[HN Gopher] At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good...
___________________________________________________________________
At the Bored Ape restaurant, your ApeCoin is no good now
Author : quantified
Score : 141 points
Date : 2022-06-24 20:27 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| phabricator wrote:
| What are the numbers here?
|
| This was intended as a 90-day pop-up, and they reported there
| were few crypto transactions even before the crash. ApeCoin
| already wasn't a huge part of this.
|
| The entrepreneur plans another restaurant and is already selling
| NFTs for it. Their involvement with Yuga Labs was minimal. Bun B
| paid for the burgers.
|
| Is it possible the entrepreneur still turned a healthy profit? Or
| that was killed in the crash?
| wnevets wrote:
| Like the old saying goes if you don't know who the sucker is at
| the table, you're it
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The "am I a joke to you?" Meme can commence on ape owners?
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| If Nguyen really believes in ETH and APE wouldn't he want to pull
| in more of it when its down?
|
| Obviously he needs cash flow to run the business but most are not
| paying with crypto. I'm reading this as Nguyen lost faith in
| crypto.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| One thing maybe missing from the many good comments here is a
| separation of digital currencies from crypto coins.
|
| We would do well to start separating the mechanism that stores
| value from the mechanism of exchange.
|
| That's why I think something like GNU Taler backed by ordinary
| dollars is a much better way for selling burgers and pizza in any
| foreseeable time-frame.
| labrador wrote:
| Crypto, web3 and NFTs are social movements. They are the crowd
| that knows things. As the hippies used to say about LSD and
| counterculture, "You're either on the bus, or off the bus."
|
| Crypto, web3 and NFTs are spiritual tech that is throwing off the
| shackles of corporate control and making a new society. It's an
| identity. It's a brand. It's a community. If I was in my 30's I'd
| probably be into it. I would know damn well there was a lot of
| hype, but so what, it's fun and maybe something amazing will come
| out of it. Meantime, it's a party, and we can all take turns at
| the mic making deep pronouncements about how we're empowering the
| forgotten poor of the world. What's not to like? Who cares if we
| lose money. It's the price of entry to the party.
|
| Edit: This isn't what I believe. This is me trying to see it
| through the eyes of a young enthusiast
| soared wrote:
| Yeah, it's koolaid flavored like money with an anti
| establishment label on it.
| heyitsguay wrote:
| Yeah but the hippie movement was about realizing the untapped
| potential for social freedoms locked away behind a repressive
| and outdated society. (Before it burned out and dissipated)
|
| Crypto is about shallowly co-opting the patterns of discourse
| of genuine social movements to try and get rich quickly.
| labrador wrote:
| I agree with you. I was just trying to see it through the
| eyes of a young enthusiast
| threeseed wrote:
| > throwing off the shackles of corporate control
|
| The entire crypto industry is built on the back of VC money.
|
| And I fail to see how Opensea is not the epitome of corporate
| control when it has ~80% market share in the NFT marketplace
| space.
| branon wrote:
| https://archive.ph/gHyY7
| walrus01 wrote:
| How many really tiny violins can I buy with one apecoin?
| kobalsky wrote:
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Fewer than you could last week.
| choward wrote:
| > Perhaps that was what Nguyen was thinking when he spent more
| than $330,000 on the various ape NFTs on display at his
| restaurant.
|
| Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that
| much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an
| arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.
| adrr wrote:
| How do NFTs work with copyright laws? Does owning an NFT grant
| you rights and how does that work with copyright law?
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| The short answers are: they don't, no, and it doesn't. Some
| NFTs do have a separate legal document saying you get a
| copyright license (or maybe even the copyright) if you "own"
| the NFT, but this is not required, and is entirely separate
| from the NFT. The author could very easily mint multiple NFTs
| of the same thing or just sell more licenses of the same
| thing on the side; if you look into the fine print of any NFT
| marketplace they will say straight out that you are not
| actually getting any exclusive ownership of anything unless
| the seller explicitly says so in separate legal terms. And
| even then, it usually is on the buyer to do any due diligence
| to make sure that the copyright actually belongs to them and
| the artwork isn't ripped off.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| No, it does not because the NFT is a receipt. You are
| literally buying a receipt for your purchase of... a receipt.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I remember when my nine year old commented on the YouTuber
| "What's inside" guy trading a Tesla for some NFT - "dad, that's
| really dumb"
| raylad wrote:
| That actually doesn't apply to Bored Apes.
|
| With those NFTs you get copyright ownership of the image.
| Bjartr wrote:
| It's more complicated than that.
|
| > The Bored Ape Yacht Club terms of service grant a
| commercial license to exploit the copyright of each Bored Ape
| to the owner of the relevant NFT.
|
| So the holder of a Bored Ape NFT has a license to
| commercially use the off-chain image associated with the NFT
| by way of an on-chain URL. That license is granted by the
| actual copyright holders of all of the Bored Apes.
| vba616 wrote:
| Yes, of course.
|
| Just like you can create anything, and license it as you
| wish, and keep a list of authorized licensees on
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape.
|
| The NFTs are better because...
| lupire wrote:
| NFT provides a decentralized way to transfer the
| ownership in a globally visible way.
|
| Look, I hate cryptoc, but this is about the one thing in
| the whole world that NFT is actually good for.
| sydd wrote:
| Ownership of what? A random SHA string? Or the data in
| the NFT? Which has some laughably small size (a few KBs)
| vba616 wrote:
| How is it decentralized?
|
| Perhaps people use the word differently.
|
| I don't understand the word "decentralized" to mean "not
| occupying a specific physical location".
|
| To me it means more like "having many independent parts"
| or "not having a single point of failure".
|
| For example, land titles in the US, I believe, are
| decentralized. There is not one single national/federal
| list of who owns what.
|
| But having a blockchain is like having that list. I don't
| know if that is "centralized" in an absolute, yes/no way,
| but it seems _more_ centralized.
| Gigachad wrote:
| And this is important because? It doesn't need to be
| globally visible. If I sell you ownership, I can do that
| via email or a piece of paper. And then when it's
| disputed you can bring up the email and transaction
| receipt.
|
| And it doesn't even require an entire countries worth of
| electricity to do it.
