0 sats \ 3 replies \ @rkfg 5 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: I was a well-paid blockchain / web3 dev for years, but became disillusioned. bitcoin
The difference between sats that have a use case and fully deserve their history to be preserved forever and NFTs that don't have a working use case (outside of pump&dump/scam schemes) and will be forgotten in a few months or eventually become useless or unusable due to external events and conditions. This difference.
How can I make an argument for using NFTs on blockchain when I'm fully against it? I don't get it. I explained in details why I'm against it. There's not a single argument that can justify their usage in a decentralized environment. I'm not trying to learn an objectively wrong point of view (why would I do that? Or did you mean "teach"?), instead I'm explaining why NFTs and Bitcoin are fundamentally incompatible.
How can I make an argument for using NFTs on blockchain when I'm fully against it?
How indeed. It's a very good question which deserves respect. "How do I make my opponents argument, when I know it is wrong?".
Your opponent believes in his argument. By trying to do the above, you will find the only way to convince (or, in a better word, teach) your opponent what is wrong about his position. You have to first show that you can see from his perspective.
I'l try it again. I now read through your post that I just zapped to point out, looking for what your position on the topic is and how I can relate to it.
I see this: "NFTs don't need decentralization.". I think, yes an imagedump NFT can also be served on a single file server, you could even add the key/sig mechanisms.
There is no need for 1000000 more computers literally doing the exact same thing that server is doing. We already have our Images. Applying this generally, NFTs are an antagonistic bacteria on the organism of blockchains.
Is this true?
reply
You have to first show that you can see from his perspective.
I saw that perspective and I explained why that worldview is wrong. I don't understand why I should support a point of view that's mathematically invalid.
Is this true?
More or less. You can of course shrink it to just one hash (like it's done on ETH) and store the file itself separately, but even in this case all you own is the hash which isn't scarce and proving that it corresponds to the bytes created by a certain person requires external sources of truth. Therefore a hash isn't by itself sufficient to establish the true ownership and it shouldn't be on blockchain as well because it's just spam.
reply
Very good. Yes, standard practice is to "shrink" the images by hashing. Thus you obtain another token for your image, in fact a non-fungible token for your image, because the hash was a cryptographic one. This means that the hash is irreversible, ownership of the images hash-token is the same thing as just ownership of the image. There is no change in scarcity at this stage.
I think we may have found a critical point of confusion here, in speaking of hashing. When I (or the smart contract) hashes an image, we are scrambling the image with an asymmetric hashing. It's not a simple checksum, is what I mean.
So hashing the image can only be done with the owners public key, and the resulting hash is hers to unlock— she needs no external oracle, she has her private key.
Are we still in agreement?
reply