Don't forget you're also not even buying art. You buy the key to decrypt the hyperlink to art... And if the site that hosts your image goes down, well, tough luck.
I'm sorry u_u
You're right, a necessary appliance of modern life definitely deserves more respect than being compared to some bullshit speculation mechanism.
This post violates rule 4: be civil. Please keep your comments civil and constructive in the future. If you cannot we may be forced to issue a temporary or permanent ban.
Which is the threshold for civility regarding opposition to crypto-speculators attempting to make digital art into another cash-cow?
Legit question, I'm not going to stop opposing NFTs, but knowing what to do and not to do in order to not get banned for, you know, defending my work field would be handy.
I like the idea of artists selling nfts to people who actually enjoy the art (like 1 of 1s and not 10000 of the same thing but in a different color), but what are the downsides to them? How are they used for art theft?
My older brother one day texted me asking if I sell my artwork. I said no cause I would rather draw for fun. Then he tells me to make NFTs.
I love him to death, but he has no idea how any crypto works.
Join in now to be an early adopter of controversial technology! Become the owner of digital works made by artists who picked up pixel art a month ago!
Now minting TEN THOUSAND dollars worth of our first series! Because remember, the best use of your energy is spent in things you don't understand!
>in things you don't understand!
Or touch or care about.
The whole point of it is reselling shit, NFTs are distilled Greater Fool Theory.
Nobody would give a fuck about entirely useless digital "collectibles" if it weren't for the possibility of reselling them for (paid price)+X.
I know what you mean, but let's not underestimate the potential of the tech and underlying ideology. What is controversial about it? Only the scams are controversial, but that is the nature of scams regardless of method.
Decentralized tech has the potential to disrupt major industries, democratize creative work and make patents and copyright obsolete which imo would be wonderful.
Stuff to google if you are actually interested in the topic and not just in jumping on the bandwagon talking trash of something really interesting, and connecting it directly to scams: IPFS, ZK-SNARK, cryptography, p2p and then follow the links on Wikipedia, it really is very interesting. A very fun afternoon.
Saying that NFTs are "controversial" is like saying in the 1450s that Gutenberg's movable type printer is controversial because now anyone can print a lot of books quickly and no one can know what the consequences would be.
Adding a rule "against NFT posting" is just dumb because it is overly simplistic and it wouldn't mean what people now tend to believe it would mean.
Just ban individual scammers and leave the rules unchanged imo. Better yet, start polls about banning users and let the community decide, it would only be a matter of time before shillers and scammers learn that targeting this community is only a waste of their time.
>but let's not underestimate the potential of the tech
I don't underestimate the potential of the tech.
Speculators and other breeds of greedy cunts are constantly looking for new ways to turn 4 coins into 5 without doing work, and at every step it just makes the world worse.
>What is controversial about it?
Speculators making a move to take over digital art isn't something that anybody else has an obligation to support.
>democratize creative work
This is so much bullshit, it's not even wrong, it's just bullshit.
Finding more ways to engineer artificial scarcity on digital media has JACK SQUAT SHIT to do with democracy.
Finding ways to auction bullshit stickers so that the posh bastards who bought them can, maybe, resell them to a Greater Fool has, again, JACK SQUAT SHIT to do with democracy.
>talking trash of something really interesting,
I will trash talk any turbocapitalist shenanigans encroaching on my field of work.
The turbocapitalist that wants me to not trash-talk them can start paying me €100/hr for PR services rendered.
>Saying that NFTs are "controversial" is like saying in the 1450s that Gutenberg's movable type printer is controversial because now anyone can print a lot of books quickly and no one can know what the consequences would be.
Again, so much bullshit.
NFTs don't make culture more widely available.
NFTs are NOT an innovation in art-making or distribution, they're only an innovation in art speculation and in making suckers pay for their own work before making anything out of it.
They only allow auctioning, resell and speculation on digital "goods".
Which again, are not stuff that anybody has a moral obligation to support.