| addicted wrote:
| Even if that's the case, does anyone think procedurally
| generated computer art of Bored Apes would be worth even a
| fraction of a few dollars if it wasn't for crypto marketing
| making people believe they can sell it for much more? In
| other words, the only value these things have is the belief
| that a bigger sucker will come around who will pay even more
| for it.
|
| And has it actually been copyrighted with the USPTO and the
| various copy protection agencies across the world? Because if
| not, then who will actually enforce it and what legal backing
| does that copyright have?
|
| And if it has been copyrighted, then what value does putting
| it on a blockchain add when the copyright enforcement is
| being maintained by the same entities that would have done it
| if it was on Shutterstock?
| lupire wrote:
| For BAYC and some others, it's not just the art, but also
| membership in a club that gets various privileges.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Speculation is one thing, and I think it is what drives the
| costs to such ridiculous extremes.
|
| However, I don't think it explains all of the value.
|
| First is the art itself, probably not worth much
| considering that it is rather generic and partly generated
| art, but some people may actually like it.
|
| Then there is the idea of being part of something big. Some
| people think that NFTs are revolutionary, that in the
| future, this is what will represent property, more than a
| paper in some administrative office. Owning a NFT now is
| like owning a piece of history.
|
| And there is also this idea that many collectors share that
| if it is rare and unique, it is worth having, and apes are
| rare and unique.
|
| I know some collectors who spend thousands on collectable
| items, like video game cartridges or trading cards with no
| intention to ever sell them back. It is their treasure, it
| represents a lot of dedication and effort, they may have
| memories attached to it. It may sound stupid to outsiders
| but it is important.
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| I would have no problem with NFTs if they were simply
| billed as a useless "collectible" thing sitting in an
| account that you can use as an excuse to show off how you
| donated to an artist. But from that perspective, you
| don't need blockchains or smart contracts; the only thing
| needed is a donations platform like Patreon. The
| ridiculous nonsense about how NFTs are going to be "rare
| unique property" and "an investment" is a pure grift. It
| is shameful to see artists repeating those lies just to
| make a dollar. You are getting nothing from them. At
| least with trading cards you technically do get a picture
| you can look at, and maybe you could use them for
| enjoyment to play a game. With NFTs you are literally
| getting nothing. They are designed to seize the minds of
| people who have that "collector" personality and take
| advantage of them.
| axlee wrote:
| So...from the government? Great work at decentralizing.
| pueblito wrote:
| No, with copyright law you get ownership, the nft is just a
| public receipt
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The copyright holder is free to write up a license that
| says the current holder of the NFT may use it as if they
| hold the copyright, though. Many NFTs don't, but it's
| possible.
| knorker wrote:
| But nothing guarantees that the seller of the NFT, the
| current holder of the NFT, is also the current copyright
| holder.
|
| It's basically completely disconnected, so while the
| transfers may traditionally be done at the same time
| between the same entities, that's not a contract. The NFT
| just gives you a Blockchain url. If you didn't sign
| anything else then you got nothing else.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Remember the case of the crypto guys who bought a physical
| copy of Dune worth $40,000 for $3 million and thought that
| gave them the rights to make an animated series out of it?
| Good times. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38
| 815538/dune-c...
| remram wrote:
| You get copyright on a software-generated image? What's the
| point?
| jameshart wrote:
| Good point - the individual ape may not even be a
| copyrightable image.
| teekert wrote:
| This has nothing to do with copyright. You own a piece of
| the blockchain, sad thing is that thing is not even an
| image or anything, its a url, and its target can change.
| It's like a collective delusion.
|
| This emperor has no clothes, but still mant people choose
| to believe.
| Gigachad wrote:
| No one ever believed. Other than crypto tech bros on HN
| shilling it all day. Take a look at what the general
| public thinks. They saw it as a scam on day one, and
| continued to see it as a scam which is why all the
| consumer product companies failed to have their NFT
| products take off.
| neilalexander wrote:
| In many NFTs, the content itself is not covered by a hash
| (although the URL pointing to it is) so it would be
| incredibly difficult to prove that "ownership" in any case?
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| Would be more fun to ddos the hosting, or buy the domain
| rejor121 wrote:
| Would that hold in a court of law?
| jameshart wrote:
| Are you sure?
|
| Certainly the _first_ person to buy a bored ape from BAYC,
| they definitely entered into a legal contract with BAYC that
| granted them a copyright license.
|
| But if you bought a Bored Ape NFT from someone else, did the
| sale contract you made with them definitely include another
| copyright license transfer? Or did you just buy an NFT?
|
| What if the previous owner of your Bored Ape, while they held
| the copyright, took it upon themselves to separately sell the
| copyright to someone else, so by the time you bought the NFT,
| they didn't even have the copyright any more?
|
| What if the previous owner of the Ape, as its copyright
| holder, and perhaps unknown to you, chose to release it to
| the public domain?
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| I don't think they're transferring the copyright but
| granting IP and commercial rights to the NFT holder. As
| many of the other commenters are pointing out, this isn't
| the typical way NFT's work but some are like this. Just
| like some NFT's don't point to a url but either are stored
| on chain (cryptopunks) or via content-based addressing
| (IPFS hash).
|
| https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005470/en/Yu
| g...
| jameshart wrote:
| The problem is when you buy a second hand bored ape, you
| don't have any direct contract with BAYC.
|
| They might be able to enforce terms of their original
| contract on the first party buyer - 'once you sell the
| ape you no longer have this license'. But they have no
| contractual relationship (no 'privity') with you.
|
| Perhaps possession of the ape entitled you to go to BAYC
| and get a license contract?
|
| That's great, so long as BAYC 1) continues to honor that
| agreement (and since you have no contract with them to
| begin with there's nothing obliging them to do so) and 2)
| continues to _exist_. If they go under and their
| copyright in their apes gets auctioned off, good luck
| finding whoever acquired your ape and persuading them
| that since you own a hash in a blockchain they really
| have to grant you a license to use that ape.
| lupire wrote:
| No, BAYC license terms say that whoever owns the NFT has
| the commercialization rights.
|
| Now, all you have to legally is prove that you own the
| NFT, because theft and computer hacking aren't a legally
| accepted way to transfer ownership.
