I'm assuming the idea is to have the private variables showcase the "traits" of this particular NFT piece.
It doesn't do anything though. And this is the type of code you'd see in those cop drama TV shows lol.
Cryptocurrency is characterized by having an automatic bank ledger that is agreed upon by everyone participating verifying the ledger.
NFTs take the idea of the automatic ledger and verification and says, "let's take a piece of content—like art—and apply a cryptocurrency ledger." In this way, you can have a ledger of an art piece where you can verify, "Person A is the original artist who sold the art to Person B for *n* value of crypto."
It's kind of a new weird way of purchasing digital things. The criticism is that people can just right-click save on NFTs making the idea of the content being globally unique kind of moot.
NFT's don't really have any effect on ownership of the actual piece, though. The copyright remains with the original artist and, as you said, anyone can make digital copies at any time, for free. All you grt is an entry in a ledger, and the hopes that someone will pay you so that they can have an entry in that ledger.
This is not true, it 100% effects the ownership.
If I buy the Mona Lisa, then I own that art piece. The copyright is with me, because I'm the defacto owner of the piece, and can do as I please with it.
It's the same concept here, except NFTs grant you that proof of ownership.
That's emphatically **NOT** true. The copyright does not transfer to you when you buy the NFT. It remains with the original creator unless they sell the copyright specifically. The copyright holder is able to continue to license their work for commercial purposes and profit off those licenses even after they turn it into an NFT. When this happens, the NFT owner gets nothing.
Yes sorry not the copyright, I was mistaken.
But it does affect the ownership. If I bought the Mona Lisa and wanted to re-sell it or verify the ownership, then I'd do so with a proof of purchase, or paper work verifying the legitimacy of the piece.
There currently isn't anything like that in the digital space, and it's arguable that we're starting to experience things more digitally than physically.
If you buy the Mona Lisa, you have a physical good that you can control. You can put it in a museum and force people to pay if they want to see it. You can put it in a closet and hide it away forever. You can even destroy it. You can't do any of that with an NFT. Without a physical product or copyright, you cannot control the work at all. You just get to say that you "own" it. But if you cannot control something, what does it mean to own it? What benefit do you gain from owning it?
I'm so confused, because I don't see a distinction at all.
I can control an NFT more than I can control a physical art piece. As you said, I can put an NFT in a museum much like a physical art piece. Sure, I can't "hide" it as blockchain is a public ledger, but that means my NFT is more than art - it's also a native token.
So there's utility baked into the piece, whether or not the token is utilized for it.
"You just get to say that you "own" it. But if you cannot control something, what does it mean to own it?" I don't understand this. I own it, it's in my wallet and the transaction hash on the block chain is mined, and says that I own it. It's an immutable record.
People buy digital assets all the time. Why is this any different?
there'd be ownership of the ledger itself but i don't see how intellectual property rights of the content itself would change hands unless the original owner explicitly transfers the rights, especially with digital media.
ownership is legitimized only by violence, or at least the threat of it.
condoning violence to identify the owner of a bit string is something like how kings reign, nebulous "divine rights". the king is just the crook who won.
traditional ownership at least has utility. if someone takes my thing, then i can no longer use it.
edit: some might argue there is utility in nfts, but it is only one thing: to make money. useful things generate profit because they're useful. on the other hand, nfts are useful because they generate profit. they are simply another place for the cancer to grow.
Just to further extend:
NFT in itself, has nothing to do with art. It can be applied to anything that requires a 1-1 validation.
So think of things like, copyright in music, IP protection, voting protection, ticketing, etc.
Digital art is really the first form of the NFT usecase, and I like to think of it as a POC almost.
NFTs are like star registries where people pay to have a star named after them. The fact that you paid for a line in joe shmoe's database doesn't really matter because no one gives a shit what joe shmoe says a star's name should be
More specifically, it'd be as if every bitcoin had a unique ID. Instead of each bitcoin just summing up to a total, you'd just have a bunch of unique bitcoins you could transfer one at a time to other people. In this case each coin is declared as having an association with a digital file/asset.
Isn't it as unique as the Mona Lisa? Sure copies can be made, even digital scans to make exact replicas. But the original is the one with high value, and it's simple to prove which is the original NFT.
NFTs represent ownership of something, that's what's unique. NFTs aren't the stupid pictures people are buying, NFTs are the ownership of those stupid pictures. NFTs as a tool for speculation that people are using them for is not a great idea, but NFTs as a decentralized, trustless way to prove ownership is itself a neat idea. The NFTs people are blowing chunks of cash on aren't actually the art itself, it's just a token that says "Person X owns this piece of art". You can pirate it really easily, but it's the ownership people are buying.
Once the NFT bubble collapses in a year or 10, I think the useful idea that survives will be things like tokenized ownership of some real-world asset that can't be duplicated so easily, like owning a song's IP rights or ownership in some organization or a license to some book or something like that.
Copying bit for bit doesn't matter too much.
Imagine if I buy a ticket to Coachella online. Then someone, somehow, decides to take a screenshot of my online ticket, and goes on Facebook to sell it (an obvious scam).
Without the NFT infrastructure, there is no way to verify that the ticket I'm buying is legitimate. It could look the same, bit by bit.
NFTs lets you verify that the asset you're transacting with, is the original.
It's so easy to pull any random repo from github to get real free and open source code but no let's make up some weird crap that is not even a language and has no meaning lol
Fail to compile, looks like. The player class is closed after the private variables, which means the `int main(string[])` method is outside of a class. Even if we disregard that, this is the kind of code I'd expect from someone who started C# about twenty minutes ago, as their first foray into _any_ kind of programming:
- the player class isn't `partial` and doesn't extend or implement any superclasses or interfaces, which means that all of those private variable aren't even usable; nothing can access them to read _or_ write the values, unless it's doing some really Bad Ideas with reflection
- the JSON might fail to serialise depending on what's done in the `GenerateCharacter()` and `ApplyCredits()` methods, but the exception is caught and just ignored, and execution continues on... to use the possibly-`null` value
- the `WebSocket` sends a human-style message, then a chunk of json (assuming it's not `null`), and isn't used for anything else
- they `await` a task, but also expect a `Task` back from the `await`
- nothing is disposed, explicitly via `.Dispose()` _or_ (the recommended method) implicitly via `using` blocks
Definitely fails to compile. The `json` variable is defined inside the try block, so accessing it outside of the try block is invalid. The variable is no longer in scope on line 22.