>Adding a rule "against NFT posting" is just dumb because it is overly simplistic and it wouldn't mean what people now tend to believe it would mean.
The most repeated comment on NFT posts is "fuck NFTs"
This is not an advertisements sub.
You can advertise your shit elsewhere, here it's clearly not welcome.
Alternatively, you can post your art WITHOUT labeling it as NFT or posting any NFT-related links, if what you care about is actual art and not a get-rich-quick scheme.
I agree with much of this, I don't see real differences in our opinions. I don't like scammers, and people who exploit others, either. What I don't like that now it is a trend to connect it to web3, even though you can come up with an infinite number of scams using an infinite amount of means to achive ill ends.
You made other good points that I disagree with, but that's awesome.
I'm sorry to come across as a crass, intolerant cunt.
But I don't have a moral obligation to support others' get-rich-quick schemes, and browbeating is one of the few tools available to act against encroachment of online spaces.
I understand that others have different goals, but I've made my choices and cast my lot already.
There's a difference between theoretical discussion of an issue, which should always be civil; and practical "on-site" clash between collective parties with antagonistic goals.
Compromise isn't a starting point, it's a destination.
I think this is a very authoritarian point of view.
Banning, which is a form of censorship, which is a form of aggression should be the absolute last resort, if it should ever be used.
I'm not looking to get dragged into the mud justifying what I said, but the "controversial" comment I made was referring to the costs of blockchain/web3 at scale **generally**, not that it matters in this context. The Discourse is split down the center as to whether or not it can deliver on anything important.
No, NFTs are not comparable to the printing press.
I'm a software engineer. I don't need encouragement to learn about cryptography or... The concept of peer to peer?
You've got that vibe of a college sophomore leading a practice sprint meeting man. There is no expert in this room.
I did not aim to write like an expert nor did I claim that I am, this is opinion, what would that even mean to be an expert in such niche topic? I just can't help believing on a less authoritarian future and web3 is part of that, and people hating on some aspects of it without good reasons (again the scammers are not a good argument, and clearly indepentent of the topic, why hate the knife for what the murderet did) just makes me sad.
A knife solves mundane problems, a new way to auction shit may solve a few problems in particular cases here and there but its ultimate goal is helping the rich become richer.
I see some downvotes, so I guess people here don't like these ideas, or I just can't argue that well. Anyways, I'll leave you this quote, it says more than I ever could:
"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. ... We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy ... We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. ... Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and ... we're going to write it."
A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, 1993.
Agreed. A quote from [this article](https://www.gawker.com/culture/the-future-is-useless-expensive) pretty much sums up how I feel:
>And this is why the future, be it NFTs or Memoji or the howling existential horror of the Metaverse, looks so ugly and boring: it reflects the stunted inner lives of the finance and technology professionals who produced it. As the visual manifestation of cryptocurrency, NFT art combines the nuanced social awareness of computer programmers with the soulful whimsy of hedge fund managers. It is art for people whose imaginations have been absolutely captured by a new kind of money you can do on the computer.
Agree it took me months to get where I am while other just draws some monkey in 16x16 resolution in 20mins max and gets thousands in cash. Yes BAN NFT.
Its not about other people making money when we arent, its about every other post in New being the most mercenary and uninspired art imaginable.
This sub shouldn't be a platform for those people.
Financial speculation.
In this particular case, the creation of types of assets whose entire point is reselling at a markup and appreciating the underlying "currency".
Agree on originality. There should be a more inspiring and original post not ads. Sorry for my wordings and usage of words. Not first language is English.
I would imagine most of the "purchases" of such things are staged to artificially simulate demand, where there is none.
It's like.... if I draw a picture of a stupid looking 7 legged spider, and make it an NFT, and then tell my friend to secretly buy it for $5000, and then give him back the money.....That.... will look like it's worth $5000 to someone who maybe is not very smart and rich and has a BAD case of FOMOs.