| jameshart wrote:
| _so long as BAYC continue to honor that agreement_.
|
| And as an owner of a second hand ape you have no legal
| recourse if they (or their successors, or their receivers
| during their bankruptcy) decide they no longer want to.
| gus_massa wrote:
| But they don't transfer the copyright! From
| https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms
|
| > _ii. Personal Use. Subject to your continued compliance
| with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you a worldwide,
| royalty-free license to use, copy, and display the
| purchased Art, along with any extensions that you choose to
| create or use, solely forthe following purposes: (i) for
| your own personal, non-commercial use; (ii) as part of a
| marketplace that permits the purchase and sale of your
| Bored Ape / NFT_ [...]
|
| > _iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued
| compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an
| unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the
| purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works
| based upon the Art ("Commercial Use"). Examples of such
| Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce
| and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying
| copies of the Art._ [...]
| Uptrenda wrote:
| It works fine with actual art but I've yet to see an NFT
| comparable to say: the Mona Lisa. When I got into the
| blockchain space ~9 years ago I would have never imagined years
| later people would be going crazy over pictures of jpegs.
| People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL
| oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all
| about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.
| hkgjjgjfjfjfjf wrote:
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| >People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL
| oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all
| about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.
|
| It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any
| of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. If you try
| to build any of those things on top of a blockchain you will
| realize quickly that blockchains are bad solution. The only
| purpose of them is to pump up the value of a casino token
| which is then used to pay a tax to the operators of the
| network. It's no surprise that after this nonsense you're
| only left with irrational actors.
|
| And that is only for the average user; for the whales, the
| purpose of them appears to be mainly profiting off of massive
| amounts of fraud and criminal activity while maintaining the
| plausible deniability of being able to say "technically we
| don't control the blockchain so we're not responsible".
| colinsane wrote:
| > It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do
| any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way.
|
| today we have both of the things which GP mentions as being
| under development 9 years ago, so this part is seemingly
| false.
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| No, what you're leaving out is that they work just fine
| without blockchains. The addition of blockchains just
| makes them worse.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| is that because physical paints can't be immediately copied
| like a sequence of bits can?
| yawnxyz wrote:
| but you can order a print of the Mona Lisa very easily for
| like $15
| cratermoon wrote:
| The loss of fidelity between the physical original and a
| $15 print is comparable to 10,000 generations of jpg
| decoding and re-encoding.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| The original you see today isn't the original that would
| have been seen immediately after it was painted.
|
| Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find
| yourself in the Louvre, look at what's hung on the
| opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| (totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)
| spapas82 wrote:
| In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://ww
| w.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...
| iamacyborg wrote:
| There's a very good book written about it's history which
| was published recently.
|
| https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-
| theft-...
| [deleted]
| Uptrenda wrote:
| I think its more because only the greatest artworks have
| ended up being curated. I'm sure if NFT art were as old as
| physical art there would be more to choose from. I want to
| also say that in my view I don't believe an NFT has value
| by itself unless its being used somewhere that people like.
| For example: a skin in a (popular) game. Otherwise it
| really is just a file sitting on a computer. It ought to
| have an impact somewhere and there ought to be at least
| some backing promise that such an impact will stay.
|
| I really do think digital property has value but only when
| you do it right.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| No, or at least not entirely. Even if I was to
| (theoretically) copy the Mona Lisa so perfectly that no
| existing technology could tell the difference, the original
| would still be worth more than my copy.
| abxytg wrote:
| It's not hard.
|
| "Surely this will appreciate, I am a genius"
| pwillia7 wrote:
| It's FOMO because they knew people that bought at something
| you would feel is ridiculous and sold for 40x or whatever and
| so they convince themselves the same thing will happen. I
| think this is less crazy than the first round of buyers after
| the initial pop.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Are we sure that those weren't wash trades?
| jboggan wrote:
| Reminds me of a time that I played a Bitcoin poker game at some
| Google VP's place up in the hills with Charlie Lee and a few
| other early crypto luminaries in 2014. It took us over an hour to
| figure out sending BTC to the "buy-in" pot because most of us had
| 2FA enabled on our Coinbase accounts and the cell reception was
| so bad at that we couldn't get our confirmation texts. We ended
| up writing IOUs on a sheet of paper.
|
| I thought, "if the people in the vanguard of this movement can't
| figure this out, maybe it isn't all that it's cracked up to be".
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Coinbase isn't the movement
| dubswithus wrote:
| Google VP doesn't have decent Wifi?
| lupire wrote:
| In 2014 it was hard to give out the wifi password, I guess.
| InitialBP wrote:
| Wifi access does not universally mean the ability to
| receive texts, it can depend on your particular device and
| mobile carrier.
| 0des wrote:
| Wait how do I do text over wifi?
| derekp7 wrote:
| I believe Google Voice can do text directly from the app,
| no cell service required (just an internet connection).
| And my phone service has been able to do LTE over WIFI
| for a number of years.
| 0des wrote:
| Ah my phone doesn't have apps, that makes sense though.
| tschwimmer wrote:
| Perhaps it was SMS 2fac, which is additionally funny because
| luminaries should know it's the vastly inferior choice. In
| fact, it must be because I don't think authenticator apps
| generally need an internet connection.
| lupire wrote:
| I'd like to hear more stories of the antics of these
| "luminaries".
| deadbunny wrote:
| "crypto luminaries" using Coinbase...
| elif wrote:
| the first man to ever build and sell a car, recounting his
| critics in the transportation industry: "There's nothing the
| matter with me. It's you! You're crazy if you think this fool
| contraption you've been wasting your time on will ever displace
| the horse."
| arcticbull wrote:
| Do you have a citation for that?
| 3a2d29 wrote:
| Ahh the classic "people were wrong once about a technology,
| therefore all potential technologies are good."
|
| So if I found a quote about someone saying nuclear energy
| would power cars...would that disprove crypto? I guess so
| outworlder wrote:
| The contraption actually had some utility.
| bhtru wrote:
| That's more on simply poor cell service if anything at all
| though no?
|
| The tech even then seemingly worked for you then. Your
| anecdotal is comparable to saying students at a college not
| being able to add one another on Facebook in it's early days,
| because the campus Wi-Fi was on the fritz.
