NFTs

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Do you think your experience with NFTs is typical

I don't care.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

or is what is driving the current speculative craze?

I also don't care.

If people are irresponsible with their money, then that is on them, was my point.

Just like gambling, I went into NFTs with the knowledge that I might be throwing my money away. I understood what it was because in essence that's all most of this is...gambling. I gambled, got a very small payout, and now I just tinker with what I've got. I don't give a good God damn what other peoples' experience is the same as I'm sure you don't give a good God damn what other peoples' experiences are like with your credit union.

Another point I was trying to make is NFTs aren't a singular thing. They aren't just apes, or just digital art, or just this or just that. They're a ton of things from arcade games, to racing, to digital art, etc.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

People keep trying to make sense of NFTs by tying them to something that actually has value, even though there is no connection. I suspect that people do this because they can't believe that art NFTs could be as stupid as they actually are, but the concept really is that stupid.

So if I have a video game character, I build him up, spend hours on him, and the account gets hacked or stolen, is that concept stupid as well? Just curious where the angst against NFTs come in. Is it just the digital art that gets you all riled up?

[Olmstead]

I think a good way to describe art NFTs is that the NFT ecosystem is a sort of MMO with unique items. If you own an NFT of an image, you own that image in the NFT MMO, because people who play the NFT MMO have agreed to follow the rules of that MMO.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't care.



I also don't care.

If people are irresponsible with their money, then that is on them, was my point.

Just like gambling, I went into NFTs with the knowledge that I might be throwing my money away. I understood what it was because in essence that's all most of this is...gambling. I gambled, got a very small payout, and now I just tinker with what I've got. I don't give a good God damn what other peoples' experience is the same as I'm sure you don't give a good God damn what other peoples' experiences are like with your credit union.

Another point I was trying to make is NFTs aren't a singular thing. They aren't just apes, or just digital art, or just this or just that. They're a ton of things from arcade games, to racing, to digital art, etc.

Sure. If a person is irresponsible with their money, that's their problem. The problem is that no man is an island, and a sufficiently large piles of money start to impact people not immediately involved. If these crypto scams get big enough, they will start to negatively impact people not directly involved.

Of course, the environmental impact is far easier to understand. The entire backbone of crypto, including NFTs, is a highly energy intensive process that massively wasteful and incentives pollution.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by plague311

So if I have a video game character, I build him up, spend hours on him, and the account gets hacked or stolen, is that concept stupid as well? Just curious where the angst against NFTs come in. Is it just the digital art that gets you all riled up?

The video character, though digital, is an actual thing. Even a hat in an online game is an actual thing, as it is an art asset with possible physics programming.

An NFT isn't anything. It only represents something to people who follow the same rule book.

Edit: I love digital art. NFTs aren't digital art though. The digital item that they represent is the art.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Sure. If a person is irresponsible with their money, that's their problem. The problem is that no man is an island, and a sufficiently large piles of money start to impact people not immediately involved. If these crypto scams get big enough, they will start to negatively impact people not directly involved.

Again, something that can be applied to almost anything.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Of course, the environmental impact is far easier to understand. The entire backbone of crypto, including NFTs, is a highly energy intensive process that massively wasteful and incentives pollution.

Something the crypto world has seen as an issue and is now changing the way they do proofs. It used to be proof of work was the only method, now coins like Ethereum are changing to proof of stake, which doesn't have a mining component.

I've already address this though. NFTs just live on the blockchain, that's it. This is the equivalent of throwing **** at a soccer player because of the amount of energy and environmental impact the stadium has in the neighborhood.

Do you know how much energy banking, globally, uses? Do you think it's comparable? Is there a thread on the environmental impact of banking that you're participating in that I can read?

Originally Posted by Olmstead

The video character, though digital, is an actual thing. Even a hat in an online game is an actual thing, as it is an art asset with possible physics programming.

An NFT isn't anything. It only represents something to people who follow the same rule book.

Edit: I love digital art. NFTs aren't digital art though. The digital item that they represent is the art.