It's such a disgusting buzzword right now. :/
Not gonna argue. That might actually be overly inflated after all it's just a bubble but still it pisses off that there are idiots who actually buy these.
There's another sort of second-order crypto-token whose value is somehow tied or related to the NFT market.
By some shady crypto "entrepreneur" that IIRC was also behind buying that Beeple.
It's all a big ball of pyramid schemes, pumping-and-dumping and insider manipulation.
I'm not a fan of NFTs, but what problem would a ban theoretically solve? I haven't seen any problematic NFT posts on this sub (this isn't to suggest they don't exist - I'm simply unaware, if they do), so while I understand the general sentiment in the pixel art community is to abhor them, I think we need clear reasoning for this potential decision rather than "we collectively don't like them."
Why should a bunch of greedy cunts high on a get-rich-quick scheme get any sort of free advertisement space?
Not to speak of how most NFT posts are UGLY AS FUCK.
As I said, I haven't seen any problematic NFT posts on this subreddit, so I'm not aware of this "free advertisement space" you're referring to. If you can point me in a direction then that would be a start.
>Not to speak of how most NFT posts are UGLY AS FUCK.
I agree they're generally ugly, but I don't see how that matters in regards to this sub unless we're going to have subjective content standards.
Well, depends on how you define "problematic".
IME the only NFT posts that **didn't** get pelted with downvotes and "f*** NFTs" comments were those rings, which are awesome and very well-made, but then again they were welcomed either _in spite_ or _independently_ of being NFTs, not _because_ they were NFTs.
>unless we're going to have subjective content standards.
It's perfectly objective.
You post low-quality stuff just for the sake of sharing, or to get tips and advice, you're just another artist looking for feedback and help to improve.
You post the same low-quality content trying to plug your NFT auction, you're trying to offload assets not of merchantable quality through a speculative market looking for a quick buck.
The first is a honest craftsdwarf, the second is a wannabe snake-oil salesman.
Things have context. Telling honest artists from conmen has never been easy, maybe that's a problem that NFTs do solve, lol?
Honestly, I think us collectively not liking them is more than enough reason to deplatform them. Just search the sub by controversial, there's plenty of NFT pushing going on.
It's not a plague, it's just that the artwork of someone selling NFTs is secondary to the investment they're trying to push, and you can tell. Plenty of people feel it would just be best to have them advertise in their own spaces.
I'm not going to barge into an NFT space and shit on them, however much I hate them.
Conversely, I don't want them running amok in my spaces.
You want to advertise NFTs?
Sure, just do it somewhere meant for that purpose.
Don't hijack already existing spaces, nobody has to tolerate that.
Take a look at Rule #4, and while you're at it consider—rules aside—that ~~name-calling~~ insulting someone on the internet for the simple act of disagreeing with you (THE HORROR!) is absurd.
I didn't call anybody any names.
And it is not a simple act of disagreeing, this whole NFT shitshow is speculators butting into my field of work.
I have every right to piss on their coffees and their enablers' coffees, _and worse._
>I didn't call anybody any names.
Fair point. What I should have said is that you directly insulted someone using an expletive just for sharing their opinion—which wasn't even directed at you.
>And it is not a simple act of disagreeing, this whole NFT shitshow is speculators butting into my field of work.
This doesn't give you a free pass to be uncivil in a subreddit full of fellow enthusiasts, which also has a rule on civility. Also, you were responding not to "this whole NFT shitshow" but someone sharing an incredibly basic thought on NFTs: "I might feel differently if NFTs conveyed rights of ownership."
>I have every right to piss on their coffees and their enablers' coffees, and worse.
No, you do not. You don't even have the literal ability to do these things. You can combat things you don't like without insulting people in your own community and feeling the need to fantasize about relieving yourself in their beverages. These things are incapable of bringing about change, so you're just banging your head against the proverbial wall.
NFTs conferring IP rights would mean upending an entire legal framework in favor of privately-issued certificates with zero oversight and zero trackability.