| blahblah123456 wrote:
| Yes, but in real life blame doesn't matter. What matters is
| the alternative (a hardwired credit card terminal or cash)
| would've worked, and this didn't.
| arcticfox wrote:
| I mean, if the wifi didn't work the credit card terminal
| likely might not have either. I've had issues tons of times
| in remote places with credit card readers.
|
| And cash is cash, but I don't think crypto is really
| competing with cash, more with cash-alternatives (like
| credit cards, venmo etc.)
| idiotsecant wrote:
| That's essentially saying the same thing as if the cell
| phones didn't work a hardwired landline would have.
|
| It's true, but it's also missing the point.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| A real cryptocurrency wallet also would have worked.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| 90% of people won't use their own wallets.
| adrr wrote:
| I wonder what percentage of the crypto population has
| wallets compared to having all their crypto on an
| exchange. I don't know anyone with a wallet.
| serf wrote:
| having all of your currency on an exchange, regardless of
| the currency, has never been a good idea.
|
| (signed a MtGox victim.)
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| The problem with that is, these networks are rather
| convoluted and are basically unusable for most people
| without relying on exchanges or other similar services.
| colinsane wrote:
| > if the people in the vanguard of this movement can't
| figure this out
|
| the people "in the vanguard of [the cryptocurrency]
| movement" _absolutely_ use non-custodial wallets (SW or
| HW). the part of this story where "the vanguard" is using
| custodial wallets is the least believable.
|
| the average speculator, sure -- they'll go with
| whatever's easiest for them, which is probably to keep
| their crypto on the exchange. "vanguard" users? lmao.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| How would it have worked without the ability to
| communicate with the blockchain. I could double and
| triple spend to my heart's content.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Not disagreeing with any of you but a blockchain payment
| terminal that's itself connected to the internet could
| technically receive your signed transaction from your
| (offline) phone and then submit it to the network on your
| behalf. The balance on your phone wouldn't update until
| it itself gets back onto the network and resyncs its
| state with the blockchain.
| ajross wrote:
| > The tech even then seemingly worked for you then
|
| Only because they trusted each other! I mean, any currency or
| barter mechanism anywhere in the world or throughout history
| works if you trust the person to pay you tomorrow.
|
| BTC was supposed to be able to move beyond that, somehow. And
| it turns out that the world still runs on trust.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Except that... you don't need to use Facebook to
| hypothetically buy food or goods or services...
|
| Facebook isn't an appropriate analog to what BTC/crypto aims
| to be.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| I wonder if you can right click on the burgers and get them for
| free.
| koolba wrote:
| No they probably disable right click to prevent hackers. You
| have to be a true l337 to replace the onclick handler first.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| These merchant adoption and abandonment stories are always
| implementation issues with no inspiration or education.
|
| A) Point of Sale systems have handled this "volatility" issue for
| an entire decade. Use an implementation that shields the merchant
| from volatility. They usually liquidate for you.
|
| B) Why would you list the prices in ApeCoin or Ethereum? Just
| show dollars and accept whatever, because A) handles whatever
| proportion you want to keep in dollars or some other crypto.
|
| C) If nobody wants to use that payment method, who cares its
| free. How often are you getting UnionPay customers, going to make
| an article about that too?
| burnished wrote:
| re: C, it was also a restaurant review and a pretty ringing
| endorsement.
|
| When I got to the end all I could think was "weird yelp
| review". I really enjoyed it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| If a crypto-themed restaurant can't get it right, what hope do
| the rest have?
| roywiggins wrote:
| If a crypto-themed restaurant doesn't think it's worth it, I
| can't see how anyone else would either. Like, this is their
| whole brand!
| yieldcrv wrote:
| This crypto-themed restaurant didn't research a single thing,
| I wouldn't use it as validation or invalidation
| spullara wrote:
| Coupa Cafe was early on this trend. They got 2 BTC in a month for
| about $200 worth of coffee:
|
| https://99bitcoins.com/coupa-cafe-sells-coffee-to-the-silico...
| rejor121 wrote:
| Nobody could see this coming! Lol
|
| Seriously, crypto has yet to solve any real world problems I've
| faced. And NFTs are just the worst. Money laundering schemes at
| best.
|
| If I can't buy an apple easily with crypto, it's useless.
| 99_00 wrote:
| If you can't use it to keep armed men authorized to use deadly
| force from putting you in a cage for the rest of your life it
| will at best be peripheral.
|
| That's why people use the currency of their nation.
|
| They must pay taxes and fees to exist as a part of society. Not
| doing so means you either fall off the social ladder or are
| imprisoned and have your life destroyed.
|
| It's one thing that Modern Monetary Theory gets right. The
| government creates demand for its currency through taxes and
| fees that must be paid under threat of violence. So you work
| and earn the currency to pay for your right to exist.
|
| Is that nice? No. But denying that the threat violence keeps
| this version of society together is denying reality. And trying
| to replace a system that is willing to use violence to maintain
| it's existence with dreams just doesn't work.
| peyton wrote:
| So if taxes go up, there will be more demand for a currency?
| And if taxes go down, there will be less demand for a
| currency? I'm not sure that's right.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Crypto does solve a few real world issues (fast, global, cheap,
| secure, anonymized transfer of value).
|
| But it seems that some people thought it fixes the "i want to
| get rich fast" problem, and was bloated as a result. It was
| never meant for that problem.
| outworlder wrote:
| > fast
|
| Not fast. Most cryptocurrencies have unbearably slow
| transaction or confirmation times. Maybe if you are buying a
| car, they will be confirmed by the time the paperwork is
| done. Even with initiatives like the lightning network, it's
| still slow. So much so that some of the major exchanges will
| tally your transactions off-chain, to be confirmed later.
|
| > cheap
|
| It really isn't. Be it gas fees or computational power
|
| > secure
|
| Eh, depends. Surely the transaction itself may be from the
| blockchain's viewpoint. But if your coins get stolen or your
| exchange gets hacked you really have no recourse. And that's
| just one issue. And before anyone says "hardware wallet",
| exploits have been found for those as well, assuming they
| were even secure to begin with.
