AR is already being hyped.
AR was pre-NFT in my mind. Google glasses etc were hyped like crazy before VR took over the hype and was meant to be a “revolution” in gaming…
It’s a 40s thing that companies in the 00s decided to preemptively suck up all of the IP required to make it work.
Once the technology becomes cheap enough to sell to smartphone users there will only be a few companies who’re legally allowed to create the devices so they can have a free monopoly.
Kind of like how Apple tried to patent everything related to multitouch screen smartphones and then sue all of their competitors out of business.
We don’t have the available technology to make good AR that’s cheap enough for consumers. But, when we do, you’ll find that a few tech companies will claim ownership of key components because of products that they briefly made back in the 00s.
Google’s Glass headset wasn’t a product, it was an IP squatting strategy that sold a few units.
AR is going to become a big thing, the hardware just needs to get there first (and it is indeed getting closer)
This has been the case the entire time, it’s always been a promising technology. It’s not a new thing at all (then again, neither were LLMs, really. Most people just didn’t have this insight into the field)
NFT was the worst “tech” crap I have ever even heard about, like pure 100% total full scam. Kind of impressed that anyone could be so stupid they’d fall for it.
The whole NFT/crypto currency thing is so incredibly frustrating. Like, being able to verify that a given file is unique could be very useful. Instead, we simply used the technology for scamming people.
I don’t think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
I didn’t know this and it’s absolutely hilarious. Literally totally undermines the use of Blockchain to begin with.
NFTs if anything are basically CryptoCurrency-based DRMs & we should always oppose DRMs
Copying the info on another contract doesn’t mean it’s fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it’s associated to the right contract.
Let’s say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn’t recognize the “same” NFT if it wasn’t linked to the right contract.
There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
Incorrect. An NFT is tied to a particular token number at a particular address.
The URI the NFT points to may not be unique but NFT is unique.
It’s crazy that people could see NFTs were a scam but can’t see the same concept in virtual coins.
I’m not defending other cryptocoins or anything, they might be a ponzy scheme or some other form. But in the end they at least only pretended to be that, a valuta. Which they are, even though they aren’t really used much like that. NFT’s on the otherhand promised things that were always just pure technical bullshit. And you had to be a complete idiot not to see it. So call it a double scam.
A large majority of “real” money is digital, like 80% non-m1 m2. The only real difference between crypto and USD is that the crypto is a public multiple ledger system that allows you to be your own bank.
It’s crazy that people see crypto as a scam but can’t see the same concept in fiat currencies.
But it’s totally legit brah, it’s just like trading cards but on a computer bro, you can make jay pegs totally unique bro, nobody else in the world can have the same image as you brah, it proves you’re the only owner of it bro, trust me bro it’s super secure and technological bruh
I think a big part of the problem with NFT is that they are so abstract people don’t understand what they can and cannot do. Effectively, with NFT, you have people that hold a copy of a Spiderman comic in hand and believe they own all forms of spiderman.
Essentially, when you boil it down, you can turn this into “it’s provable that individual X has possession of NFT identifier x,y,z”. It’s kind of like how you can have the deed to a piece of property in your desk, but that doesn’t prevent 15 people from squatting on it.
It’s so abstract you can use it to fleece people. Even after 2 years of hype, people STILL do not understand them properly.
Essentially, when you boil it down, you can turn this into “it’s provable that individual X has possession of NFT identifier x,y,z”. It’s kind of like how you can have the deed to a piece of property in your desk, but that doesn’t prevent 15 people from squatting on it.
It isn’t even that. It’s is identifying which drawer in your desk the deed is placed, but there is no guarantee that the drawer contains the deed.
NFTs could have been great, if they had been used FOR the consumer, and not to scam them.
Best thing I can think of is to verify licenses for digital products/games. Buy a game, verify you own it like you would with a CD using an NFT, and then you can sell it again when you’re done.
Do this with serious stuff like AAA Games or Professional Software (think like borrowing a copy of Photoshop from an online library for a few days while you work on a project!) instead of monkey pictures and you could have the best of both worlds for buying physical vs buying online.
However, that might make corporations less money and completely upend modern licencing models, so no one was willing to do it.