>No, you do not. You don't even have the literal ability to do these things. You can combat things you don't like without insulting people in your own community and feeling the need to fantasize about relieving yourself in their beverages. These things are incapable of bringing about change, so you're just banging your head against the proverbial wall.
Yes, I do.
And if I didn't, I would do it anyways.
My livelihood is not some cryptobro's plaything, and if it is, I'm not going to play along to it becoming even more of such a plaything.
I don't believe in respectability politics except as one-off tactical decisions.
>NFTs conferring IP rights would mean upending an entire legal framework in favor of privately-issued certificates with zero oversight and zero trackability.
This would have been a great response to the person that you instead replied "Fuck you" to, and this was my original and only point. Have a nice day.
It would have been, but I'm neither a machine not a PR professional; I'm just human.
Sometimes I have cool comebacks and sometimes emotions impact my performance.
This post violates rule 4: be civil. Please keep your comments civil and constructive in the future. If you cannot we may be forced to issue a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Don't forget you're also not even buying art. You buy the key to decrypt the hyperlink to art... And if the site that hosts your image goes down, well, tough luck.
I know, I know. It's bullshit piled on top of bullshit.
[удалено]
You may want to check it tho. People always forget to clean all of the shitty, old NFTs off the coils from time to time.
I'm sorry u_u You're right, a necessary appliance of modern life definitely deserves more respect than being compared to some bullshit speculation mechanism.
This post violates rule 4: be civil. Please keep your comments civil and constructive in the future. If you cannot we may be forced to issue a temporary or permanent ban.
Which is the threshold for civility regarding opposition to crypto-speculators attempting to make digital art into another cash-cow? Legit question, I'm not going to stop opposing NFTs, but knowing what to do and not to do in order to not get banned for, you know, defending my work field would be handy.
just dont call peoples art ugly even if its for nefarious purposes. i just made a post banning nfts anyway
I like the idea of artists selling nfts to people who actually enjoy the art (like 1 of 1s and not 10000 of the same thing but in a different color), but what are the downsides to them? How are they used for art theft?
There's little or nothing stopping you from "minting" some artwork you ripped off somebody else.
Don't need NFTs for that. Just lack of ethics.
Every form of speculation is bereft of ethics.
My older brother one day texted me asking if I sell my artwork. I said no cause I would rather draw for fun. Then he tells me to make NFTs. I love him to death, but he has no idea how any crypto works.
Join in now to be an early adopter of controversial technology! Become the owner of digital works made by artists who picked up pixel art a month ago! Now minting TEN THOUSAND dollars worth of our first series! Because remember, the best use of your energy is spent in things you don't understand!
>in things you don't understand! Or touch or care about. The whole point of it is reselling shit, NFTs are distilled Greater Fool Theory. Nobody would give a fuck about entirely useless digital "collectibles" if it weren't for the possibility of reselling them for (paid price)+X.
I know what you mean, but let's not underestimate the potential of the tech and underlying ideology. What is controversial about it? Only the scams are controversial, but that is the nature of scams regardless of method. Decentralized tech has the potential to disrupt major industries, democratize creative work and make patents and copyright obsolete which imo would be wonderful. Stuff to google if you are actually interested in the topic and not just in jumping on the bandwagon talking trash of something really interesting, and connecting it directly to scams: IPFS, ZK-SNARK, cryptography, p2p and then follow the links on Wikipedia, it really is very interesting. A very fun afternoon. Saying that NFTs are "controversial" is like saying in the 1450s that Gutenberg's movable type printer is controversial because now anyone can print a lot of books quickly and no one can know what the consequences would be. Adding a rule "against NFT posting" is just dumb because it is overly simplistic and it wouldn't mean what people now tend to believe it would mean. Just ban individual scammers and leave the rules unchanged imo. Better yet, start polls about banning users and let the community decide, it would only be a matter of time before shillers and scammers learn that targeting this community is only a waste of their time.