|
| > anonymized
|
| They are not anonymous. With a few exceptions, all
| transactions are visible in the chain, forever. This works as
| long as you never need to convert to/from fiat. The moment
| you do, your identity is exposed - even retroactively. It's
| way worse than cash. Tumblers only help so much.
| EL_Loco wrote:
| I'll agree with anyone saying that this NFT craze is
| idiotic, and that most cryptocurrencies don't have any
| utility, but to say that crypto isn't fast, cheap or secure
| is like saying 90's internet couldn't have webpages with
| pictures because gopher couldn't have pictures. I send
| money to my sister from my algorand wallet to hers in one
| second (literally), any amount for something like $0.0001.
| I'm not well versed enough in security to make any claim
| about safety, but if I have to trust someone regarding the
| security of some software, it might as well be this
| company's founder. Right now it's by far the best method to
| send money accross the globe.
|
| edit: forgot to add that it's also very energy efficient
| maxerickson wrote:
| Except it isn't particularly fast, cheap, secure or
| anonymous.
| doopy1 wrote:
| No realistic takes on crypto allowed on HN, you might get
| banned.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| The idea that crypto solved "fast, global, cheap, secure,
| anonymized transfer of value" is not "realistic" - it's
| preposterous.
| noAnswer wrote:
| Bitcoin can only process 7 transactions per second
| globally. Ethereum 25. That is not fast. If you want to get
| an actual transfer cheapness goes out of the window. And it
| is not anonym either.
| 0des wrote:
| There are much faster cryptoasset networks, which I'm
| sure you already know, but the problem then becomes
| liquidity and volume required to not create slippage in
| the process.
| chaps wrote:
| Can you explain why you think it's realistic? Nothing they
| claim seems to hold much truth in-practice.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Describing crypto transactions as fast and cheap? Yeah,
| incredibly realistic!
| al_borland wrote:
| With the first big boom, weren't wallet companies (which most
| people seem to need to make things easy enough) requiring
| photo IDs to open accounts? That kids the anonymized piece
| and once that's gone the traditional means were already fast
| and cheap (and I assume global as well).
|
| I think the idea of digital cash is cool, but practically
| speaking, it isn't enough of a upside to deal with crypto. I
| can't even tell you the last time I used actual cash. It was
| at least a year ago.
| hnthrow1010 wrote:
| >Crypto does solve a few real world issues (fast, global,
| cheap, secure, anonymized transfer of value).
|
| Crypto does not solve any of those issues. The actual
| solution to most of those issues is called a "payment
| service" of which there were many that existed before
| blockchains. How is it do you suppose that companies like
| ebay and amazon were able to securely and quickly process
| internet payments in the 90s? They certainly didn't need
| blockchains to do it. You could argue that they aren't
| anonymized, but neither is crypto; it is only pseudonymous at
| best, in practice it is not even that as the exchanges that
| do the bare minimum of fraud prevention will require you to
| identify yourself.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| > Crypto does solve a few real world issues (fast, global,
| cheap, secure, anonymized transfer of value).
|
| I pay people from Argentina to Ukraine and there are myriad
| ways I can transfer them money quickly (seconds, sometimes),
| cheaply (down to fractions of cent on the dollar) and
| securely without resorting to crypto. I have no need for
| total anonymity but from what I hear crypto is not great on
| that front, either.
| nikanj wrote:
| Fully anonymous global ransomware would be really hard without
| cryptos.
|
| Monetizing hacked boxes would be much tougher if you could not
| turn them into Monero miners.
| phabricator wrote:
| It wasn't that hard. Payment was in pre-paid credit cards.
| doopy1 wrote:
| It's not fully anonymous even WITH crypto. They have call
| centers. Banning crypto won't make ransomware go away, it
| will just increase the cost of ransom.
| giaour wrote:
| > Banning crypto won't make ransomware go away, it will
| just increase the cost of ransom.
|
| That must be why ransomware demands were so much higher in
| the pre-bitcoin era. Unless you're including the cost of
| sending a cargo jet full of cash or gold halfway around the
| world?
| bredren wrote:
| So would dark markets.
|
| Dark markets are described as a small piece of the pie for
| LE.
|
| But P2P music sharing / digital music sales was also that way
| until they couldn't be ignored and ultimately destroyed
| traditional music distribution.
|
| There is a reason big, reliable markets get shut down and it
| isn't all exit scams. It's because they're incredibly
| successful and they would not be so without crypto.
|
| The ransomware market is too hard for most to get into and
| the "deals" take time to put together. There's not a great
| reason for them to prop up coin value.
|
| However, dark markets are open to just about anyone, and
| presumably haven't even begun to touch growth potential.
|
| All that said: throw in parent's value prop too--is bitcoin
| worth $20k a coin today? IDK, maybe? I sold bitcoin-
| embroidered hoodies at the first ever national bitcoin
| conference in san jose for half a coin and that seemed a bit
| nuts.
| rvz wrote:
| > "Yes, ethereum is a currency in a way where you can exchange
| [non-fungible tokens, or] NFTs and stuff ... but as far as buying
| food and all that, maybe not," one crypto-enthusiast diner, Marc
| Coloma, said as he munched on fries outside the restaurant.
| "People want to hold onto their ethereum. They're not gonna want
| to use it."
|
| Then what is the point then? Apecoin and Ethereum certainly
| cannot be used for payments and holders don't even want to spend
| their ETH or APE crypto. They have either been terrified with the
| 10,000 BTC pizza purchase to never spend it or they are scared of
| the gas fees that will eat up the transaction cost if the chain
| gets congested again.
|
| It is a loss of confidence that is so bad that they have no
| choice but to use dollars for payments instead.
|
| That is a complete failure and it just took one crypto crash.
| eknkc wrote:
| Why would anyone want to buy food with crypto anyway? Can't
| understand that.
|
| It is not faster. It is not cheaper to transfer. It is not even
| as anonymous as cash I'd say.
|
| I can see why would someone buy stuff online using crypto but
| this does not make much sense.
| dhosek wrote:
| But that was the original promise of crypto currency, that it
| would replace cash and checks and credit cards for all
| transactions. It was based on a lot of ignorance about how
| money actually works, but that was the claim way back when. I
| had a manager back in 2007-8 whose wife had a bakery that
| accepted Bitcoin as payment and he was a big crypto advocate.