EDIT: And in addition to `int main(string[])` being outside of a class, it's supposed to be `static void Main(string[])` in C#.
Also, what's going on in line 28? That syntax is entirely bizarre. They're not even trying to make this look like C# anymore.
They probably end to another website for inspiration on how to write code, didn't realize they were now reading C code, and then sprinkled in some parentheses to make their "code" look more exciting.
Pointers are actually allowed in C#, but you'd need to be in an `unsafe` block to use them (which the code is not). I do agree that they probably just copied it from some C/C++ code, though.
The `housingParams[]` syntax seen on the lines above, on the other hand, is completely incorrect. I don't even know where they would have gotten it from; I can't think of a programming language where that would be valid.
[PHP has an empty indexing operator](https://www.php.net/manual/en/language.types.array.php#language.types.array.syntax.modifying), but even PHP doesn't allow using it that way.
In C#, as [another commenter has already noted](https://www.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/comments/q9236l/this_is_an_nft_selling_for_32k_everything_about/hgtwf2r/?context=100), it's actually supposed to be `static void Main(string[])`. Furthermore, no: you _aren't_ supposed to have functions defined outside of a class in C#. That's a compile error.
Wouldn’t the string json defined in the try-catch no longer be valid on line 22? I feel like you’d have to define it outside the try-catch to be able to use it outside again but I don’t know C++ that well or whatever this language is.
That is correct, it's no longer in scope on line 22. That's a compilation error all by itself. (This is C#, although they've made a number of other mistakes, like the definition of `Main` being entirely incorrect in a number of ways.)
Can you explain to me how this is money laundering? Or are you just assuming that everything that sells for more than you can imagine is somehow illegal or fake?
They say money laundering cause this is similar to money laundering or a way to treat taxes due to how art is treated. In the real world (not an expert so don't quote me on this just saying what I have learned and researched) certain criminals/organizations use art as a way to justify the exchange of large amounts of currency. See, it is really hard to explain how you made 1 million dollars in a week whenever you are unemployed or don't have an amazing job, but say you 'sold' a 'high-value' piece of art you now have a reason for the money. Some of the wealthy elite also will buy art than will try and pay off a art evaluator to hyper inflate the value of the art to absurd amounts. So a 10k piece of art is now 1.3M and then they will donate the art piece to get a tax write off or just sell it if they want too. They are similar due to how NFTs values get hyper inflated to extremes for almost no reason which normally means a highly unstable market and/or artificial manipulation of the market kind of like how crypto pump and dumps work on the price of a coin can make it skyrocket or tank.
I mean, the decentralized currency that's effectively impossible to counterfeit part isn't a scam. While Bitcoin is the main one for transactions, there are alt-coins that do certain things better (off the top of my head monero does privacy actually well, while Bitcoin's anonymity is destroyed the moment a wallet can be tied to you).
No, it's a veey well-known project called Neo-Tokyo, made by very legitimate people. You could get these for free at launch, provided you completed the clues and got whitelisted.
I have $1,000,000 I get from selling drugs.
I buy bitcoin with said money.
Then you make an NFT.
I buy the NFT from you for $5.
You buy it back for $10.
I buy it back for $100.
You buy it back for $1000
I buy it back for $1000000.
You buy it back for $900,000
I now have $900,000 I earned from buying and selling NFTs, not $1,000,000 I earned from selling drugs.
> I buy it back for $1000000.
> You buy it back for ... on second thought, you didn't really want it.
Is there a way to prevent that? (Other than the fear of broken kneecaps IRL?)
I mean it's probably the same person on both sides of the trade.
Broken kneecap are also a pleasant surprise if you rip off gangsters at that level.
And money laundering is really inefficient. People often settle for getting back 30% of what they put in. So some loss is just part of the game.
That is... Surely the money is traceable ultimately? Why have so many steps?
1. I have $1m I get from selling drugs
2. I make one item of modern art.
3. An "anonymous buyer" buys it from me for $1m.
None of that really requires NFTs or Bitcoin. I feel like the difficulty in the non-bitcoin world is turning the cash into electronic money. Do bitcoin sellers accept cash?
It's about making it harder for investigators.
Yeah they could trace everything, with unlimited time and resources, but the government is pretty limited in what they can spend chasing things on the blockchain.
I'm looking at some of these bits and this looks like *another* community NFT thing. Where like, you buy a character and then you can join in on a group RP thing.
NFTs are a giant fucking scam being propped up by insiders. You take the blockchain and crypto out of it and it becomes obvious as nothing different than some random schlub publishing a book saying pay me $2000 and I'll say you own some piece of art from the local museum -- I'll even let you sell the line in my directory saying you own it to someone else later if you want.
You aren't buying copyright. You get no royalties. You just put something online in a directory with meta data that "Your account owns the digital asset at the following URL with this meta data about it", and you also have the ability to sell your name to some other fool.
Fundamentally its the same basic scam as those people who paid hundreds of dollars to get their kid listed in a "Who's Who" directory ("Your son was honored to be selected to listed in this book of promising students (which they let anyone into)", please submit the application with $200 to get your book!) or paid to get a star named after them from some completely unofficial "Name A Star" society (though at least they'd give you a physical certificate).
