Go back to bed PhilWhat the hell is going on?
![Wink ;) ;)](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png)
Go back to bed PhilWhat the hell is going on?
Well exactly.
BAYC have made up their own terms on how copyright should work for their NFTs.
Nothing stops me from copying said ape and using it however I want, except a random company's terms saying "please don't do that".
It's completely separate and inferior to actual IP laws, and no precedents or laws have been set.
LOL a chimp cartoon!What is the theme, is it a chimp cartoon or something?
I"ll be there& would love to chat about it. There are many use cases for NFTs, but I don't think expensive art ownership is one.I'll agree that no precedent has been set in law yet regarding NFTs, but surely you can agree that the use case - verifiable ownership of digital assets - is something that is desperately required. And whilst I'll admit there are flaws in the protocol as it stands, there are ways to fix it.
Anyhow - I'll be at Swavesey next weekend so we can probably have a chat about it over a few beers? It's an area I find genuinely interesting.
IMHO, blockchain is a solution looking for a problem!
Same could be said of any nascent technology. Quantum computing or carbon nanotubes for example.
I think we'll start to see blockchain technology as fundamental once decentralised identity starts to gain traction : https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/solutions/decentralized-identity
Quantum computing and carbon nanotubes are both fundamental research, and have clearly valuable applications. Neither is true of blockchain - it's just a rehash (pun intended) of existing primitives, and hasn't demonstrated any actual value to society as a whole.Same could be said of any nascent technology. Quantum computing or carbon nanotubes for example.
I think we'll start to see blockchain technology as fundamental once decentralised identity starts to gain traction : https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/solutions/decentralized-identity
I'll agree that no precedent has been set in law yet regarding NFTs, but surely you can agree that the use case - verifiable ownership of digital assets - is something that is desperately required. And whilst I'll admit there are flaws in the protocol as it stands, there are ways to fix it.
Anyhow - I'll be at Swavesey next weekend so we can probably have a chat about it over a few beers? It's an area I find genuinely interesting.
Lots of journalism supporting that view here tooSo it's basically about expanding on someone elses work and selling something based upon the back of it....
Sounds like Pyramid selling to me...
Which is what all the blockchains are.So it's basically about expanding on someone elses work and selling something based upon the back of it....
Sounds like Pyramid selling to me...
crypto = ponzi
it’s a zero sum game- for every £1 or $1 of hard currency made from crypto, someone has lost/spent or “invested” that £1 hard currency. transaction fees in all crypto systems have/are skimming off a tidy sum for the people who own those crypto processing / blockchain validation services. all paid for by a load of people who will lose hard currency. the biggest losers are yet to come, they are the ones left holding large amounts of valueless crypto
blockchain tech sucks - the sooner we abandon it , the better IMHO