| I could tell back then that all the claims made no sense.
| What amazes me is that crypto still hasn't gone to zero a
| decade and a half later. Although as John Maynard Keynes
| said: "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay
| solvent."
| cypress66 wrote:
| > But that was the original promise of crypto currency,
| that it would replace cash and checks and credit cards for
| all transactions.
|
| Some fanatics may have claimed that. But the bitcoin
| whitepaper itself says that traditional payments are good
| enough for most cases (and then enumerates cases where it's
| not, such as if you want non reversible transactions).
| nikanj wrote:
| If you got cryptos from selling contraband, and would rather
| not pay taxes/leave a paper trail from converting to fiat
| koolba wrote:
| Spending crypto at a spot where you in person ate a burrito
| leaves its own paper trail.
|
| I guess you could make an onion router style delivery
| network to get your meal, but you'd also have to convince
| thousands of others to use it as well to hide amongst them.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It didn't take a crypto crash, crypto has been a failed
| currency since BTC hit a dollar...
|
| Extreme deflation is arguably more deadly than hyperinflation.
| If you know that by holding a dollar today, you can get 2
| dollars worth of goods tomorrow, why are you going to spend a
| dollar?
|
| Likewise, once Bitcoin went from fractions of a penny to a
| dollar, what incentive was left to spend it? You could argue an
| ideological want force it as a currency... but how many
| people's morals hold up at 10x returns? 100x returns? 1000x
| returns?
|
| If BTC (or any major crypto) had become the official currency
| of a country, it'd be a failed state by this point.
| djbusby wrote:
| BTC is official in El Salvador.
| rscnt wrote:
| Most people in my circle that pay taxes and hold crypto
| disapprove this.
|
| People are overall indifferent or disappointed with the
| decision.
|
| We don't know who or whom holds the BTC that was bought
| with tax money.
|
| It just takes a couple day of rain to have the capital
| flooded and our president is busy talking about crypto.
|
| Web services build by the government are a disaster, can't
| handle a decent volume of requests or are simply too buggy.
|
| With our taxes we've financed "chivo", the entire thing has
| been a disaster they spent an awful amount of dollars to
| have basically nobody use it.
|
| Not even crypto bros use the chivo apps, most transactions
| can be attributed to people doing "scalping".
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It's great to see a perspective from the ground on this.
|
| I'm originally from an "emerging market" (aka 3rd world
| country) and I don't share the enthusiasm crypto bros do
| about emerging markets interacting with crypto.
|
| It's rarely from a beneficial place. Crypto is absolutely
| perfect to allow a corrupt government to quietly siphon
| the nation. No planes full of dollar bills, no heavy gold
| bricks. Just a movement from one digital address to
| another.
|
| Sure in a pinch it might be a lifeline, but it's a flimsy
| lifeline and these countries need a lot more than a
| glorified remittance system to recover. It's fun to laugh
| at NFT bros trying to buy overpriced restaurant food, but
| last few months have likely been disastrous for a lot of
| very poor people.
| iostream24 wrote:
| And Bukele has locked up more than 2% of the population in
| inhumane conditions...
|
| Hardly a promotional asset...
| el-salvador wrote:
| 2% of the _total_ population. It must be higher when
| other variables are added to the calculation.
|
| - The % of male population imprisoned. My guesstimate is
| 4%.
|
| - The % of male population between 18 and 29 y/o
| imprisoned
|
| I don't have the raw data to calculate it at this moment.
| But it must be higher once gender / age / income are
| considered.
| grey-area wrote:
| https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/el-
| salvador-p...
|
| https://www.cato.org/commentary/el-salvadors-road-
| currency-c...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/crypto-crash-
| leaves-e...
|
| President Bukele's government declared a state of emergency
| on 27 March, following a spike in homicides allegedly
| committed by gangs, which has since been extended
| twice....Despite a drop in the homicide rate in recent
| years, El Salvador continues to be one of the most violent
| countries in the world....The government's financial
| problems are not because of bitcoin, but they have gotten
| worse because of bitcoin.
|
| QED
| rscnt wrote:
| The president doesn't care about the issues that concern
| his position.
|
| There was an intiative by the treasury to try and have
| people use a single document to deal with taxes, where we
| previously used two, this is something important for most
| people, the guy hasn't even mentioned on his social
| networks.
|
| They also build a public vet that was supposedly financed
| with the earnings of BTC - when the price dropped the
| president mentioned that he hasn't sold any meaning all
| the money spent to promoto chivo or crypto has come from
| our tax dollars.
| [deleted]
| fortzi wrote:
| BTC is an official currency in San Salvador, which is
| arguably indeed a failed state. I'd argue, though, that it's
| just another symptom of the reasons which made it a failed
| state in the first place (populism, corruption, etc.)
| dhosek wrote:
| San Salvador is a different country from El Salvador, just
| for the record.
| kgwgk wrote:
| San Salvador is not a country - it's a city. The capital
| of El Salvador.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I largely agree, I mean the president that got it through
| last year also violated their constitution to get another
| term and was upheld by his own puppet court...
|
| But BTC hasn't helped at all. It's not even _the_ official
| currency, just one alongside USD, and yet it's already
| accelerated the country towards defaulting on their bonds.
|
| While all this goes down the president is still making
| noise about a "Bitcoin city". A very "meta" commentary on
| cryto I feel.
| el-salvador wrote:
| >It's not even _the_ official currency, just one
| alongside USD, and yet it's already accelerated the
| country towards defaulting on their bonds.
|
| And its day to day usage is very low.
|
| There was a spike in use after $30 sign up bonus and
| during the 2021 bitcoin conference and following months
| which attracted tourism from bitcoiners though.
| MichaelBurge wrote:
| > If you know that by holding a dollar today, you can get 2
| dollars worth of goods tomorrow, why are you going to spend a
| dollar?
|
| Does that mean if you can find a non-defaulting bond that
| pays higher interest than inflation, the US dollar will
| completely collapse?
|
| Because why would anyone spend $1 when they could get $2 of
| goods in N years...
