Re: NFTs
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:26 am
I expect that someone out there might be willing to pay for that as a concept. You should try it out, maybe make some money. Though you'll have to work hard to find that person.
I expect that someone out there might be willing to pay for that as a concept. You should try it out, maybe make some money. Though you'll have to work hard to find that person.
This is undoubtedly true. I have never believed in the Labour theory of value, it's marxist nonsense that can't account for the perception of the buyer, subjective things like beauty etc... Things are worth exactly what people are prepared to pay for them.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:26 amI expect that someone out there might be willing to pay for that as a concept. You should try it out, maybe make some money. Though you'll have to work hard to find that person.
It's the Labour theory of value, not the Labour theory of price. Marx himself was aware that it did not accurately describe prices, though exactly where that leaves the theory is unclear, at least to me. I think it's best understood as a kind of moral principle, but I believe Marx would have firmly rejected this view as he was keen to distance himself from 'idealistic' notions like this.sheldrake wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 10:47 amThis is undoubtedly true. I have never believed in the Labour theory of value, it's marxist nonsense that can't account for the perception of the buyer, subjective things like beauty etc... Things are worth exactly what people are prepared to pay for them.
The mining process doesn't really insure scarcity as I see it. Though the rate at which coins are mined controls the scarcity for e.g. bitcoin, you don't need a mining process with multiple miners for that. You could just e.g. write code that creates however many tokens automatically. What proof of work achieves, at great cost, is to make it inefficient for an actor to work on more than one branch of the ledger, thus insuring that there is always a canonical version. This is the main problem proof of stake implementations face, aside from the naked rent seeking nature of the basic mechanism.sheldrake wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:41 amBack on crypto as you say; the idea that a bitcoin has value because mining it was painful is a bit mad as you say. The main thing the mining process does is assure their scarcity, which does impact price.
But it’s entirely possible to have a proof-of-stake currency that costs very little energy to process, that still has a fixed supply (e.g. Cardano)
The other problem bitcoins energy cost leads to is that mining is concentrated where electricity is cheap, e.g. approx half of all bitcoin mining happens in one industrial region of China. Mining being concentrated in regions controlled by authoritarian olgiarchies mean that the ‘51%’ attacks which could compromise the currency are actually much more likely.
Proof of work mining processes mean there's an energy cost to processing transactions and hence creating new coins, I agree that this is different from whether the upper bound of supply is capped or not. I'm just pointing out that Bitcoin believers see it that way because significant real world resources have to be expended to process their transactions (this is a problem, rather than a feature, from my perspective and I guess yours).secret squirrel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:56 am
The mining process doesn't really insure scarcity as I see it. Though the rate at which coins are mined controls the scarcity for e.g. bitcoin, you don't need a mining process with multiple miners for that.
I don't think rent seeking is necessarily a problem here; people need an incentive to do the mining or why would they bother? what matters to me is whether or not the costs are competitive with traditional banking (in terms of cash and energy, although they're usually linked) and whether you can trust the ledger after each transaction.You could just e.g. write code that creates however many tokens automatically. What proof of work achieves, at great cost, is to make it inefficient for an actor to work on more than one branch of the ledger, thus insuring that there is always a canonical version.
This is the main problem proof of stake implementations face, aside from the naked rent seeking nature of the basic mechanism.
The rent seeking with bitcoins is a only a bit harder to see, it's built into its deflationary nature.secret squirrel wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:56 amThe mining process doesn't really insure scarcity as I see it. Though the rate at which coins are mined controls the scarcity for e.g. bitcoin, you don't need a mining process with multiple miners for that. You could just e.g. write code that creates however many tokens automatically. What proof of work achieves, at great cost, is to make it inefficient for an actor to work on more than one branch of the ledger, thus insuring that there is always a canonical version. This is the main problem proof of stake implementations face, aside from the naked rent seeking nature of the basic mechanism.sheldrake wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:41 amBack on crypto as you say; the idea that a bitcoin has value because mining it was painful is a bit mad as you say. The main thing the mining process does is assure their scarcity, which does impact price.
But it’s entirely possible to have a proof-of-stake currency that costs very little energy to process, that still has a fixed supply (e.g. Cardano)
The other problem bitcoins energy cost leads to is that mining is concentrated where electricity is cheap, e.g. approx half of all bitcoin mining happens in one industrial region of China. Mining being concentrated in regions controlled by authoritarian olgiarchies mean that the ‘51%’ attacks which could compromise the currency are actually much more likely.
No.El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:37 pmDoes one need to own the thing in order to create one of these non tangible vulcans?
Nothing's stopping you selling an NFT that points to whitehouse.govEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:37 pmDoes one need to own the thing in order to create one of these non tangible vulcans?
How does it work if it's a public asset? We all, technically, own Network Rail, so can I create a NTV for a signal or a sleeper?
Except that no-one would buy it because it would be pointless?dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:52 amNothing's stopping you selling an NFT that points to whitehouse.govEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:37 pmDoes one need to own the thing in order to create one of these non tangible vulcans?
How does it work if it's a public asset? We all, technically, own Network Rail, so can I create a NTV for a signal or a sleeper?
But they might thoughwilsontown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:06 amExcept that no-one would buy it because it would be pointless?
This is the interesting question, IMO. It's obvious that NFTs and other cryptoshit are a mechanism for and facilitator of scams, laundering and a range of dodgy sh.t. Some marks are also deriving a certain amount of value from their overpriced geegaws and stoking a bubble. But is there an underlying scam, where the purpose of the whole edifice is dodgy? Who knows?
It's no more or less pointless than other NFTs whose payload is a URL.wilsontown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:06 amExcept that no-one would buy it because it would be pointless?dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:52 amNothing's stopping you selling an NFT that points to whitehouse.govEl Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:37 pmDoes one need to own the thing in order to create one of these non tangible vulcans?
How does it work if it's a public asset? We all, technically, own Network Rail, so can I create a NTV for a signal or a sleeper?
On the cryptocurrency side, China is opposed because it interferes with state control of the economy. China and other countries are additionally concerned because it makes tax enforcement difficult and makes it easier to evade money laundering regulations and sanctions. It's also a direct challenge to fiat currency and the ability of governments to control the money supply as an economic tool.Sciolus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:41 pmThis is the interesting question, IMO. It's obvious that NFTs and other cryptoshit are a mechanism for and facilitator of scams, laundering and a range of dodgy sh.t. Some marks are also deriving a certain amount of value from their overpriced geegaws and stoking a bubble. But is there an underlying scam, where the purpose of the whole edifice is dodgy? Who knows?
It's interesting that China is quite opposed to crypto. That suggests they aren't the shadowy figures behind it. Russia is very likely; and if China knows that, maybe that explains their position.
i…. just received a children’s book about a rabbit who travels back in time to medieval europe and gets everyone hyped about blockchain https://t.co/0M4EvuSy6P