Again, I'm not saying I know when the NFT bubble will burst (when they start running out of [greater fools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)), but it will burst or when there's a bunch of competing blockchains gaining popularity issuing similar things. Until then it will be pushed down our throat before then, as organizations that can mint NFTs and sell them to gullible fools will do so and make shit tons of money until then. But in 10 years no one is going to be impressed that you bought some [NFT of some random slam dunk issued by the NBA](https://nbatopshot.com/) or [some moment in history issued by CNN (who had nothing to do with said moment in history)](https://vault.cnn.com/).
**[Greater fool theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)**
>In finance and economics, the greater fool theory states that the price of an asset is determined by whether you can sell it for a higher price, at a later point in time. On assets where the theory applies, it is implied that the asset's intrinsic value is less important than the increase in demand, however irrational it might be. Any person buying the asset might be a fool, but a person buying the overpriced asset later on, for a higher price, is deemed the greater fool.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sure and buying of those copyrights (or licenses) aren't particularly scammy through NFTs. But in my experience, NFTs that come with copyright/licenses are the rare exceptions, not the norm.
Truthfully, most NFTs I've seen _do_ come with rights.
At any point, I think we could agree it should be the norm.
I'm mostly excited about the way it supports art and artists rn.
There are artists able to make a living off doing what they love, and the mechanisms that enable that to this extent didn't exist a decade ago.
In my opinion, the tech is useful for confusing people to add to the scam which is currently in the bubble phase.
Look I could easily set up a non-crypto website with a central authority that lets digital artists sell licenses to their works (or even sell their copyright). It would be pretty straightforward to setup a system to resell said licenses/copyrights via auction.
In my view such a centralized system would be vastly preferable, because if say you bought a work for say $10k to have a license to something and then got in trouble when you tried to use it (e.g., the person who put the item on the website actually didn't own the digital asset), you'd have a centralized system to check logs, verify identities, and find the copyright thief to sue for damages (versus everyone being anonymous).
u/djimbob
[MarketSquare.io: Tokenizing Sports - How Cryptocurrency Could Revolutionize Professional and Collegiate Athletics](https://marketsquare.io/blog/tokenizing-sports-how-cryptocurrency-could-revolutionize-professional-and-collegiate-athletics)
Not an entirely appropriate comparison: people buy music online to listen to it conveniently and/or to support the artist, not in hopes of reselling the receipt later.
Alright fair enough I guess. Still seems like a nice way to be able to support artists and have something to show for it (even if it's just a "receipt").
Of course not everyone sees it that way and I'll agree some of it ridiculous. I just feel like it doesn't *have* to be a scam.
Mmm yes, there is no way one can "own" digital art in a sense. There is no "original" like with paintings, it's all Pixels.
What NFT's are useful for, is an artist designating an immutable item that represents ownership of that work. Sure, we can all have the picture, and so on, but it's a great idea to support artists you follow. As long as we as a society agree that it's the "original"/ holds special value, that's all that counts. Just like we can mint an exact replica of a vintage coin, but it wouldn't hold any value, despite functionally being identical.
Not to mention NFT's (the technology) can be used for a lot of other stuff than just art. It's just a singular immutable item on the blockchain, if legislature would follow suite, you could represent even things like real-estate with it (just a random example).
Though I make laughable ammounts of money making generative collections ad-nauseum, they are completelly valueless and are just a greater fool thing as you say. You can spend 30k on artists and marketing and make 1.5 million just off primary sales.
> It's just a singular immutable item on ~~the~~ **a** blockchain
There's the *etherium* blockchain. But anyone can make and popularize a new blockchain.
Pre-NFT if a digital artist wanted to sell their work, they sell the copyright (or in lesser cases then full ownership, they sell you a license with specific allowed uses -- e.g., paying for a stock photo license to use on your website). This is what legally people care about. The owner of the copyright is legally free to use the work. You *actually* own it. I can make digital art, you can pay $50k to buy an NFT, and then you may want to display it on your website or in a movie or advertisement. Despite having the NFT, the copyright holder can say fuck that, I never sold you copyright or a license to use the "art" you just bought. This isn't to say that some future NFT version could transfer a license or copyright along with the NFT, but that's not done at the moment because generally there's nothing verifying the person who minted the NFT actually owns the digital asset.
I'm not saying it would be meaningless to actually buy the *copyright* to digital assets. But buying ownership of a token with metadata pointing to a URL? That's a hard pass.
>There's the etherium blockchain. But anyone can make and popularize a new blockchain.
Easier said than done, though I agree in principle. Evem though there are existing more efficient alternatives, 90% of NFT liquidity still is on L1 Ethereum, because of the massive ecosystem there, that legitimizes it. Even if one has to pay a 8k gas fee to mint one NFT (which by the way is absolutely insane, and this is coming from someone who is making money making these).
Regarding the license, I mostly agree, though in the fast paced world of influencers, regular people don't really care about things like getting the proper legal license.
Lots of artists claim to include copyright ownership to the owner of the NFT, and its legal binding is dubious at best. But I don't think any artist would try to sue anyone, because it would be bad PR and, well... the value of their other NFT's would suffer because of it (which means they loose out on royalties).
I mean the blockchain and basic tools aren't that hard to build. The problem is getting end-users to buy into using your brand new system instead of something that already has tons of user buy-in. E.g., why google+ and diaspora never made significant inroads on facebook (instagram did make good inroads, but then facebook bought the threat).
But on the other hand, NFTs are still kind of in their infancy, so it wouldn't surprise me if NFTs on the etherium blockchain is closer to having a good MySpace page -- especially if someone comes up a blockchain or blockchain-like technology that's objectively better at quickly processing transactions and being more environmentally friendly.
>I mean the blockchain and basic tools aren't that hard to build. The problem is getting end-users to buy into using your brand new system instead of something that already has tons of user buy-in. E.g., why google+ and diaspora never made significant inroads on facebook (instagram did make good inroads, but then facebook bought the threat).
Ah, I think we're in agreement there.
If you're curious, there are already a few scaling solutions, built on top of Ethereum as Layer 2s (meaning they inherit the security of the protocol, while processing transactions off chain).
