All those NFT holders where the NFT resolved to a ipfs.io link in shambles

neoncontrails 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I know you jest, but both the IPFS contributors I knew in college graduated to become web3 degens working on decentralized file storage projects. Specifically Walrus, which grew out of Meta's Libra project.

▲

timcobb 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hahaha thanks for this. It's ok, the asset is the block chain entry duh

▲

0x457 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The checksum of the asset is on the blockchain. the asset is somewhere else.

▲

timcobb 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Hmm I thought the asset is the block chain entry because that's what you have the key to, that you can re-sell to someone else. It's like crypto, no?

	▲	uproarchat 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The asset is more akin to a deed or a claim. Most NFTs are images hosted on S3 or IPFS. The blockchain entry is metadata with a pointer to the hosted asset.

▲

bigbuppo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All my apes gone.

	▲	timcobb 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Gone but not forgotten

▲

yieldcrv 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

all the NFTs I launched actually were fully onchain SVGs and CSS

tried to be the change I wanted to see

given where the concept actually found staying power (liquidity pools, instead of collectibles) it wholly needs a new name

“NFT” is distracting at this point, they should just called them 721-structs so people don’t get distracted by the fumbled poorly implemented art use case

▲

jMyles 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, when we do NFT ticketing these days, we just say, "have your 1155 ready" with a link to explain what that means.

I still think it's pretty obvious that on sufficiently long time-scales that some variant of NFTs will be the winner for event tickets.

▲

simonw 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What advantage does blockchain ticketing hold over a centralized database of tickets?

	▲	frollogaston 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Resale on third-party markets. Centralized is probably good enough for them though.
	▲	yieldcrv 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		despite the "non fungible" in the name, tickets in this format ironically adds fungibility that non-blockchain marketplaces decrease right now outside of the web3 space, all promotion companies release tickets in different ways. the ability to resell them is unknown, the quantity for sale is unknown and opaque, the service fees make no sense for the last 20 years, the ability to transfer them is unknown, and the ability to lose your money on an attempted resale transaction is absurdly high. in comparison, all NFTs in the blockchain space inherit solutions to all of those problems and all marketplaces are just UI's on top of data already there in a uniform way, alongside new problems that are mostly education based and won't be solved with a different user experience (akin to how debit and credit cards introduced new problems with automated teller machines many decades ago, that never were solved but didn't deter the concept) can a centralized marketplace and issuer that conforms solve all of it? of course, but that hasn't been the rubric for nearly a decade.... developing in the blockchain space isn't to attract non-blockchain users - at least for anything that actually earns revenue - its solving frictions for existing blockchain users because they are there, numerous and its lucrative it's a parallel economy that you either accept the existence of or you don't, there are a lot of people trying to act like it has merged with other economies or asking you to use a big stake of money on blockchain assets with the hope that it becomes a bigger stake of money if they did merge, but that's really a distraction that has little to do with what's already happened and functioning fine

▲

frollogaston 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not just use the IPFS hash?

▲

Macha 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This sounds like a smart idea. That's probably why the NFT hype train didn't do it.

	▲	frollogaston 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Looks like at least some of the valuable ones did though. The json payload is on ipfs, then the image url is ipfs://. Example: https://bafybeihpjhkeuiq3k6nqa3fkgeigeri7iebtrsuyuey5y6vy36n... (they stored an ipfs hash only, this link is just a random viewer pointed at it) Btw it's weirdly annoying to get the json payload for one of these

▲

api 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Finding out NFTs were just links, didn't even embed the asset, was such a moment for me... like either the people pushing this are complete fools or 100% conscious grifters who know it's total bullshit. I suspect it was a mix.

Insane.

I think a lot of the AI skepticism comes from the fact that the last major New Thing (tm) pushed by this industry was crypto. People are very, very burned by that.

That and how badly social media turned out, but that's a whole different discourse.

▲

Ekaros 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even more so when in most cases no one could explain any real type of ownership in terms of working in most existing legal frameworks.

What would I have owned exactly? What would have ownership entitled... All very reasonable question. Mostly entirely ignored or handwaved...

▲

frollogaston 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was common to store ipfs:// links to the assets, which is reasonable. Though some of them didn't.

▲

JuniperMesos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

An NFT doesn't have to be just a link; nothing in principle stops someone creating a NFT that stores the full bytes of some digital asset directly on the blockchain, just as nothing in principle stops someone from creating a NFT that doesn't do this (or equivalently, a NFT whose on-chain content is simply a text hyperlink to something). The Bitcoin Ordinals concept of Inscriptions (https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html), which is an attempt to build a NFT system for Bitcoin, does culturally encourage placing the bytes of a digital asset into the Bitcoin blockchain, and the tooling around it assumes this model; but again nothing prevents someone from creating an Inscription whose contents are simply a link to something else.

And of course there's no reason why a NFT has to be used to represent ownership of some kind of digital art - there are other uses for NFTs, such as modeling transferable network permissions or resources.

Ultimately NFTs are a just a specific application of blockchain technology, to represent some kind of resource on a blockchain which could in principle be digital art. If people care about ownership of NFTs representing digital art, that's a social fact about what kinds of art there is market demand for; and whether it matters that the bytes of the digital art are on a blockchain or linked from somewhere else (where they could get taken down or bitrot) is also a social fact.

I actually agree that treating NFTs that merely contain a link to some bytes elsewhere that worked at one point in time is a pretty dumb thing to care about, or have a market for (and the use cases for NFTs where the bytes are actually on-chain are, at best, fairly limited, although I wouldn't say completely nonexistent). And certainly the NFT market of 2021 or so, which had a lot of such NFTs, was driven by a weird social mania and people attempting to grift upon that social mania. This has never bothered me though, because I feel the same way about many markets for physical pieces of art; and ultimately it needs to be possible for people to create markets for things I personally think are dumb or at least don't care about.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	zamadatix 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't think they were saying they found out all NFTs must only be links, just they found out the NFTs being peddled usually were. As you say, bytes are bytes regardless what they represent - it's just a lot easier to grift something like a 32 byte hash or a link on a chain because storing all those bytes in the blockchain would have been a damned expensive way to run a grift. There is a difference between markets for things I don't care about and markets for things I do care a lot about, just not in a positive way. I don't think it's necessary to allow an open market exchange for phone scammers, for example, and it has nothing to do with how uninterested I am in buying people's information. Not all NFT had to fall towards that kind of thing, it's just there was so little practical usage actually being done that 99% of it ended up being that way.

▲

grebc 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Crypto / AI, it’s the same people. Same grift for other people’s money in the form of equity.