Exactly, still yet to see a single benefit of NFT gaming that hasn't been possible for decades already.

Just making things way more expensive than they should be for the sake of 'investment'

Yes. Everything will become an NFT. Land, passports, Covid Certs, poker memorabilia....you name it

Land! HA!

I cant wait to see a real estate agent knock on the door of a farmer in rural Nebraska and ask if he is interested in selling his farm, and if so, if he wants to sell it as an NFT.

Land as NFTs is already being sold for millions of dollars if you only care to google it so the joke is on you.

I actually came up with the idea years ago and all my friends were laughing at me. Unfortunately, I wasn't smart enough to follow through with the idea and to build it out myself.

The entire world will become digital in the metaverse. People are buying digital land now in an attempt to get in early on it.

People were laughing at me when I bought Ethereum early too telling me it was a Ponzi scheme. Joke is on them now.

Corrupt governments can always confiscate your land and destroy your moneys purchasing power through the creation of more money.

Best to buy Bitcoin that they can't print any more off and to buy your land on a decentralised blockchain where they can't get their corrupt hands on it

Tell me how land is sold as NFTs and how that makes it more secure than currently.

I honestly want to know what im missing here.

Well Bitcoin was originally developed as a means of transferring money securely peer to peer through a publicly distributed ledger. So why can't you distribute transfer of ownership of other things like property and art as well without the need of a middleman via smart contracts.

NFTs securely confer ownership of a digital asset via the blockchain, where ownership can then be publicly tracked and easily sold. NFTs are most commonly used to buy and sell digital assets—such as digital art or music—but can also be used to trade ownership rights to physical objects such as a house, so long as the object’s title or ownership contract is somehow tied to the NFT.

It's still early days but the blockchain can increase trust, security, transparency, and the traceability of data shared across a network. It allows for the tokenisation off objects that can be traded more easily in a faster, cheaper more effective manner without the need off a middleman.

Anyways, I'm off to bed. Happy New Year.

Decentraland and that stuff aside... Lets look at real world application.

Ever bought a house or land? The multi-billion dollar Title Insurance Industry and Title insurance Lawyers exist for one and only one reason. To prove unique ownership of a thing, in this case Deed to a property. All that could be eliminated by putting it a on the blockchain. An innovative in county in CA will do it soon. Others will follow. IN 20 years it will be the norm and title insurance industry will be sitting in the tar pits with rest of Dinosaurs.

all also this.

isn't it amazing that the title insurance and insurance agencies will be replaced by cryptobros doing literally the exact same thing with a different program and ledger

fantastic stuff

im on the side of keanue reeves about nft

*laughs*

you know you can right click and save it

An innovative country in Europe started a central register of who owns what land a century and a half ago. Without even requiring banks of GPUs and purpose built power stations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Land_Registry

Basically most of this stuff looks attractive if you live in some non-functioning third world country, where you have to DIY what would be basic functions of government and the banking system elsewhere.

From February Europe will have free interbank transfers between different banks instead of having to wait for thenext banking day (old system) or tip someone to process the trade for you when they get around to it (bitcoin). If you're somewhere where people are still paying by cheque everywhere then bitcoin would look totally next level though.

Ownership of works of art does seem to me like a good use of NFT, given there's never going to be a world government central art registry. Who owns what skins in some company's computer game, what land in some government's country doesn't need blockchain, there is already a central authority.

Lektor's post just made me realise something - perhaps the reason why cryptos and now NFTs look so attractive to so many people here is because many of this forum's users are from US, which uses an INCREDIBLY dated banking system, as well as other biurocratic systems. Functional, modern banking system is just much more convenient than cryptos in their current form, minus the anonimity, which is not an issue to most people.

Interestingly, in terms of banking, eastern and baltic EU countries are now one of the most advanced in the world - this is because the transformation from post-soviet economy happend in the 90's, and so it took an instant leap to modern, electronic-based solutions. Not so much with bureaucracy, but still, I've never heard about anyone worrying "how am I going to prove that I own this?" in any meaningful context

If the litmus test of utilizing blockchain was "is there already a central authority to do it" , then no blockchain would exist.