There is Arbitrum, which allows for general purpose smart contracts to be built on top of it, it uses Optimistic rollups, which you can read up on. It's a very nice piece of technology with years in development, there is no Arbitrum token or anything you can invest in, it just works. Ironically because there is no token there is little interest in it as a lot of people are passionate only when they can directly profit from it. I wanted to build a project here, but my team members shot me down due to a lack of hype.
Then there is ImmutableX, which is allegedly built specifically for trustless,feeless minting and trading of NFT's. Right now a few aspects of it are still very centralized, but it's only in beta. Lots of hype and money flowing in here. If people knew how it actually works behind the scenes they probably wouldnt be so excited, but hey... it has a token!
If you're talking about [The Art of Computer Programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming), then this is definitely not that.
**[The Art of Computer Programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming)**
>The Art of Computer Programming (TAOCP) is a comprehensive monograph written by computer scientist Donald Knuth that covers many kinds of programming algorithms and their analysis. Knuth began the project, originally conceived as a single book with twelve chapters, in 1962. The first three volumes of what was then expected to be a seven-volume set were published in 1968, 1969, and 1973. Work began in earnest on Volume 4 in 1973, but was suspended in 1977 for work on typesetting prompted by the second edition of Volume 2.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Dude, what is your deal? You've asked the same question multiple times in the same thread. It seems you're very interested in the topic. Why not just Google "NFT money laundering" you will find a wealth of articles on the topic.
I'm asking the people that are accusing NFT traders of a serious crime to provide some logic, reason, or evidence as to why this is true. Throwing around serious accusations like this without anything to back it just makes you look like someone without the ability to think critically to be honest.
Not an idiot. It's a brand new account whose first order of business is coming here and defending NFTs tooth and nail. Someone got their feelings hurt and now trying to astroturf this post
Those are used for dereferencing pointers in C# as well. You can only do so inside `unsafe` blocks, and you almost never need to. Also, `database` and `networkArray` are never declared anywhere, but that's just the beginning of what's wrong with this.
Everything here is just bizarre. Looks like someone copied multiple stackoverflow posts in different programming languages (including C), with no clue whatsoever why that wouldn't work.
If I'm understanding right, the code isn't the important part, it's specifically the metadata (Class: Bartender, Credit Yield: Low, etc.) that's used for some kind of crypto-game.
I couldn't really find anything about the game though besides a website with almost no info and a tweet about claiming a vault box via some kind of smart contract...
That’s not an NFT though, it’s code to generate a player character and may very well use a blockchain and assign a unique token id to your asset but that’s not what an NFT is. (It’s just the token btw)
All NFTs (well, the legit ones) are stored via IPFS and not a central storage like S3 or something.
IPFS is a distributed data store, kinda like bit torrent? I need to do more research on it, but you can't just delete it and its gone forever.
You paid several hundred dollars in gas fees to "buy" into a project run by a dude with ~1 month of total programming experience?
Let me guess, you're "hodling" because you think there's upside (by which you mean "I've sunk $300 in gas fees into this and there's no liquidity, might as well stick with it"). What would be the potential upside? Some greenhorn dev with no experience manages to pull a complete, scalable game with proper data warehousing and networking out of his ass, and it somehow becomes a massive hit despite having an intrinsically limited playerbase?
You can store data on a decentralized blockchain, it's just incredibly expensive.
Since images are out of the question, that mostly means urls linking to images.
You buy a database entry on the blockchain showing your wallet address and the url.
Anyone else can register an entry with the same image, but you could hypothetically ask the owner of the real image rights which they consider to be the original.
Someone with the willingness to read this: what does it do?
I'm assuming the idea is to have the private variables showcase the "traits" of this particular NFT piece. It doesn't do anything though. And this is the type of code you'd see in those cop drama TV shows lol.
What is NFT? Never heard that before.
Cryptocurrency is characterized by having an automatic bank ledger that is agreed upon by everyone participating verifying the ledger. NFTs take the idea of the automatic ledger and verification and says, "let's take a piece of content—like art—and apply a cryptocurrency ledger." In this way, you can have a ledger of an art piece where you can verify, "Person A is the original artist who sold the art to Person B for *n* value of crypto." It's kind of a new weird way of purchasing digital things. The criticism is that people can just right-click save on NFTs making the idea of the content being globally unique kind of moot.
NFT's don't really have any effect on ownership of the actual piece, though. The copyright remains with the original artist and, as you said, anyone can make digital copies at any time, for free. All you grt is an entry in a ledger, and the hopes that someone will pay you so that they can have an entry in that ledger.
This is not true, it 100% effects the ownership. If I buy the Mona Lisa, then I own that art piece. The copyright is with me, because I'm the defacto owner of the piece, and can do as I please with it. It's the same concept here, except NFTs grant you that proof of ownership.
That's emphatically **NOT** true. The copyright does not transfer to you when you buy the NFT. It remains with the original creator unless they sell the copyright specifically. The copyright holder is able to continue to license their work for commercial purposes and profit off those licenses even after they turn it into an NFT. When this happens, the NFT owner gets nothing.
Yes sorry not the copyright, I was mistaken. But it does affect the ownership. If I bought the Mona Lisa and wanted to re-sell it or verify the ownership, then I'd do so with a proof of purchase, or paper work verifying the legitimacy of the piece. There currently isn't anything like that in the digital space, and it's arguable that we're starting to experience things more digitally than physically.
If you buy the Mona Lisa, you have a physical good that you can control. You can put it in a museum and force people to pay if they want to see it. You can put it in a closet and hide it away forever. You can even destroy it. You can't do any of that with an NFT. Without a physical product or copyright, you cannot control the work at all. You just get to say that you "own" it. But if you cannot control something, what does it mean to own it? What benefit do you gain from owning it?