This is a huge stretch because, as I've said, there are MMO NFT games. Several, in fact. Entire metaverses using NFTs. The "hats" that people buy go on their characters the same as in a video game. I don't see how you're distinguishing the two, and deciding that NFTs are bad, but buying\selling virtual game characters is somehow better.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by plague311

This is a huge stretch because, as I've said, there are MMO NFT games. Several, in fact. Entire metaverses using NFTs. The "hats" that people buy go on their characters the same as in a video game. I don't see how you're distinguishing the two, and deciding that NFTs are bad, but buying\selling virtual game characters is somehow better.

The NFTs aren't the hats though. If it's based on a regular MMO, the hat is the art asset and programming. If it's a text adventure, the hat is the text telling you that you are wearing a hat and whatever programming is associated with it.

The NFT associated with the digital item is a separate thing. It probably has its uses in an MMO and other services because of the uniqueness of each token, probably even fun ones, but it's inaccurate to say that an NFT is the item.

And I'm okay with that last part. The NFT performs a function in a service. In the case of a simple art NFT, there is no function outside of the NFT ecosystem.

[carlitos]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but for a given piece of digital art, even if an NFT already exists in one crypto blockchain, can’t you still mint it on a different blockchain?

Like. If I make an NFT of my art on ETH, can’t someone else mint it on dogecoin or whatever?

Apologies if I am all wrong or if my question makes no sense; I’m just curious and trying to learn.

Obviously I’m not talking about copyright at all here.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by plague311

It's the exact same security as your bank account, social security number (if you're US based), and so on. You can make it more or less secure, but it's all on the person that has it.

But the contents of my bank account are not only insured, but the very definition of "fungible." My social security number could be stolen, and credit cards, and so on, but there are remedies in place for this, provided, it seems, by the very agencies that the crypto world eschews.

As I said, I think robbery is robbery, and insofar as someone believes an NFT has value, its value can be stolen, and doing so should be regarded like any theft. But unlike other things, it seems, one cannot secure them oneself. My art can be stolen, but I can insure it and put alarms on my doors and whatnot. And I can also own it secretly if I so desire. But I cannot, it seems, do anything for something that exists on the blockchain, except to trust whatever security is inherent in it.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but for a given piece of digital art, even if an NFT already exists in one crypto blockchain, can’t you still mint it on a different blockchain?

Like. If I make an NFT of my art on ETH, can’t someone else mint it on dogecoin or whatever?

Apologies if I am all wrong or if my question makes no sense; I’m just curious and trying to learn.

Obviously I’m not talking about copyright at all here.

Maybe? That's a good question. Most of the NFT's I own are directly related to a game. So if I minted them on another blockchain they'd be completely useless to me as the game doesn't run on that blockchain. I don't do much freestyle minting as most of the minting I've done is through the game creator themselves.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

Maybe? That's a good question. Most of the NFT's I own are directly related to a game. So if I minted them on another blockchain they'd be completely useless to me as the game doesn't run on that blockchain. I don't do much freestyle minting as most of the minting I've done is through the game creator themselves.

Does the crytpo element of the game add anything (besides huge external environmental costs, I assume) that couldn't be accomplished through non-crypto means? Video games have long since figured out how to handle loot chests and player skins, though these are increasingly facing regulatory scrutiny as being little more than gambling marketed to children.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by plague311

Maybe? That's a good question. Most of the NFT's I own are directly related to a game. So if I minted them on another blockchain they'd be completely useless to me as the game doesn't run on that blockchain. I don't do much freestyle minting as most of the minting I've done is through the game creator themselves.

I think that the game scenario that you describe is a functional universe for NFT that I can understand. Everyone is playing in the same NFT / crypto-currency sandbox there.

I'm more interested in the digital art NFTs, like independent artists' work.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by bruto

But the contents of my bank account are not only insured, but the very definition of "fungible." My social security number could be stolen, and credit cards, and so on, but there are remedies in place for this, provided, it seems, by the very agencies that the crypto world eschews.

There are remedies for recovering your crypto account too. Account secret passphrases that are given to you when you sign for a "wallet". Much like recovering any account.

If you're looking for me to say that NFTs and bank accounts have the same level of insurance, then I can't. They don't, they aren't designed to by their nature.

Do they have the same level of security? Yeah, absolutely. Two form authentication combined with passphrases is one of the more secure methods you can use.

