There’s the completely decentralized ENS name system that would bypass this censorship entirely.
But unfortunately it’s got the scarlet letters “NFT” hanging around its neck, and so good luck trying to discuss its actual merits or try to implement support for it anywhere.
NFT is scary because people don’t know what it means. It is not supposed to be a means of selling jpegs; it is supposed to be a digital untamperable proof of ownership for various uses.
It’s very tamperable. It lacks common safety features like 2FA. Hacks are common and stolen NFTs can not be recovered.
It doesn’t provide any evidence of ownership, much less proof. Anyone can mint NFTs without providing any evidence of ownership or anything. There is no legal requirement that ownership of anything is transferred along with an NFT.
There isn’t just one single way of coding an NFT, you’re talking about an entire class of application here. You can indeed add all sorts of safety features if you want to.
Saying “anyone can mint NFTs” shows a misunderstanding of the specific application we’re discussing here. Not just anyone can mint an ENS name, specifically, which is what we’re talking about. ENS names are minted by the ENS contract, so they can be guaranteed unique. An ENS name isn’t “representing” anything other than the information contained within it, so there are no legal issues whatsoever. If you own the ENS name NFT then that’s all that you need to worry about, it has no other effect or implication other than that.
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the “scarlet letters NFT”. People have an enormous prejudice about the technology and leap to incorrect assumptions about its uses based on those prejudices.
I am describing a usage that is explicitly not like that. A usage that has nothing to do with art. The concept of “NFT” is not somehow inextricably tied to spending ridiculous amounts of money on pictures of apes, it’s a general technology.
This is a perfect illustration of the problem here. People are lamenting about difficult it is to come up with a truly decentralized method of owning domain names that can’t be commandeered by authorities or big business, a system to do exactly that already exists, but it’s based on a technology that people have such an extreme prejudice about that they’d rather downvote anyone who tries to explain it and go back to helplessly lamenting.
Full decentralization and censorship resistance. In the case of DNS services there’s still an organization of some kind that you’re having to trust to not mismanage your registration. Both now in their current form and in any future form the organization may take.
ENS, on the other hand, is just a smart contract running on Ethereum. Its behaviour is programmed, not dependent on any human decision making. To censor it you’d need to block Ethereum as a whole.
I had really hoped that the video game industry would use its royalty function to give developers a cut of the secondary market. It would naturally incentivize them to slow down their development cycle, and make games that stand the test of time. Selling games with this technology could have been a virtuous cycle of developers having a vested interest in their work beyond simply selling DLC.
Well, hominids made hand axes for countless aeons without ever really using them. I guess I shouldn’t act too shocked.
No competent engineer would use NFTs for the purpose. It’s inconvenient, slow and ridiculously expensive. No one uses the “technology” because it’s rubbish.
Implementing such a feature is trivial. Steam has a marketplace. They don’t let you sell used games because the developers don’t want it.
There’s the completely decentralized ENS name system that would bypass this censorship entirely.
But unfortunately it’s got the scarlet letters “NFT” hanging around its neck, and so good luck trying to discuss its actual merits or try to implement support for it anywhere.
NFT is scary because people don’t know what it means. It is not supposed to be a means of selling jpegs; it is supposed to be a digital untamperable proof of ownership for various uses.
It’s not.
It’s very tamperable. It lacks common safety features like 2FA. Hacks are common and stolen NFTs can not be recovered.
It doesn’t provide any evidence of ownership, much less proof. Anyone can mint NFTs without providing any evidence of ownership or anything. There is no legal requirement that ownership of anything is transferred along with an NFT.
deleted by creator
It was a waste of time and resources for a particular application, yes. But the basic technology is useful for many applications.
Those “bored ape” NFTs were for jpeg images, do you also think that the jpeg algorithm was a colossal waste of time and resources?
There isn’t just one single way of coding an NFT, you’re talking about an entire class of application here. You can indeed add all sorts of safety features if you want to.
Saying “anyone can mint NFTs” shows a misunderstanding of the specific application we’re discussing here. Not just anyone can mint an ENS name, specifically, which is what we’re talking about. ENS names are minted by the ENS contract, so they can be guaranteed unique. An ENS name isn’t “representing” anything other than the information contained within it, so there are no legal issues whatsoever. If you own the ENS name NFT then that’s all that you need to worry about, it has no other effect or implication other than that.
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the “scarlet letters NFT”. People have an enormous prejudice about the technology and leap to incorrect assumptions about its uses based on those prejudices.
deleted by creator
I am describing a usage that is explicitly not like that. A usage that has nothing to do with art. The concept of “NFT” is not somehow inextricably tied to spending ridiculous amounts of money on pictures of apes, it’s a general technology.
This is a perfect illustration of the problem here. People are lamenting about difficult it is to come up with a truly decentralized method of owning domain names that can’t be commandeered by authorities or big business, a system to do exactly that already exists, but it’s based on a technology that people have such an extreme prejudice about that they’d rather downvote anyone who tries to explain it and go back to helplessly lamenting.
deleted by creator
I just did. The ENS system, a decentralized replacement for DNS. That’s what started this subthread.
deleted by creator
Full decentralization and censorship resistance. In the case of DNS services there’s still an organization of some kind that you’re having to trust to not mismanage your registration. Both now in their current form and in any future form the organization may take.
ENS, on the other hand, is just a smart contract running on Ethereum. Its behaviour is programmed, not dependent on any human decision making. To censor it you’d need to block Ethereum as a whole.
So then nothing related to NFTs at all but instead a specific application of a specific blockchain…
deleted by creator
I had really hoped that the video game industry would use its royalty function to give developers a cut of the secondary market. It would naturally incentivize them to slow down their development cycle, and make games that stand the test of time. Selling games with this technology could have been a virtuous cycle of developers having a vested interest in their work beyond simply selling DLC.
Well, hominids made hand axes for countless aeons without ever really using them. I guess I shouldn’t act too shocked.
No competent engineer would use NFTs for the purpose. It’s inconvenient, slow and ridiculously expensive. No one uses the “technology” because it’s rubbish.
Implementing such a feature is trivial. Steam has a marketplace. They don’t let you sell used games because the developers don’t want it.