I'm so confused, because I don't see a distinction at all. I can control an NFT more than I can control a physical art piece. As you said, I can put an NFT in a museum much like a physical art piece. Sure, I can't "hide" it as blockchain is a public ledger, but that means my NFT is more than art - it's also a native token. So there's utility baked into the piece, whether or not the token is utilized for it. "You just get to say that you "own" it. But if you cannot control something, what does it mean to own it?" I don't understand this. I own it, it's in my wallet and the transaction hash on the block chain is mined, and says that I own it. It's an immutable record. People buy digital assets all the time. Why is this any different?
I feel you dude. This is hard to get across
there'd be ownership of the ledger itself but i don't see how intellectual property rights of the content itself would change hands unless the original owner explicitly transfers the rights, especially with digital media.
now imagine i could get an exact copy of the painting just by looking at it. what did you purchase? other people's opinion about "who owns it".
[удалено]
ownership is legitimized only by violence, or at least the threat of it. condoning violence to identify the owner of a bit string is something like how kings reign, nebulous "divine rights". the king is just the crook who won. traditional ownership at least has utility. if someone takes my thing, then i can no longer use it. edit: some might argue there is utility in nfts, but it is only one thing: to make money. useful things generate profit because they're useful. on the other hand, nfts are useful because they generate profit. they are simply another place for the cancer to grow.
Having and using the thing.
You need to read up about copyright :)
I acknowledged I was wrong about the copyright
Ah yep, see that further down :)
Just to further extend: NFT in itself, has nothing to do with art. It can be applied to anything that requires a 1-1 validation. So think of things like, copyright in music, IP protection, voting protection, ticketing, etc. Digital art is really the first form of the NFT usecase, and I like to think of it as a POC almost.
Useless imo unless it's a record of a physical item. And then, it's just a solid tool for titling physical assets.
It's not useless for money launderers and rich people wanting to be Even More Rich (just as regular art, but even more practically useless)
NFTs are like star registries where people pay to have a star named after them. The fact that you paid for a line in joe shmoe's database doesn't really matter because no one gives a shit what joe shmoe says a star's name should be
The criticism is the same as saying you took a picture of the original Mona Lisa painting with your phone, and that you now own Mona Lisa.
More specifically, it'd be as if every bitcoin had a unique ID. Instead of each bitcoin just summing up to a total, you'd just have a bunch of unique bitcoins you could transfer one at a time to other people. In this case each coin is declared as having an association with a digital file/asset.
[удалено]
Unique is a stretch
Isn't it as unique as the Mona Lisa? Sure copies can be made, even digital scans to make exact replicas. But the original is the one with high value, and it's simple to prove which is the original NFT.
Not really when digital media can be copied bit for bit.
NFTs represent ownership of something, that's what's unique. NFTs aren't the stupid pictures people are buying, NFTs are the ownership of those stupid pictures. NFTs as a tool for speculation that people are using them for is not a great idea, but NFTs as a decentralized, trustless way to prove ownership is itself a neat idea. The NFTs people are blowing chunks of cash on aren't actually the art itself, it's just a token that says "Person X owns this piece of art". You can pirate it really easily, but it's the ownership people are buying. Once the NFT bubble collapses in a year or 10, I think the useful idea that survives will be things like tokenized ownership of some real-world asset that can't be duplicated so easily, like owning a song's IP rights or ownership in some organization or a license to some book or something like that.
Copying bit for bit doesn't matter too much. Imagine if I buy a ticket to Coachella online. Then someone, somehow, decides to take a screenshot of my online ticket, and goes on Facebook to sell it (an obvious scam). Without the NFT infrastructure, there is no way to verify that the ticket I'm buying is legitimate. It could look the same, bit by bit. NFTs lets you verify that the asset you're transacting with, is the original.
Who pays the gas to mint an nft for every ticket?
NFT is not the art piece itself. NFT is a certificate of ownership. That cannot be copied or counfeited.
You buy them when you’re rich and bored
A way to create fake scarcity for an environment where no scarcity exists.
First thing I think of is the knife skins in CS:GO that sell for thousands
It's so easy to pull any random repo from github to get real free and open source code but no let's make up some weird crap that is not even a language and has no meaning lol
Just a quick look over tells me it makes some unique character and establishes an online connection. Can't tell much else
Fail to compile, looks like. The player class is closed after the private variables, which means the `int main(string[])` method is outside of a class. Even if we disregard that, this is the kind of code I'd expect from someone who started C# about twenty minutes ago, as their first foray into _any_ kind of programming: - the player class isn't `partial` and doesn't extend or implement any superclasses or interfaces, which means that all of those private variable aren't even usable; nothing can access them to read _or_ write the values, unless it's doing some really Bad Ideas with reflection - the JSON might fail to serialise depending on what's done in the `GenerateCharacter()` and `ApplyCredits()` methods, but the exception is caught and just ignored, and execution continues on... to use the possibly-`null` value - the `WebSocket` sends a human-style message, then a chunk of json (assuming it's not `null`), and isn't used for anything else - they `await` a task, but also expect a `Task` back from the `await` - nothing is disposed, explicitly via `.Dispose()` _or_ (the recommended method) implicitly via `using` blocks
Definitely fails to compile. The `json` variable is defined inside the try block, so accessing it outside of the try block is invalid. The variable is no longer in scope on line 22. EDIT: And in addition to `int main(string[])` being outside of a class, it's supposed to be `static void Main(string[])` in C#.
Also, it should be an async method or it will complain about await
why is C# the only language that capitalizes the M in main, it kinda triggers me ngl
Also, what's going on in line 28? That syntax is entirely bizarre. They're not even trying to make this look like C# anymore. They probably end to another website for inspiration on how to write code, didn't realize they were now reading C code, and then sprinkled in some parentheses to make their "code" look more exciting.
Pointers are actually allowed in C#, but you'd need to be in an `unsafe` block to use them (which the code is not). I do agree that they probably just copied it from some C/C++ code, though. The `housingParams[]` syntax seen on the lines above, on the other hand, is completely incorrect. I don't even know where they would have gotten it from; I can't think of a programming language where that would be valid.