Originally Posted by bruto

But unlike other things, it seems, one cannot secure them oneself.

Yes, you absolutely can. You can also be scammed out of them, just like you can with your bank account if you fall for one of the "prince of Nigeria" lottery scams. All of these people getting their **** stolen have fallen for some form of scam. It sucks, but it happens everywhere. Just like with your bank account, you probably aren't getting that money back and your bank is probably not going to give you anything for it. You did it voluntarily.

Originally Posted by bruto

My art can be stolen, but I can insure it and put alarms on my doors and whatnot.

Which is basically what 2FA, complex passwords, and being extremely skeptical of anyone that asks you about your NFTs is equivalent to, sans the insurance obviously. I'm absolutely positive that at some point NFTs will be insured.

Originally Posted by bruto

And I can also own it secretly if I so desire. But I cannot, it seems, do anything for something that exists on the blockchain, except to trust whatever security is inherent in it.

Yeah, not much to argue with here, but again, it's like a bank account in that you can't add your own security to it either. Same with 401ks, the stock market, etc. Just be diligent and don't fall for scams.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Does the crytpo element of the game add anything (besides huge external environmental costs, I assume) that couldn't be accomplished through non-crypto means?

You keep bitching about the environmental costs without actually addressing what these other industries environmental impact is, why is that? What do you think the environmental impact of ******* video games is, globally? More or less than crypto? Discarded TVs, hard drives, consoles, remote controls, etc. If you're going to complain about it, at least make it relative to the industry your cheerleading for.

Now, does crypto "add" anything? I don't know. A way to pay for the game, a platform for it to exist on, and the like. I play all forms of video games, and the ones on the blockchain aren't much different.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Video games have long since figured out how to handle loot chests and player skins, though these are increasingly facing regulatory scrutiny as being little more than gambling marketed to children.

Ok.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

Yeah, not much to argue with here, but again, it's like a bank account in that you can't add your own security to it either. Same with 401ks, the stock market, etc. Just be diligent and don't fall for scams.

Wall street is full of scams, sure. It's a constant arms race between scammers and regulators and there's always new scams that manage to run until regulators catch up.

The difference is that these crypto markets there is no arms race, it's a total surrender to financial fraudsters. Caveat Emptor is the only rule. Wash trading is happening in plain sight, obvious ponzi schemes and pump and dumps happen with no meaningful recourse. Rug pulls are common for upstart NFTs. Blatant copyright infringement is common.

It seems like every other day you read about some super valuable NFT that turns out to just have been a wash trade meant to trick some rube into paying too much for some crappy pixel art.

Quote:

NFT “Sells” for Over $500 Million Back to Original Owner in Apparent “WASH,” Potentially Heightening Securities Concerns in This Emerging Market

https://www.winston.com/en/the-playb...ng-market.html

This kind of **** is straight up not possible on Wall Street, because this kind of securities manipulaton is 100% illegal. Every classic scam that has been killed by regulators in decades past is being resurrected to live anew on the blockchain.

It's the totally unregulated market realized, and fraudsters realize that stealing is much easier and more profitable than actually generating something of real value.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I think that the game scenario that you describe is a functional universe for NFT that I can understand. Everyone is playing in the same NFT / crypto-currency sandbox there.

I'm more interested in the digital art NFTs, like independent artists' work.

In essence I'm sure you could mimic the art on a different blockchain, as I said I don't do a lot of freestyle minting. On any blockchain you'd be able to see who created and minted the NFT. I'm not 100% sure if that helps at all.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Wall street is full of scams, sure. It's a constant arms race between scammers and regulators and there's always new scams that manage to run until regulators catch up.

The difference is that these crypto markets there is no arms race, it's a total surrender to financial fraudsters. Caveat Emptor is the only rule. Wash trading is happening in plain sight, obvious ponzi schemes and pump and dumps happen with no meaningful recourse. Rug pulls are common for upstart NFTs. Blatant copyright infringement is common.

It's the totally unregulated market realized, and fraudsters realize that stealing is much easier and more profitable than actually generating something of real value.

So you're saying you're not a fan of it then?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

So you're saying you're not a fan of it then?