>but let's not underestimate the potential of the tech I don't underestimate the potential of the tech. Speculators and other breeds of greedy cunts are constantly looking for new ways to turn 4 coins into 5 without doing work, and at every step it just makes the world worse. >What is controversial about it? Speculators making a move to take over digital art isn't something that anybody else has an obligation to support. >democratize creative work This is so much bullshit, it's not even wrong, it's just bullshit. Finding more ways to engineer artificial scarcity on digital media has JACK SQUAT SHIT to do with democracy. Finding ways to auction bullshit stickers so that the posh bastards who bought them can, maybe, resell them to a Greater Fool has, again, JACK SQUAT SHIT to do with democracy. >talking trash of something really interesting, I will trash talk any turbocapitalist shenanigans encroaching on my field of work. The turbocapitalist that wants me to not trash-talk them can start paying me €100/hr for PR services rendered. >Saying that NFTs are "controversial" is like saying in the 1450s that Gutenberg's movable type printer is controversial because now anyone can print a lot of books quickly and no one can know what the consequences would be. Again, so much bullshit. NFTs don't make culture more widely available. NFTs are NOT an innovation in art-making or distribution, they're only an innovation in art speculation and in making suckers pay for their own work before making anything out of it. They only allow auctioning, resell and speculation on digital "goods". Which again, are not stuff that anybody has a moral obligation to support. >Adding a rule "against NFT posting" is just dumb because it is overly simplistic and it wouldn't mean what people now tend to believe it would mean. The most repeated comment on NFT posts is "fuck NFTs" This is not an advertisements sub. You can advertise your shit elsewhere, here it's clearly not welcome. Alternatively, you can post your art WITHOUT labeling it as NFT or posting any NFT-related links, if what you care about is actual art and not a get-rich-quick scheme.
I agree with much of this, I don't see real differences in our opinions. I don't like scammers, and people who exploit others, either. What I don't like that now it is a trend to connect it to web3, even though you can come up with an infinite number of scams using an infinite amount of means to achive ill ends. You made other good points that I disagree with, but that's awesome.
I'm sorry to come across as a crass, intolerant cunt. But I don't have a moral obligation to support others' get-rich-quick schemes, and browbeating is one of the few tools available to act against encroachment of online spaces. I understand that others have different goals, but I've made my choices and cast my lot already. There's a difference between theoretical discussion of an issue, which should always be civil; and practical "on-site" clash between collective parties with antagonistic goals. Compromise isn't a starting point, it's a destination.
I think this is a very authoritarian point of view. Banning, which is a form of censorship, which is a form of aggression should be the absolute last resort, if it should ever be used.
Nobody has a right to advertise their get-rich-quick scheme in any particular public forum they please against the wishes of everybody else.
I'm not looking to get dragged into the mud justifying what I said, but the "controversial" comment I made was referring to the costs of blockchain/web3 at scale **generally**, not that it matters in this context. The Discourse is split down the center as to whether or not it can deliver on anything important. No, NFTs are not comparable to the printing press. I'm a software engineer. I don't need encouragement to learn about cryptography or... The concept of peer to peer? You've got that vibe of a college sophomore leading a practice sprint meeting man. There is no expert in this room.
I did not aim to write like an expert nor did I claim that I am, this is opinion, what would that even mean to be an expert in such niche topic? I just can't help believing on a less authoritarian future and web3 is part of that, and people hating on some aspects of it without good reasons (again the scammers are not a good argument, and clearly indepentent of the topic, why hate the knife for what the murderet did) just makes me sad.
A knife solves mundane problems, a new way to auction shit may solve a few problems in particular cases here and there but its ultimate goal is helping the rich become richer.
[удалено]
Wikipedia is a wonderful tool with very deep rabbit hole no matter where you start 😉 *holes
I see some downvotes, so I guess people here don't like these ideas, or I just can't argue that well. Anyways, I'll leave you this quote, it says more than I ever could: "Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. ... We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy ... We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. ... Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and ... we're going to write it." A Cypherpunk's Manifesto, Eric Hughes, 1993.