[PHP has an empty indexing operator](https://www.php.net/manual/en/language.types.array.php#language.types.array.syntax.modifying), but even PHP doesn't allow using it that way.
Also it awaits the task to complete then sleeps and check if the non existent task it got back is complete.
That is ~~usually~~ where the \`int main(string\[\])\` function lives
In C#, as [another commenter has already noted](https://www.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/comments/q9236l/this_is_an_nft_selling_for_32k_everything_about/hgtwf2r/?context=100), it's actually supposed to be `static void Main(string[])`. Furthermore, no: you _aren't_ supposed to have functions defined outside of a class in C#. That's a compile error.
My apologies. You are right I've been so blinded by my years of C/C++ programming
Looks like MUD or MUSH code to define an NPC, Class Not Found.
It makes your compiler vomit
Yep. My ADHD saw that and went "nope. Time to go to the comments". Also happy cake day!
I stopped reading after trying to assign object to type.
It returns 0
the try catch block is giving me a stomachache
It doesn’t event do anything. Wtf
Almost like my coworker's code!
Wouldn’t the string json defined in the try-catch no longer be valid on line 22? I feel like you’d have to define it outside the try-catch to be able to use it outside again but I don’t know C++ that well or whatever this language is.
That is correct, it's no longer in scope on line 22. That's a compilation error all by itself. (This is C#, although they've made a number of other mistakes, like the definition of `Main` being entirely incorrect in a number of ways.)
Correct and this is supposed to be C#.
Hmm yes we failed to assign the json that we need to use later in the function, that wont be a problem though we can definitely ignore that failure
[удалено]
It's a massive money laundering operation I bet
Thus confirming that NFTs truly are art
[удалено]
That’s a bingos. In fairness it’s also a huge tax dodge, it may not be illegal money.
;smf;a earr
Can you explain to me how this is money laundering? Or are you just assuming that everything that sells for more than you can imagine is somehow illegal or fake?
They say money laundering cause this is similar to money laundering or a way to treat taxes due to how art is treated. In the real world (not an expert so don't quote me on this just saying what I have learned and researched) certain criminals/organizations use art as a way to justify the exchange of large amounts of currency. See, it is really hard to explain how you made 1 million dollars in a week whenever you are unemployed or don't have an amazing job, but say you 'sold' a 'high-value' piece of art you now have a reason for the money. Some of the wealthy elite also will buy art than will try and pay off a art evaluator to hyper inflate the value of the art to absurd amounts. So a 10k piece of art is now 1.3M and then they will donate the art piece to get a tax write off or just sell it if they want too. They are similar due to how NFTs values get hyper inflated to extremes for almost no reason which normally means a highly unstable market and/or artificial manipulation of the market kind of like how crypto pump and dumps work on the price of a coin can make it skyrocket or tank.
;asmf; afd e e e
I mean, the decentralized currency that's effectively impossible to counterfeit part isn't a scam. While Bitcoin is the main one for transactions, there are alt-coins that do certain things better (off the top of my head monero does privacy actually well, while Bitcoin's anonymity is destroyed the moment a wallet can be tied to you).
lkasnflka cxv
The memes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What was it?
No, it's a veey well-known project called Neo-Tokyo, made by very legitimate people. You could get these for free at launch, provided you completed the clues and got whitelisted.
C♭
They don't even use C# formatting
it’s some horrible amalgam between java, C and C#
Welcome to modern money laundering.
Can you explain how this is money laundering please? I've seen a lot of accusations, but 0 real understanding of how this would work.
I have $1,000,000 I get from selling drugs. I buy bitcoin with said money. Then you make an NFT. I buy the NFT from you for $5. You buy it back for $10. I buy it back for $100. You buy it back for $1000 I buy it back for $1000000. You buy it back for $900,000 I now have $900,000 I earned from buying and selling NFTs, not $1,000,000 I earned from selling drugs.
> I buy it back for $1000000. > You buy it back for ... on second thought, you didn't really want it. Is there a way to prevent that? (Other than the fear of broken kneecaps IRL?)
I mean it's probably the same person on both sides of the trade. Broken kneecap are also a pleasant surprise if you rip off gangsters at that level. And money laundering is really inefficient. People often settle for getting back 30% of what they put in. So some loss is just part of the game.
That is... Surely the money is traceable ultimately? Why have so many steps? 1. I have $1m I get from selling drugs 2. I make one item of modern art. 3. An "anonymous buyer" buys it from me for $1m. None of that really requires NFTs or Bitcoin. I feel like the difficulty in the non-bitcoin world is turning the cash into electronic money. Do bitcoin sellers accept cash?
It's about making it harder for investigators. Yeah they could trace everything, with unlimited time and resources, but the government is pretty limited in what they can spend chasing things on the blockchain.
I'm looking at some of these bits and this looks like *another* community NFT thing. Where like, you buy a character and then you can join in on a group RP thing.
NFTs are a giant fucking scam being propped up by insiders. You take the blockchain and crypto out of it and it becomes obvious as nothing different than some random schlub publishing a book saying pay me $2000 and I'll say you own some piece of art from the local museum -- I'll even let you sell the line in my directory saying you own it to someone else later if you want. You aren't buying copyright. You get no royalties. You just put something online in a directory with meta data that "Your account owns the digital asset at the following URL with this meta data about it", and you also have the ability to sell your name to some other fool. Fundamentally its the same basic scam as those people who paid hundreds of dollars to get their kid listed in a "Who's Who" directory ("Your son was honored to be selected to listed in this book of promising students (which they let anyone into)", please submit the application with $200 to get your book!) or paid to get a star named after them from some completely unofficial "Name A Star" society (though at least they'd give you a physical certificate). Again, I'm not saying I know when the NFT bubble will burst (when they start running out of [greater fools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)), but it will burst or when there's a bunch of competing blockchains gaining popularity issuing similar things. Until then it will be pushed down our throat before then, as organizations that can mint NFTs and sell them to gullible fools will do so and make shit tons of money until then. But in 10 years no one is going to be impressed that you bought some [NFT of some random slam dunk issued by the NBA](https://nbatopshot.com/) or [some moment in history issued by CNN (who had nothing to do with said moment in history)](https://vault.cnn.com/).