Generally I find scams a bit unsavory. Likewise fraud. Maybe it's a Skeptics thing, but when I see a bunch of rubes running to buy worthless trash for thousands of dollars, alarm lights go on.

So long as it's just crypto rubes gettng fleeced, it's pretty funny. But the promise of easy money and huge returns has a nasty habit of snowballing into a problem that can't be ignored. If enough wealth gets plowed into these scams, the crash will have broad impacts.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying I'm cashing out my 401k to buy Melania NFTs, a guaranteed winner.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Generally I find scams a bit unsavory.

So long as it's just crypto rubes gettng fleeced, it's pretty funny. But the promise of easy money and huge returns has a nasty habit of snowballing into a problem that can't be ignored. If enough wealth gets plowed into these scams, the crash will have broad impacts.

Duly noted. Thank you.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by plague311

There are remedies for recovering your crypto account too. Account secret passphrases that are given to you when you sign for a "wallet". Much like recovering any account.

If you're looking for me to say that NFTs and bank accounts have the same level of insurance, then I can't. They don't, they aren't designed to by their nature.

Do they have the same level of security? Yeah, absolutely. Two form authentication combined with passphrases is one of the more secure methods you can use.



Yes, you absolutely can. You can also be scammed out of them, just like you can with your bank account if you fall for one of the "prince of Nigeria" lottery scams. All of these people getting their **** stolen have fallen for some form of scam. It sucks, but it happens everywhere. Just like with your bank account, you probably aren't getting that money back and your bank is probably not going to give you anything for it. You did it voluntarily.



Which is basically what 2FA, complex passwords, and being extremely skeptical of anyone that asks you about your NFTs is equivalent to, sans the insurance obviously. I'm absolutely positive that at some point NFTs will be insured.



Yeah, not much to argue with here, but again, it's like a bank account in that you can't add your own security to it either. Same with 401ks, the stock market, etc. Just be diligent and don't fall for scams.

That said, then, how was the hack complained about done, and what has been done to remedy it and to prevent it happening again?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by bruto

That said, then, how was the hack complained about done,

I'm not sure what "hack" you're referring to, but I might have missed a link to something. Phishing or social engineering != hacking. Hacking would be if you got into the source (opensea.io for example) but it's much more easy to target the person. Commonly these happen on discord through DM's, etc.

Originally Posted by bruto

and what has been done to remedy it and to prevent it happening again?

By the people who make, sell or give a platform to NFTs? Standard stuff, probably. I'll again use the example of a bank. They'll send out emails telling people to be diligent, to not give out info or respond to DMs. Discord channels for places like Arcade NFT, Zed Run, and Steppes will fairly consistently tag @everyone in their channel and remind them not to give out passwords, secret phrases, etc. The same as any bank or account holder. There's nothing that can be done by the institution when the individual gives out their information willingly. There's no regulation, there's no oversight, there's no government committee, there's nothing that can\will stop that. Ever. Anywhere. For anything.

[bruto]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I was under the impression that the victim of the "ape" theft crime claimed he was hacked. I don't know either what that means in this case, but it seems that a theft occurred which should not have.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by bruto

I don't remember where I saw it, but I was under the impression that the victim of the "ape" theft crime claimed he was hacked. I don't know either what that means in this case, but it seems that a theft occurred which should not have.

Not trying to be a dick but everyone that falls for a scam says they've been hacked. It's like...universal lingo for "I did something stupid".

Maybe it is possible he got hacked, but it would be odd that if the thieves possessed the ability to hack into his account I feel they'd go after a bigger fish. Being able to actually hack an NFT account is extremely complicated because, again, you'd have to hit the source. My guess is the guy downloaded a keylogger, or some malware that caused someone to track his passwords.

Like I said, hacking is very complex and requires a lot of knowledge. Getting some dumbass to give out his info because he wants to see what Bob's Burgers character he is on Facebook is much easier.

[carlitos]

This is actually the second bored ape NFT "hack," I think. NFT hack sees collector lose $2.2 million of ‘Bored Ape’ pictures

Quote:

An NFT collector had $2.2 million worth of ape images stolen by hackers.