| swatcoder wrote:
| > and it just took one crypto crash
|
| I'm mostly crypto-skeptic, and appreciate your insights, but
| this part is to be expected with any market: when the value of
| something is up, certain business models become profitable and
| start manifesting. When the value goes down, they stop being
| profitable and those models vanish (or become sustained
| externally).
|
| It's easy to see in high profile markets like resource
| extraction, real estate, venture capital availability, etc
|
| So of course the business model of "use crypto as a currency"
| will vanish/diminish when the currency value of a coin is
| substantially down.
| mojomark wrote:
| > That is a complete failure and it just took one crypto crash.
|
| Disclosure: I hold virtually no crypto (a few thousand XRP)
|
| As I watch this show from the sidelines, I wonder if the latest
| crash (and no doubt future crashes) isn't exactly the force
| needed to distribute crypto more widely into more hands,
| normalizing to some roughly steady state value. After several
| swings of the pendulum, you end up at some more or less stable
| value with many more users, making actual marketetplace
| purchases with crypto more ubiquitous. I guess time will tell,
| eh?
| rglover wrote:
| > exactly the force needed to distribute crypto more widely
| into more hands
|
| Yes, but not "crypto." Bitcoin. The entire crash was due to
| VCs and hedge funds overleveraging into shitcoins [1]. It
| started with Luna and that created a domino effect for the
| rest of it. Sprinkle on the panic typical to all markets and
| kablamo.
|
| In essence, that's good (albeit painful to some degree)
| because it's a truly free market. Bad players got washed out
| and there's more to come as far as I can tell. Fairly excited
| as, like you suggest, it means people have a chance to
| acquire more Bitcoin while they still can.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/DylanLeClair_/status/1524377921338724354
| mnd999 wrote:
| Bad players will be back next week with a better con.
| rglover wrote:
| Welcome to humanity, skipper.
| clpm4j wrote:
| Who does the distribution? The vast majority of people in the
| world can't afford to buy crypto. The people who hold most of
| the BTC, ETH, SOL, and whatever other major coins were
| already rich before they got into it. Maybe single digit
| thousands of people went from non-rich to rich through buying
| and holding crypto, but that's a tiny fraction.
| rglover wrote:
| > The vast majority of people in the world can't afford to
| buy crypto.
|
| You can buy fractions of it, meaning the affordability is
| relative to the individual and what they can spend.
| clpm4j wrote:
| That just means poor people are dividing their already
| limited resources to buy a fraction of something that
| they can't use to pay for rent, food, and clothing. If
| you can only afford to buy a fraction of something, then
| you can't afford it.
| rglover wrote:
| That's rapidly changing. Considering that Bitcoin has the
| potential to help more than it hurts (developing
| countries don't have to plan growth at the barrel of a
| Western gun), there's an incentive to start moving in the
| direction of making it a standard.
|
| See Central African Republic and El Salvador. Countries
| are waking up to the mafia operation that is the IMF and
| its favorite weapon, the dollar. Because it's still early
| in the adoption cycle, critics will continue to be
| "correct" until one day they wake up and find they've
| been left behind.
| el-salvador wrote:
| > See Central African Republic and El Salvador. Countries
| are waking up to the mafia operation that is the IMF and
| its favorite weapon, the dollar.
|
| I'm not an economist, but doesn't the IMF use a basket of
| currencies called SDRs instead of dollars? And isn't the
| IMF owned by member countries.
|
| Interestingly, El Salvador still owns more IMF shares
| than Bitcoin.
|
| - El Salvador Bitcoin: 49million USD after compunding for
| -53% losses [2]
|
| - El Salvador IMF shares: 402 million USD (207 million
| SDRs) [1]
|
| [1] https://www.imf.org/en/About/executive-board/members-
| quotas
|
| [2] https://nayibtracker.com/
| kevingadd wrote:
| How is a crash going to distribute eth or btc into more
| hands? A bunch of people losing their shirts doesn't seem
| like it's going to motivate more people to buy in, and
| individual investors may panic sell before prices go down
| further.
| rglover wrote:
| > A bunch of people losing their shirts doesn't seem like
| it's going to motivate more people to buy in
|
| It will if they're smart enough to ask "why" people lost
| their shirts and take the POV of someone like John
| Templeton. The best time to buy is when everyone else is
| panicking or ignoring an asset you view as undervalued.
|
| Just like the stock market, though, that's not likely to
| happen. Most people are controlled by emotions, not logic,
| and so miss out on many opportunities.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I wonder if the latest crash (and no doubt future crashes)
| isn't exactly the force needed to distribute crypto more
| widely into more hands, normalizing to some roughly steady
| state value.
|
| No. Hodl the dip.
| [deleted]
| 7ewis wrote:
| I agree to some extent, but there are far too many shitcoins
| out there and people think it's all a 'get rich quick
| scheme'. There's also lots of bad press about crypto scams,
| we have things like Terra and other stablecoins losing their
| peg, all these smart contract hacks etc.
|
| Then we have all the whales and hedge funds manipulating the
| market, pump and dumps... it's really is the wild west out
| here still unfortunately. On top of all that, your parents
| probably think Crypto.com is the only place to buy it, and
| the more tech inclined may read 'not your keys, not your
| crypto', create a wallet and lose the keys or typo an address
| and lose the coins.
|
| Plus we can't forget all the newer investors, over the past
| year or two. All of which are probably deep in the red right
| now and will sell at any opportunity when things look to
| start improving (and probably tell their mates to avoid it
| too).
|
| I think the whole industry needs to take a step back, quietly
| work away for a few years, keep building things, improve
| security, increase trust. Drop all the DeFi farming pools
| with the ridiculous earn rates, stop the hype every time a
| new coin is launched. Get back to basics, create some real
| utility.
|
| I'm not sure what the answer is on stablecoins or encouraging
| people to spend crypto. I think it's become too ingrained in
| peoples heads that crypto is an investment rather than a
| currency. Stablecoins were a partial answer to that, but they
| also kind of defeat the purpose too. We're back to trusting
| the US government, Tether and/or algorithmic stablecoins -
| which so far have proved to _not_ work. I believe it will
| take decades for people to stop tracking their crypto
| holdings and always converting it back to local currencies.
| Maybe we need some 'super' stable coin, that's backed by
| stocks, currencies (fiat and crypto) globally but not pegged
| to any one thing, kind of like an ETF? Is that possible
| algorithmically though and would governments ever legalise it
| and allow people to be paid in it?