I think there’s a technical hurdle here. There’s no reliable way to enforce unique access to an NFT. Anyone with access to the wallet’s private key (or seed phrase) can use the NFT, meaning two or more people could easily share a game or software license just by sharing credentials. That kind of undermines the licensing control in a system like this.
two or more people could easily share a game or software license just by sharing credentials
So like disks? Before everything started checking hwids. Just like the comment said, it would make corporations less money so they wouldn’t do it.
If said Photoshop had a nft licensing service, it could’ve stayed online for longer. Legit old versions of Adobe software that had one-time purchase licenses can’t be activated anymore due to servers being brought down. And that’s how they want it while pushing subscriptions for 10+ years.
The exact same thing would have happened with an NFT licensing service. They would still link to obsolete servers. The problem is not a problem which NFT would solve, the problem is the problem of obsolete servers, which are very easy for adobe to fix without any useless NFT technology, if they really wanted to (but of course they don’t)
There is nothing you mentioned which couldn’t already be done, and is in fact already being done, faster and more reliably by existing technology.
Also that was not even what NFTs was about, because you didn’t even buy the digital artwork and NFTs would never be able to include it. So it would be supremely useless for the thing you are talking about.
The issue is this doesn’t solve a problem that isn’t already solved. One of the big arguments I always heard was an example using skins from games that can be transfered to other games. We can already do that! Just look at the Steam marketplace for an example. You just need the server infrastructure to do it. Sure, NFTs could make it so the company doesn’t control the market, but what benefit do they get for using NFTs and distributing the software then?
99.9% of the use cases were solutions looking for a problem. I could see a use for something like deeds or other documents, but that’s about it.
Yeah, Sort of.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a huge fan of NFTs and do think there’s easier ways, but I would agree that taking market control away from the companies owning it would kind of be the point (but I do think you can probably still do this concept without any NFTs).
Sure, steam could allow game trading right now with no need for NFTs whatsoever, but the point would be that I can trade a game I bought through Xbox, to someone on Steam, and then go buy something on the Epic store with the money.
And all of it without some crazy fee from the involved platforms.
But that also would probably still require government intervention to force companies to accept this. Because, again, none of the companies would actually want this. NTF or not that doesn’t change.
Best thing I can think of is to verify licenses for digital products/games. Buy a game, verify you own it like you would with a CD using an NFT, and then you can sell it again when you’re done.
You could do that today without NFTs or anything blockchainish if the game companies wanted it. The hurdle isn’t technological, it’s monetary. There’s no reason that a game company would want to allow you to resell your game.
The technology is not a scam. The tech was used to make scam products.
NFTs can be useful as tickets, vouchers, certificates of authenticity, proof of ownership of something that is actually real (not a jpeg), etc.
But where specifically does it help to not have approved central servers?
Wouldn’t entertainment venues rather retain full control? How would we get out from under Ticketmaster’s monopoly? If the government can just seize property, then why would we ask anyone else who owns a plot of land?
Wouldn’t entertainment venues rather retain full control?
Pretty sure ticketmaster has all the control.
How would we get out from under Ticketmaster’s monopoly?
Using a decentralized and open network (aka NFTs).
If the government can just seize property, then why would we ask anyone else who owns a plot of land?
It’s not about using NFTs to seize land. It’s more that governments are terrible at keeping records. Moving proof of ownership to an open and decentralized network could be an improvement.
FWIW I think capitalism with destroy the planet with or without NFTs. But it’s fairly obtuse to deny that NFTs could disintermediate a variety of centralized cartels.
NFT’s are a scam. Blockchain less so but still has no use.
NFTs were nothing but an URL saved in a decentralized database, linking to a centralized server.
That implementation of NFTs was a total scam, yes. There are some cool potential applications for NFTs … but mostly it was a solution looking for a problem. Even situations where it could be useful - like tracking ownership of things like concert tickets - weren’t going to fly, because the companies don’t want to relinquish control of the second-hand marketplace. They don’t get their cut that way.
I don’t think it’s going to be like that :(
Biochem
Hey, A1 is great so long as you have it on the right dish. I dunno that I’d call it a “hype train” either, because it’s been around for years!
/s