“I been hacked. All my apes gone. this just sold please help me”, collector Todd Kramer, in a now-deleted post, tweeted on 29 December.

ETA - Hack vs. not-a-hack:

Quote:

The Bored Ape Yacht Club, the specific brand of image stolen, are cartoons of algorithmically-generated primates. Rapper Eminem recently spent £334,000 for a digital receipt of an ape that resembled himself.

Mr Kramer reportedly clicked on a phishing link purporting to be linked an app, which led to the theft of the NFTs.

In response, OpenSea reportedly froze the NFTs after the hackers put them back up to sale. This led to criticism from some crypto supporters.

“Who was able to freeze the nfts? Feels pretty anti crypto to be asking third parties to do this and ideally they shouldn’t be able to”, one user wrote in a reply to Mr Kramer’s deleted tweet.

...

Back in November:

Originally Posted by vice news

Hackers tricked a man who was selling three NFT images of apes into giving them up for free on Saturday, according to the man, who claimed that the stolen NFTs were worth "over a million dollars."

NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, are receipts of ownership over digital items like a JPEG that are posted to a blockchain. Investor Calvin Becerra wrote on Twitter that his NFTs linked to three images from the luxe-tier Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) collection “were hacked” on that day. The floor price for a BAYC NFT on OpenSea is currently 34 ETH, or around $136,000.

EEEETTTTTAAAAA - forgot to quote the best line from another NFT fan: Looks like poor ApeSec to me.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by carlitos

This is actually the second bored ape NFT "hack," I think. NFT hack sees collector lose $2.2 million of ‘Bored Ape’ pictures



Back in November:

Those aren't hacks, that's social engineering. As I mentioned, people claim they've been hacked when they do stupid **** all of the time. It's not new.

ETA: Per the first article:

Quote:

Mr Kramer reportedly clicked on a phishing link purporting to be linked an app, which led to the theft of the NFTs.

Don't click on links. A great lesson to learn, and per the second article. It happened exactly the way I said in an earlier post, through discord DMs:

Quote:

Becerra said that the alleged hackers posed as interested buyers in a Discord channel and pretended to help him fix a problem with his cryptocurrency wallet, and then deceived him into choosing “an option and took everything.”

So, again, there is no security for human stupidity.

[Olmstead]

Fortunately, the victims still possess the images, so they can continue to appreciate them and enrich their lives through art.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Fortunately, the victims still possess the images, so they can continue to appreciate them and enrich their lives through art.

Opensea froze the NFTs, per the article. Do you guys **** on people that have been scammed through regular fraud too? Or it just because of your undying hatred for NTFs and crypto? Lol

Either way, it's precious.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by plague311

Those aren't hacks, that's social engineering.

A very tech-savvy person like you might not call phishing or email fraud "hacking," but most of the public would use that term. No one tends to say "Some guy in Ukraine social engineered my debit card number."

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Fortunately, the victims still possess the images, so they can continue to appreciate them and enrich their lives through art.

Originally Posted by plague311

Opensea froze the NFTs, per the article.

I think that you missed the joke there. The actual pieces of art - the images - persist and are there to be enjoyed, whether or not the NFT is stolen, hacked, or frozen.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by plague311

Opensea froze the NFTs, per the article. Do you guys **** on people that have been scammed through regular fraud too? Or it just because of your undying hatred for NTFs and crypto? Lol

Either way, it's precious.

Are you telling me that people who buy an NFT don't even get a copy of the digital image to save locally? Please tell me that's not true.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

Opensea froze the NFTs, per the article. Do you guys **** on people that have been scammed through regular fraud too? Or it just because of your undying hatred for NTFs and crypto? Lol



Either way, it's precious.

Probably because these crypto commodities are explicitly marketed as decentralized and free of pesky regulation.

The Blockchain works fine. The guys who stole his nfts are the real owners now, the decentralized ledger says so.

[BowlOfRed]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Are you telling me that people who buy an NFT don't even get a copy of the digital image to save locally? Please tell me that's not true.

It's however it is done. There's no standard.