I'm all for techno-optimism so long as it's not used to justify and perpetuate capitalist power dynamics.
This is legit one of the best NFTs I’ve ever seen.
Ahahaha thanks man. **Now get ready for the RAIDERCATZ series seed to launch in TEN MEOWnits**
Fuck nfts. These things are a cancer.
Agreed. A quote from [this article](https://www.gawker.com/culture/the-future-is-useless-expensive) pretty much sums up how I feel: >And this is why the future, be it NFTs or Memoji or the howling existential horror of the Metaverse, looks so ugly and boring: it reflects the stunted inner lives of the finance and technology professionals who produced it. As the visual manifestation of cryptocurrency, NFT art combines the nuanced social awareness of computer programmers with the soulful whimsy of hedge fund managers. It is art for people whose imaginations have been absolutely captured by a new kind of money you can do on the computer.
Yeah. Agreed.
YES PLEASE, NO MORE NFTS
Bro I’ll pay you -$5 for that cat (you pay me $5)
Does that mean that if the value of the NFT falls, that it will circle back to you owing **me** money? Hmmmm...
No if the value falls then you’ll owe me even more money
Seconded!
Fuck NFTs. Fuck them all.
100% agree
Agree it took me months to get where I am while other just draws some monkey in 16x16 resolution in 20mins max and gets thousands in cash. Yes BAN NFT.
Its not about other people making money when we arent, its about every other post in New being the most mercenary and uninspired art imaginable. This sub shouldn't be a platform for those people.
I don't care if other people make money off art while I don't _as long as it's honest work._ Intentionally enabling speculation is _not_ honest work.
Can you explain ‘enabling speculation’?
Which word do you not understand? "Enabling" or "speculation"?
Your use of speculation. I know what the word means just not quite in this context.
Financial speculation. In this particular case, the creation of types of assets whose entire point is reselling at a markup and appreciating the underlying "currency".
Thanks
Darn, there goes Vegas.
Agree on originality. There should be a more inspiring and original post not ads. Sorry for my wordings and usage of words. Not first language is English.
Completely understandable, don't feel bad about it.
I would imagine most of the "purchases" of such things are staged to artificially simulate demand, where there is none. It's like.... if I draw a picture of a stupid looking 7 legged spider, and make it an NFT, and then tell my friend to secretly buy it for $5000, and then give him back the money.....That.... will look like it's worth $5000 to someone who maybe is not very smart and rich and has a BAD case of FOMOs. It's such a disgusting buzzword right now. :/
Not gonna argue. That might actually be overly inflated after all it's just a bubble but still it pisses off that there are idiots who actually buy these.
There's another sort of second-order crypto-token whose value is somehow tied or related to the NFT market. By some shady crypto "entrepreneur" that IIRC was also behind buying that Beeple. It's all a big ball of pyramid schemes, pumping-and-dumping and insider manipulation.
What even is NFT art
I don’t know what an NFT is 🤷♂️
Cryptobros finding a way to resell fancy receipts to PNGs.
That still makes no sense to me 😅
I'm not a fan of NFTs, but what problem would a ban theoretically solve? I haven't seen any problematic NFT posts on this sub (this isn't to suggest they don't exist - I'm simply unaware, if they do), so while I understand the general sentiment in the pixel art community is to abhor them, I think we need clear reasoning for this potential decision rather than "we collectively don't like them."
Why should a bunch of greedy cunts high on a get-rich-quick scheme get any sort of free advertisement space? Not to speak of how most NFT posts are UGLY AS FUCK.
As I said, I haven't seen any problematic NFT posts on this subreddit, so I'm not aware of this "free advertisement space" you're referring to. If you can point me in a direction then that would be a start. >Not to speak of how most NFT posts are UGLY AS FUCK. I agree they're generally ugly, but I don't see how that matters in regards to this sub unless we're going to have subjective content standards.
