buy NFTs to verify ownership of land in a game that only exists enough to be worked by virtual code-serfs who hope to one day create a virtual world where they own land and land has value.
*chef’s kiss*
Ultraman and Godzilla NFTs have been announced, which seems like it goes against the message of Godzilla but what do you expect
Steam ID: Good Life
But then, uh...
So, "The Teletubbies are actively involved in making climate change worse" is now a statement that is accurate. I realize it's technically for charity, but even so. Eeesh.
Sure, but that would cost money to make. The NFT is free*.
*Not counting the TWh of energy, of course.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/nfts-fees-rarible-opensea-auction-profit.html
There is absolutely no technical reason that any NFT has to be backed by a Proof of Work blockchain specifically. Even if you were 100% in favor of NFT and are certain they are the future of ... whatever, this approach of just tacking them onto a PoW blockchain absolutely can not be the way we go about implementing them. Even a cursory consideration of the energy costs makes clear how absurd this entire situation is.
Because it could be backed by a proof of stake block chain?
It's backwards thinking from the ground up.
Well it was created solely with the intent to try and fleece people from their money and enrich the already rich some more, not actually introduce something of actual worth and value (not in the monetary sense but the practical sense) to the world.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Proof of Work is the very thing that gives the people who got in early a very inflated value to their stake. Without proof of work, you kinda just have a distributed ledger, and that could actually be a useful technology, but then it wouldn't be a get rich quick scheme.
So unfortunately that's not gonna fly with the tech bros who are holding multiple millions worth of bitcoin or ethereum.
There's other crypto technologies out there that have abandoned proof of work, but they're rarely featured in news media since there's hardly any interest since it lacks the flashiness of $$$$ or the angle of criticism that looks at the waste of resources.
Yes, Proof of Stake is just the vested people pulling up the ladder on everyone else. It's terrible in every way except not as wasteful for the sake of waste.
Except, NFTs aren't mined. So proof of work or proof of stake, they still cost the same amount of energy to process, so long as the chains are the same length/encryption standard.
Right? so what different does it really make?
But, who is going to care about Jim Nobody from Dondelane Arkansas issuing a random NFT?
You want the NFT from ArtScamsTM, the trusted authority for Meme NFTs.
Is there anything stopping them from both issuing an NFT for the same URL?
Because if the (perceived [by idiots]) value of an NFT is dependent on the authority that issued it...
Don you have any idea how fucking cool and useful PKI actually is, without destroying the planet?
Well Proof of Stake systems do not require the same amount of processing power as Proof of Work, so a transaction on a Proof of Stake system requires far less electricity and other resources when compared to Proof of Work. The NFTs themselves are not mined, but they do require a transaction to process to be updated just like anything else on a blockchain. At least by my understanding, I know there are some shenanigans with exchanges holding coins in their own wallets and keeping a record of who is supposed to "own" any given coin or fractional coin, which removes the need for a transaction to do anything with your crypto but whoops, now you're trusting a single repository to not screw you.
Are proof of stake transactions less expensive, or just the coin creation? My understanding is the latter.
Transactions happen as part of the coin creation process don't they? Like a coin is minted whenever a block gets added (though this isn't required). I don't actually know how (or if) Proof of Stake adds coins, but I would guess it is similar in that it happens when a block gets added to the chain.
Duh, so I thought you werw purposing PoS blockchain as an alternative to PoW blockchains for implementing NFTs.
Yeah. PoS blockchain are a simple scam where rich early adopters just get richer, without having to do anything. They're less bad for the environment, and don't hurt the GPU market.
Well I mean NFTs look like a scam either way, so if it's going to be a scam I'd prefer it being a scam that doesn't destroy the environment and devour the world's supply of GPUs. Really if people want to do something like an NFT, I'm sure there is some sort of Library of Congress repository or something that could be used for the same purpose without being a scam, though it would require trusting a central authority and wouldn't be able to extract maximum wealth for minimum effort, so I guess it's a non-starter.
Well, no. Proof of Work secures the network from fake transactions by making the transactions too difficult to fake and then trusting the longest chain of blocks, hence the 51% attack: if you’re the majority, you can say what goes and everyone trusts you because you have the longest chain. With Proof of Stake, the transactions are easy to spoof, so an alternative method of detecting spoofs is required. In Etherium’s case, their proposed solution is running trusted nodes that are the final authority on all transactions.
So it’s not the rich making the rules, it’s just ETH doing it. The rich just have money funneled to them.