Blockchains do exist.

Thus, that is a flawed litmus


P.S. Hi Title Insurance Lawyer

Part of the problem with getting people to buy into the idea of NFTs is unclear language like this:

I don't know if two different ideas are being mixed together in these posts (digital land, transfer of ownership of property), or if this is just a case of describing the same thing in very different ways, but it makes things confusing.

But is there not still a "middleman"? Someone is going to have to facilitate this for the average person. Perhaps the cost will be far lower, but this won't be seamless between buyer and seller.

This.

Yes. Because of shitty land registration systems in the US. There are other countries, like your northern neighbours, that don't have weird **** like escrow, and where title insurance isn't very common.

Or some states could become innovative and fix their land registration systems.

That's not to say our land registration system is perfect or that there might not be room for improvement, but I don't see NFTs as some magic bullet or even necessary in this sector. Perhaps that's just because I don't understand all the benefits.

I'm going to expose more of my ignorance with my next question: I know cryptomining has a pretty heavy energy cost; is there anything similar for NFTs and/or anything else on the blockchain?

typically nfts are tied to a crypto currency and when people here are talking about gas/fees they are talking to the cut they need to give miners in order to do something like mint a new nft, list an nft, transfer, buy, etc

in the other nft thread there was a nft soccer game being discussed, i was interested and went to check it out and you'll need to do about 10+ things every two weeks in order to play it and they think on the low end that each one of those could cost about $10 each in fees

i was considered a noob/luddite for thinking that paying hundreds of dollars in fees every few weeks to play a game was expensive - so many of the people so deep into this are both accustomed to paying massive fees all the time and likely already made a ton of money in the process so they are happy to ridicule people like me in the discord who ask why they designed the game in a manner where you need to pay so much money every two weeks just to play and the money doesn't even go into the gaming ecosystem but it's just a fee

imagine if every time you turned on your computer your credit card got charged an unknown fee but the fee didn't go to your computer manufacturer or software developer but just went to a random dude in chinawho wrote dow n that bob turned on his computer at this time and location and you were ok with this and when someone asked you why the computer manufacturers and software developers designed it to work this way eveyone just told you to stfu because computers are awesome and you don't get it

a lot of nft stuff is needlessly tied into these fee mechanisms because that makes it "more credible" in the eyes of so many derps piling money into it - a lot is legit but it's a massive bubble that is going to crash very violently one day because very little critical thought is put into why

doing the same thing at 100ths the cost. 100 times the speed.

title insurance was one stupid example that popped into my head . there are 1000s of others of examples in mfg, health care, finance, logistics,govt, etc etc on and on.

EDIT. jfc yall just use google. I just googled NFTs in Healthcare. Why so many people afraid of new technology. In the early days TCP/IP was scary too. I get it

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissamcfarlane/2021/06/02/will-nfts-save-healthcare/?sh=5b030c2beae3

lmao we are now officially in crazy town mode. CNN releases their own collection of NFTs



https://vault.cnn.com/

That assumes rational actors.

As we know, bitcoin is built primarily on the greater fool theory - it's worthless and foolish to buy it, unless a greater fool comes along and pays more.

Also, the international art market is one example I've given where there is no central authority and there is room for something blockchain-based to step in and become the defacto standard. Undoubtedly there are more uses.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance

Why would the owner selling it through NFT guarantee something that the offline system wouldn't? It just seems to introduce yet another competing record of who owns what. Ultimately it all still has to be litigated in the offline court system.

Also why not upgrade to the RoW system?

I wouldn't say it's foolish to own Bitcoin. I would say it's foolish to hold US dollars because the government is going to print more of them and they will lose value of over time to inflation because of this.

You can't print anymore Bitcoins. People may say that Bitcoins do not have any value, but why do US dollars have any value. If cavemen saw a shop clerk giving a person water and food in exchange for a paper us dollar note that you can't eat they would think it's very strange.