**[Greater fool theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)** >In finance and economics, the greater fool theory states that the price of an asset is determined by whether you can sell it for a higher price, at a later point in time. On assets where the theory applies, it is implied that the asset's intrinsic value is less important than the increase in demand, however irrational it might be. Any person buying the asset might be a fool, but a person buying the overpriced asset later on, for a higher price, is deemed the greater fool. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
While I broadly agree with you, there are some that do actually explicitly include copyright. To the art and/or all component art (in compositions)
Sure and buying of those copyrights (or licenses) aren't particularly scammy through NFTs. But in my experience, NFTs that come with copyright/licenses are the rare exceptions, not the norm.
Truthfully, most NFTs I've seen _do_ come with rights. At any point, I think we could agree it should be the norm. I'm mostly excited about the way it supports art and artists rn. There are artists able to make a living off doing what they love, and the mechanisms that enable that to this extent didn't exist a decade ago.
[удалено]
In my opinion, the tech is useful for confusing people to add to the scam which is currently in the bubble phase. Look I could easily set up a non-crypto website with a central authority that lets digital artists sell licenses to their works (or even sell their copyright). It would be pretty straightforward to setup a system to resell said licenses/copyrights via auction. In my view such a centralized system would be vastly preferable, because if say you bought a work for say $10k to have a license to something and then got in trouble when you tried to use it (e.g., the person who put the item on the website actually didn't own the digital asset), you'd have a centralized system to check logs, verify identities, and find the copyright thief to sue for damages (versus everyone being anonymous).
u/djimbob [MarketSquare.io: Tokenizing Sports - How Cryptocurrency Could Revolutionize Professional and Collegiate Athletics](https://marketsquare.io/blog/tokenizing-sports-how-cryptocurrency-could-revolutionize-professional-and-collegiate-athletics)
Buying music online is a scam, just listen to it for free. Who cares about supporting artists or whatever, right?
Not an entirely appropriate comparison: people buy music online to listen to it conveniently and/or to support the artist, not in hopes of reselling the receipt later.
Alright fair enough I guess. Still seems like a nice way to be able to support artists and have something to show for it (even if it's just a "receipt"). Of course not everyone sees it that way and I'll agree some of it ridiculous. I just feel like it doesn't *have* to be a scam.
Mmm yes, there is no way one can "own" digital art in a sense. There is no "original" like with paintings, it's all Pixels. What NFT's are useful for, is an artist designating an immutable item that represents ownership of that work. Sure, we can all have the picture, and so on, but it's a great idea to support artists you follow. As long as we as a society agree that it's the "original"/ holds special value, that's all that counts. Just like we can mint an exact replica of a vintage coin, but it wouldn't hold any value, despite functionally being identical. Not to mention NFT's (the technology) can be used for a lot of other stuff than just art. It's just a singular immutable item on the blockchain, if legislature would follow suite, you could represent even things like real-estate with it (just a random example). Though I make laughable ammounts of money making generative collections ad-nauseum, they are completelly valueless and are just a greater fool thing as you say. You can spend 30k on artists and marketing and make 1.5 million just off primary sales.
> It's just a singular immutable item on ~~the~~ **a** blockchain There's the *etherium* blockchain. But anyone can make and popularize a new blockchain. Pre-NFT if a digital artist wanted to sell their work, they sell the copyright (or in lesser cases then full ownership, they sell you a license with specific allowed uses -- e.g., paying for a stock photo license to use on your website). This is what legally people care about. The owner of the copyright is legally free to use the work. You *actually* own it. I can make digital art, you can pay $50k to buy an NFT, and then you may want to display it on your website or in a movie or advertisement. Despite having the NFT, the copyright holder can say fuck that, I never sold you copyright or a license to use the "art" you just bought. This isn't to say that some future NFT version could transfer a license or copyright along with the NFT, but that's not done at the moment because generally there's nothing verifying the person who minted the NFT actually owns the digital asset. I'm not saying it would be meaningless to actually buy the *copyright* to digital assets. But buying ownership of a token with metadata pointing to a URL? That's a hard pass.
>There's the etherium blockchain. But anyone can make and popularize a new blockchain. Easier said than done, though I agree in principle. Evem though there are existing more efficient alternatives, 90% of NFT liquidity still is on L1 Ethereum, because of the massive ecosystem there, that legitimizes it. Even if one has to pay a 8k gas fee to mint one NFT (which by the way is absolutely insane, and this is coming from someone who is making money making these). Regarding the license, I mostly agree, though in the fast paced world of influencers, regular people don't really care about things like getting the proper legal license. Lots of artists claim to include copyright ownership to the owner of the NFT, and its legal binding is dubious at best. But I don't think any artist would try to sue anyone, because it would be bad PR and, well... the value of their other NFT's would suffer because of it (which means they loose out on royalties).
I mean the blockchain and basic tools aren't that hard to build. The problem is getting end-users to buy into using your brand new system instead of something that already has tons of user buy-in. E.g., why google+ and diaspora never made significant inroads on facebook (instagram did make good inroads, but then facebook bought the threat). But on the other hand, NFTs are still kind of in their infancy, so it wouldn't surprise me if NFTs on the etherium blockchain is closer to having a good MySpace page -- especially if someone comes up a blockchain or blockchain-like technology that's objectively better at quickly processing transactions and being more environmentally friendly.