But yes there have been cases where the NFT was associated with access to a website that went down later. So the purchaser did not have access any longer. Whether they were allowed to download a copy (or were encouraged to) prior to the site issue was not detailed in the article. There's nothing about an NFT (or the current NFT ecosystem) that would guarantee it either way.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Probably because these crypto commodities are explicitly marketed as decentralized and free of pesky regulation.

The Blockchain works fine. The guys who stole his nfts are the real owners now, the decentralized ledger says so.

No, they're not. That's what "froze the NFTs" means, literally.

I've done my best to be patient and explain some of the misconceptions here. As I stated before though, it will make no difference. You guys aren't changing my mind, and hell will freeze over before any of you change yours.

I'll leave this thread to be the circle of NFT and crypto hate that you guys want need it to be. Hopefully I was able to answer at least a few legitimate questions. Hopefully I'll stick to it this time instead of getting sucked back in.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

No, they're not. That's what "froze the NFTs" means, literally.

I've done my best to be patient and explain some of the misconceptions here. As I stated before though, it will make no difference. You guys aren't changing my mind, and hell will freeze over before any of you change yours.

I'll leave this thread to be the circle of NFT and crypto hate that you guys want need it to be. Hopefully I was able to answer at least a few legitimate questions. Hopefully I'll stick to it this time instead of getting sucked back in.

Is it? Seems to me the new owners (aka the thieves) can't sell it on opensea because they've been "frozen". What's to stop them from selling it elsewhere or just holding onto their new property indefinitely?

They own it, it's theirs. The Blockchain confirms that, no matter what opensea says

[carlitos]

This is interesting

Quote:

A former 90 Day Fiance star who made a staggering £38,000 a week from selling her farts in a jar, has revealed she was rushed to hospital.

Stephanie Matto recently shed light on her unusual stream of income, explaining how she utilised her 260k-strong following as her customer base to sell her pungent product, which retailed at a princely $1k (£756) a jar.

...

Her clients will no longer be able to own the physical jar of Stephanie’s gas, but they will be able to purchase them as digital artworks on the blockchain.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by plague311

Those aren't hacks, that's social engineering. As I mentioned, people claim they've been hacked when they do stupid **** all of the time. It's not new.

ETA: Per the first article:



Don't click on links. A great lesson to learn, and per the second article. It happened exactly the way I said in an earlier post, through discord DMs:



So, again, there is no security for human stupidity.

Correction noted. Looks like scams to me.

[Marras]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Are you telling me that people who buy an NFT don't even get a copy of the digital image to save locally? Please tell me that's not true.

In practice, the payload of an NFT is a web link. That is what you get when you buy an NFT: a web link that points to something.

Points to where? Well, somewhere. Possibly to a computer-generated image of an ape. Or to nothing, if whoever runs the server where it points to takes the link down. At that point you own a dead link that's in the blockchain. But you own it.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by Marras

In practice, the payload of an NFT is a web link. That is what you get when you buy an NFT: a web link that points to something.

Points to where? Well, somewhere. Possibly to a computer-generated image of an ape. Or to nothing, if whoever runs the server where it points to takes the link down. At that point you own a dead link that's in the blockchain. But you own it.

That's indeed serious issue. Not that the link dies. But that the context is changed. That makes non-fungible quite fungible.
Unless there is some form of hash in the link.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Marras

In practice, the payload of an NFT is a web link. That is what you get when you buy an NFT: a web link that points to something.

Points to where? Well, somewhere. Possibly to a computer-generated image of an ape. Or to nothing, if whoever runs the server where it points to takes the link down. At that point you own a dead link that's in the blockchain. But you own it.

Yes, and in the numerous cases where the original seller did not actually own the image, a DMCA takedown notice from the real copyright owners results in dead links.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Marras

In practice, the payload of an NFT is a web link. That is what you get when you buy an NFT: a web link that points to something.

Points to where? Well, somewhere. Possibly to a computer-generated image of an ape. Or to nothing, if whoever runs the server where it points to takes the link down. At that point you own a dead link that's in the blockchain. But you own it.

And here's me, willing to pay a little bit more for DRM free games. Turns out, I'm a sap. I should be paying a premium for a "service" that is "always online".

[xjx388]

https://fartjarsnft.com/

Make of this what you will…