The value of a dollar bill just like a Bitcoin is all in the mind of the beholder. But at least central banks can't print any more Bitcoins diluting their value.

In general I think it's better to own income generating assets like stocks which can pay you a yield but the disadvantage off that is a business that you invest in could lose it's competitive advantage and become less profitable over time leading you to experience losses.

So, I think people see Bitcoin as a hedge.

Personally, I think the next crises we are going into is a US dollar currency crises where the money the US prints isn't going to buy very much. It's going to make Covid look like a Sunday school picnic.

If that comes to pass the last thing you want to own is garbage paper dollars that people will be dumping for anything else that they can get their hands on.

I always respect your posts, but I'd suggest you maybe dig a bit deeper here.


First if all lets clear this up.... Is gold built on greater fool theory?

At present prices to a large extent yes, but it does have real world aesthetic uses which guarantee some kind of floor. The problem with basing a currency on it is the positive cost of carry. Effectively the issuer is giving free gold storage to anyone who holds notes. E-gold was a good idea but they had to build in a regular fee to hold. Those comparisons where a gold coin 100 years ago would buy you the same as a gold coin now generally assume you'd have had free storage for 100 years.

Re: fiat currencies, they're backed up by the government's ability to appropriate their residents/citizens' resources to maintain the value of their currencies and governments' willingness to do that, which is of course variable. For example the Hungarian currency was wiped out and restarted twice in the twentieth century and they're currently running at more than 300 forints to the euro. I wouldn't suggest holding large amounts of cash no.

well... Im not talking about FIAT yet, that is a more complicated discussion (some reasons being what you mention above), but first we need to agree or disagree on how gold is valued.

What exactly is it that determines the value of gold?

How many ounces it takes for a girl to spread her legs

I think the real potential here is becoming a lawyer that specializes in NFT/blockchain. It sounds like this all could lead to a mess and much litigation in the next 5 to 10 years.

I was talking to my coworker about this before I finished for the Holidays. I'm surprised it took so long. As soon as I heard someone bought some Viral video as an NFT my first thought was that these huge broadcasting corporations are sat on absolute goldmines. Imagine the market for buying the original footage to certain legendary sporting moments, or other historic footage. It's widely accepted that the BBC has the biggest video archive on the planet. I don't imagine it will be long before they are putting those clips up for sale via NFT.

Regarding NFT's as a whole, I think there's probably just as much use for them as proof of ownership of physical assets that aren't property as there is of virtual assets. I forget who it was, but I watched a video of some US biz-bilionaire about the potential for NFT's to be able to validate the authenticity of high price watches. I could see the same thing happening for so many other collectibles that are difficult to authenticate without taking them to a tiny selection of experts.

i have a friend who founded a company that does supply chain security for multi national corporations

one of the big issues mncs have is things go through so many hubs and middle men before finally ending up in consumer hands that sometimes stuff gets taken and swapped out

ie when the container of high quality copper stops overnight at a port it is swapped out for a container of low quality copper - it then goes through multiple more ports and middle men before someone realizes this is bad quality copper - so now the question is who of the dozen suspects made the swap or if the company itself is doing an insurance scam

these containers all offer the same "protection" of having an nft of your watch. you can own the nft that verifies authenticity of your watch, but nothing is stopping you from swapping out the watch and then passing along a knockoff along with the genuine nft when you sell it on ebay

only way this could possibly work is to embed some kind of code/nfc that is uncorruptable, non transferrable, and can't be copied onto the watch that links up with the nft - without which the nft itself is worthless and serves no purpose because you'd still need to go through the same process people do now of paying an expert to appraise the watch for authenticity by hand, meaning the nft serves as nothing more than a needless extra that incurs additional costs each time you transfer it to the new owner - basically a redundancy tax

you've been able to get these codes that you could embed on your watch for years now, but nobody is doing it because nobody wants to take a beautiful designer watch and tattoo it