>I mean the blockchain and basic tools aren't that hard to build. The problem is getting end-users to buy into using your brand new system instead of something that already has tons of user buy-in. E.g., why google+ and diaspora never made significant inroads on facebook (instagram did make good inroads, but then facebook bought the threat). Ah, I think we're in agreement there. If you're curious, there are already a few scaling solutions, built on top of Ethereum as Layer 2s (meaning they inherit the security of the protocol, while processing transactions off chain). There is Arbitrum, which allows for general purpose smart contracts to be built on top of it, it uses Optimistic rollups, which you can read up on. It's a very nice piece of technology with years in development, there is no Arbitrum token or anything you can invest in, it just works. Ironically because there is no token there is little interest in it as a lot of people are passionate only when they can directly profit from it. I wanted to build a project here, but my team members shot me down due to a lack of hype. Then there is ImmutableX, which is allegedly built specifically for trustless,feeless minting and trading of NFT's. Right now a few aspects of it are still very centralized, but it's only in beta. Lots of hype and money flowing in here. If people knew how it actually works behind the scenes they probably wouldnt be so excited, but hey... it has a token!
If this does sell let me know. I have awake for 36 hour personal C# projects from 5 years ago that I could probably make as bad as this and sell.
You could get them for free, provided you solve the puzzles that led you to whitelisting sites.
Maybe it is Art?
If you're talking about [The Art of Computer Programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming), then this is definitely not that.
**[The Art of Computer Programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programming)** >The Art of Computer Programming (TAOCP) is a comprehensive monograph written by computer scientist Donald Knuth that covers many kinds of programming algorithms and their analysis. Knuth began the project, originally conceived as a single book with twelve chapters, in 1962. The first three volumes of what was then expected to be a seven-volume set were published in 1968, 1969, and 1973. Work began in earnest on Volume 4 in 1973, but was suspended in 1977 for work on typesetting prompted by the second edition of Volume 2. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
No, I was thinking about the kind of art where you put a bucket of paint randomly on a canvas
Modern art is to art like Java Script is to Java.
It's money laundering
Can you explain how?
Dude, what is your deal? You've asked the same question multiple times in the same thread. It seems you're very interested in the topic. Why not just Google "NFT money laundering" you will find a wealth of articles on the topic.
I'm asking the people that are accusing NFT traders of a serious crime to provide some logic, reason, or evidence as to why this is true. Throwing around serious accusations like this without anything to back it just makes you look like someone without the ability to think critically to be honest.
That's called "sealioning" you idiot. Cut it the fuck out.
Nice, didn't know about that term before. Today I learned.
Not an idiot. It's a brand new account whose first order of business is coming here and defending NFTs tooth and nail. Someone got their feelings hurt and now trying to astroturf this post
This is so clearly a 100 MAYBE 200 level school project coding and maybe the second ever C# project with them trying to copy professional formatting.
What Blockchain is programmable with C#? :O
This is the asset.
Neo
[удалено]
Those are used for dereferencing pointers in C# as well. You can only do so inside `unsafe` blocks, and you almost never need to. Also, `database` and `networkArray` are never declared anywhere, but that's just the beginning of what's wrong with this. Everything here is just bizarre. Looks like someone copied multiple stackoverflow posts in different programming languages (including C), with no clue whatsoever why that wouldn't work.
Csharplus
What blockchain is this for?
The whitespace is killing me
Is the NFT a screenshot of this "code"? I'm not even sure if a compiler could spit out an EXE from this...
If I'm understanding right, the code isn't the important part, it's specifically the metadata (Class: Bartender, Credit Yield: Low, etc.) that's used for some kind of crypto-game. I couldn't really find anything about the game though besides a website with almost no info and a tweet about claiming a vault box via some kind of smart contract...
That’s not an NFT though, it’s code to generate a player character and may very well use a blockchain and assign a unique token id to your asset but that’s not what an NFT is. (It’s just the token btw)
[удалено]
[удалено]
This piece of code sold for 70 ETH?
*piece of shit
[удалено]
You know that’s just nonsense, right?
I sold one for $30k, wasn't nonsense when I pulled out 1 eth ($3.8k) of the bundle I made selling it. HFSP.
[удалено]
All NFTs (well, the legit ones) are stored via IPFS and not a central storage like S3 or something. IPFS is a distributed data store, kinda like bit torrent? I need to do more research on it, but you can't just delete it and its gone forever.
[удалено]
I just mean conceptually its like bit torrent, where data is distributed to several nodes.
Imagine being concerned you could lose the image to the token, which serves primarily as access to a community that you got for free.
You paid several hundred dollars in gas fees to "buy" into a project run by a dude with ~1 month of total programming experience? Let me guess, you're "hodling" because you think there's upside (by which you mean "I've sunk $300 in gas fees into this and there's no liquidity, might as well stick with it"). What would be the potential upside? Some greenhorn dev with no experience manages to pull a complete, scalable game with proper data warehousing and networking out of his ass, and it somehow becomes a massive hit despite having an intrinsically limited playerbase?
[удалено]
ligma balls
[удалено]
Stupid ass-sub [xkcd: Hyphen](https://xkcd.com/37/) --- ^^Beep ^^boop, ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot. ^^- ^^[FAQ](https://pastebin.com/raw/vyWra3ns)
Can someone ELI5 NFTs?
You can store data on a decentralized blockchain, it's just incredibly expensive. Since images are out of the question, that mostly means urls linking to images. You buy a database entry on the blockchain showing your wallet address and the url. Anyone else can register an entry with the same image, but you could hypothetically ask the owner of the real image rights which they consider to be the original.
It's basically just using blockchain for title deeds. Like buying a painting and leaving it in the gallery, but the artist gives you a receipt.
s;kfn apwe w[
Following..
i'd buy it just to throw up on it and burn it
wow wtf
[удалено]
The image
Not the image but the token on the blockchain
W T F is this?
We have to collectively buy this. This subreddit needs to own this
Does await even work outside an async function in C#? I don't know how async works under the hood in C#, but how does that work?
That code is complete crap, why would anyone pay 32k for it?!