They serve no real purpose, it is just another bubble.

[marcolius]

Well digital artists can make money on their creations, I see that as a legitimate purpose. In addition they make a percentage of any subsequent sale. This, I think, is a better system than the physical art market where the original artist doesn't make any money after the first sale.

Are there issues with the system, sure...but isn't that the case with pretty much any human designed system?

Not sure if it's a bubble, only time will tell that one but why would digital artists go back to the old system where they make less money?

If I can't print it... I don't see value

what exactly are NFT's i don't really understand them that much myself to be honest to hate them

They suck... I think this is Mt first post and I've been here since the website was ppc Warez lol

Kevin Smith said he was going to release Kilroy was here a horror film he shot a few years but for whatever reason never released. he's going to release the film as an NFT so that's why i ask and i'm a gamer as well and they are hated to the core with gamers as well

I've read a few articles that suggest that there are real-world use cases (without ever naming any), but selling Retarded Ape jpegs isn't really one of them. Seems like a "solution" in search of a problem

what exactly are NFT's i don't really understand them that much myself to be honest to hate them

They are a way to generate a token that can be transferred ON A BLOCKCHAIN to indicate ownership of something. That "something" is generally a digital artwork, currently, but can also have physical items associated with it.

The thing is, we've already had that exact same technology for decades, just not ON A BLOCKCHAIN. People used to register their land title deeds by entering the information into paper books at a county land registrar; nowadays in some places it's done with a centralized GIS database.

And of course one problem with the whole concept is that it doesn't create actual scarcity of the digital item -- people can still make copies, but they just don't get to be recognized as "the official owner". For physical items related to an NFT, there is no unbreakable linkage between the two -- someone could give away or sell the physical item (the tablets in plastic cases that Beeple's animations are being displayed upon) without bothering to transfer the token ON A BLOCKCHAIN, and no one would know unless someone announced it. The only thing stopping it is an agreement not to, and perhaps a sense by the current owner that the existence of the NFT somehow makes the item more valuable.

And of course the issue of resales requiring that you pay more fees to whoever is running THE BLOCKCHAIN, and possibly also to other people involved in the tokenized item, is a negative. Paint-on-canvas artists generally haven't gotten a chunk of subsequent sales, so why do "artists" creating crappy jpegs feel that they are entitled to a cut?

Anyway, the "market" was a way for a few people to rake in millions of dollars, so they're happy, and the people who thought they were "investing" in "the future" are now sad that they've lost those millions of dollars and nobody else cares about their NFTs, so. . . .

wow this is to confusing but it does sound pretty stupid thank you

And I think that people who don't like NFT's are. But it's not their fault, they've just been taught to believe whatever people put inside their head these days. Of course if we all want to continue in a democracy we must all maintain responsibility for educating ourselves and advocating for rights, minorities etc.. I think that ignorance regarding NFT's is unfortunately evidence that supports my ongoing unoptimistic attitude towards people these days.
Decentralization is the opposite of centralization, so the fact that the current populace ostracize decentralization (again, likely driven by the narrative, but obviously these people still aren't putting in their due dilligence in the public discourse at LEAST) is very telling, but not in a good way.
In case you've been having an intuition these days that people are being controlled, the government has a $100k bountry for anyone who can "take down" Monero. Lines up well. And on a personal level, I have noticed the American bots driving Youtube comments sections, even participating with battles versus the Russian ones, in which case the American bots benefit from USA computing advantages. I even thought for a long time that maybe they were indeed just very manipulated people, but the exactness of comment counts in recent uploads combined with the monotonous and "attitude-proneness" without provocation leads me to believe that they are actually bots benefitting from neural language models. Scary stuff because they've gotten so good that , combined w/ censorship, i genuinely couldn't tell ya if your average yt comment is a bot. At least you can trust me that I'm not a bot, lol.

Sorry about the rant, just had to get it out. I guess I just feel like the topic is deeper than just an objective discussion. Reminds me of the manufactured conflicts by senator Palpatine that allowed him to divide the populace so he could gain control, as no one saw what the real conflict was; it's not important if the conflict or narrative makes any sense at all, it's the loss of mental sovereignty that's important here.

I agree

[nutpants]

so as i hear it NFTs are proof on ownership of a digital medium usually art, and every time that is sold the original artist can get paid a %..

i wonder if the people who think that is a great idea would think the same thing , if apple, google, ford and chevy used NFTs in their products and those mega corps got paid every time you sold a used anything?

sorry i am here because i believe when you sell something you SOLD something, you dont get paid or control every time someone else sells it, or gives it away.
digital proof its an original, has value for the sale, but that value goes to the new owner. and just like with "prints" artist can sell so many numbered "copies" at a lower price then the first and only "original".

wanting to get paid every time someone makes a hand held device with rounded corners and not square ones is pretty much a stupid idea and the basis of many copyright lawsuits.