|
| I do think the tech that the crypto industry has created is
| great, and I do hold numerous cryptocurrencies (and am making
| a loss too...) but we're a long way off making prices
| recoveries, rebuilding trust and actually becoming useful in
| society.
| gkoberger wrote:
| I dislike crypto, especially NFTs. But here's my best attempt at
| understanding.
|
| BAYC transfers ownership of IP for the ape you've bought. It's
| not just a picture of the ape on OpenSean; you can use it.
| There's something really fascinating about this. It's one
| character, but it's also broadly part of the larger ecosystem.
|
| We're so used to, say, Disney owning IP. But what if you could
| spend $300k and have a restaurant themed like Mickey Mouse? And
| you're not a cheap knockoff... you're expanding on the lore and
| the You could have a community of built in people or, like the
| guy in the article, maybe they just thought the vibe was cute and
| didn't know what BAYC was even.
|
| I think it's really interesting that people are building and
| creating and expanding this universe. Imagine something like
| Pokemon, where everyone was able to create and consume
| games/content/etc.
|
| Here in HN, the sentiment tends to be against Disney-style
| copyrights. The crypto community is playing with what community
| and intellectual property actually could mean.
| Avshalom wrote:
| among a lot of other things:
|
| > It's one character
|
| no, it's one picture. some one else might own the rights to
| functionally the same character but with a smile instead of a
| frown or even just a different background color.
| crooked-v wrote:
| > BAYC transfers ownership of IP.
|
| Does it, though?
|
| > Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga
| Labs LLC grants you a worldwide, royalty-free license to use,
| copy, and display the purchased Art, along with any extensions
| that you choose to create or use, solely for the following
| purposes: (i) for your own personal, non-commercial use; (ii)
| as part of a marketplace that permits the purchase and sale of
| your Bored Ape / NFT, provided that the marketplace
| cryptographically verifies each Bored Ape owner's rights to
| display the Art for their Bored Ape to ensure that only the
| actual owner can display the Art; or (iii) as part of a third
| party website or application that permits the inclusion,
| involvement, or participation of your Bored Ape, provided that
| the website/application cryptographically verifies each Bored
| Ape owner's rights to display the Art for their Bored Ape to
| ensure that only the actual owner can display the Art, and
| provided that the Art is no longer visible once the owner of
| the Bored Ape leaves the website/application.
|
| That's not IP ownership, just a conditional license, despite
| their talk of "owning" and "purchasing".
| gkoberger wrote:
| You posted the "Personal Use" section of their terms, and
| intentionally cut out what comes before and after it.
|
| For anyone curious to read the full terms, they're here:
| https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms
| Animats wrote:
| Overview of copyright transfer.[1]
|
| Full copyright transfer and licensing are not the same
| thing. The BAYC terms seem to be a sale of an instance of
| the Art, with a limited nonexclusive license to the
| intellectual property. An exclusive license is considered a
| transfer, but this isn't one. If you got an exclusive
| license, nobody else, including BAYC or OpenSea, could
| display the Art without your permission until the copyright
| runs out. BAYC didn't give up that much.
|
| It's not clear that BAYC images are copyrightable in the
| US, because they are procedurally generated from templates.
| That will probably be litigated at some point.
|
| There's an interesting trade dress question. Suppose you
| fed a supply of BAYC images into a machine learning system
| and had it crank out similar images. Does Yuga Labs have
| any claim against you?
|
| [1] https://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms.com/resources/
| intel...
| charwalker wrote:
| Can I mint the terms as an NFT or is that recursive?
| mediumdeviation wrote:
| But you can already license your IP using a contract or a
| license, and that contract can be inked in paper or done
| digitally. You can even give exclusive license or transfer your
| rights. The only difference using the blockchain is, well, the
| blockchain.
|
| This is an even less interesting use of the blockchain than
| Bitcoin - at least with Bitcoin there is no longer a central
| authority needed to prevent double spending. Here the
| blockchain is facilitating a transaction that can already be
| done without some authority to recognize it.
| cypress66 wrote:
| I don't care about bored apes or jpeg nfts in general, and
| don't know how true it is that you receive ownership of the
| ip.
|
| But if it worked that way, then the concept is pretty cool.
| You say "you can already license..." yeah, but this is one
| click stuff and you're good to go. What you're saying is slow
| lawyer stuff and a fully manual process.
|
| Of course this one click to purchase IP could be done
| centralized. But decentralized can add transparency, instead
| of relying on paper trail and companies that can go defunct.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| Literally every stock photo site already does this.
| gkoberger wrote:
| But you can't turn around and sell that stock art to
| someone else.
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| You could if they changed the wording of the license
| being transferred.
| gkoberger wrote:
| Okay, so they don't actually already do it, but they
| could do it.
|
| How would you keep track of who currently has ownership?
| How do you make sure I don't sell ownership to 5 people,
| or keep using it myself? Do I need to hire a lawyer each
| time?
|
| Yes, this can be done without the blockchain. But also,
| does it matter to you if the code is in SQL or the
| blockchain? The blockchain is just a technology. (I do
| think the environmental impact is worth considering, for
| the record.)
| Gigachad wrote:
| Ultimately these are problems that just do not need
| solving. There is no real world use case to sell and
| transfer ownership of a stock photo multiple times.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| The only way this scales is that there are tens of thousands of
| "character" all of which are extremely similar, generated on a
| template and randomly arranged. None of them seem particularly
| iconic though I understand that certain hats etc are rarer than
| others. But none of them stand out as any sort of personality.
| So if you were to say try to make your own Bored ape restaurant
| a block away are you really standing out because _your_ ape has
| a nose ring?
| remram wrote:
| You can mostly use any and every one of them for a lot of
| purposes under fair use. I have seen a lot of Apes around the
| net, way more than I would have liked.
|
| You can't make, say, a cartoon featuring one of them, but would
| you want to do that?
| krapp wrote:
| But I have a bottle of vintage slurp juice on reserve! I can't
| pay for it now, all I have is real money.
| jansan wrote:
| You need to try harder to find the greater fool.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-24 23:01 UTC)