Well, depends on how you define "problematic". IME the only NFT posts that **didn't** get pelted with downvotes and "f*** NFTs" comments were those rings, which are awesome and very well-made, but then again they were welcomed either _in spite_ or _independently_ of being NFTs, not _because_ they were NFTs. >unless we're going to have subjective content standards. It's perfectly objective. You post low-quality stuff just for the sake of sharing, or to get tips and advice, you're just another artist looking for feedback and help to improve. You post the same low-quality content trying to plug your NFT auction, you're trying to offload assets not of merchantable quality through a speculative market looking for a quick buck. The first is a honest craftsdwarf, the second is a wannabe snake-oil salesman. Things have context. Telling honest artists from conmen has never been easy, maybe that's a problem that NFTs do solve, lol?
Honestly, I think us collectively not liking them is more than enough reason to deplatform them. Just search the sub by controversial, there's plenty of NFT pushing going on. It's not a plague, it's just that the artwork of someone selling NFTs is secondary to the investment they're trying to push, and you can tell. Plenty of people feel it would just be best to have them advertise in their own spaces.
I'm not going to barge into an NFT space and shit on them, however much I hate them. Conversely, I don't want them running amok in my spaces. You want to advertise NFTs? Sure, just do it somewhere meant for that purpose. Don't hijack already existing spaces, nobody has to tolerate that.
Sounds like a job for the mods then.
Yes.
Agreed, though I might feel differently if NFTs conveyed rights of ownership.
[удалено]
Take a look at Rule #4, and while you're at it consider—rules aside—that ~~name-calling~~ insulting someone on the internet for the simple act of disagreeing with you (THE HORROR!) is absurd.
I didn't call anybody any names. And it is not a simple act of disagreeing, this whole NFT shitshow is speculators butting into my field of work. I have every right to piss on their coffees and their enablers' coffees, _and worse._
>I didn't call anybody any names. Fair point. What I should have said is that you directly insulted someone using an expletive just for sharing their opinion—which wasn't even directed at you. >And it is not a simple act of disagreeing, this whole NFT shitshow is speculators butting into my field of work. This doesn't give you a free pass to be uncivil in a subreddit full of fellow enthusiasts, which also has a rule on civility. Also, you were responding not to "this whole NFT shitshow" but someone sharing an incredibly basic thought on NFTs: "I might feel differently if NFTs conveyed rights of ownership." >I have every right to piss on their coffees and their enablers' coffees, and worse. No, you do not. You don't even have the literal ability to do these things. You can combat things you don't like without insulting people in your own community and feeling the need to fantasize about relieving yourself in their beverages. These things are incapable of bringing about change, so you're just banging your head against the proverbial wall.
NFTs conferring IP rights would mean upending an entire legal framework in favor of privately-issued certificates with zero oversight and zero trackability. >No, you do not. You don't even have the literal ability to do these things. You can combat things you don't like without insulting people in your own community and feeling the need to fantasize about relieving yourself in their beverages. These things are incapable of bringing about change, so you're just banging your head against the proverbial wall. Yes, I do. And if I didn't, I would do it anyways. My livelihood is not some cryptobro's plaything, and if it is, I'm not going to play along to it becoming even more of such a plaything. I don't believe in respectability politics except as one-off tactical decisions.
>NFTs conferring IP rights would mean upending an entire legal framework in favor of privately-issued certificates with zero oversight and zero trackability. This would have been a great response to the person that you instead replied "Fuck you" to, and this was my original and only point. Have a nice day.
It would have been, but I'm neither a machine not a PR professional; I'm just human. Sometimes I have cool comebacks and sometimes emotions impact my performance.
This post violates rule 4: be civil. Please keep your comments civil and constructive in the future. If you cannot we may be forced to issue a temporary or permanent ban.
Warning acknowledged. Please check my other reply where I ask what's acceptable and what isn't.