The current design/pitch of NFTs could be well described as "Nothing's Fucking There?!?!"

People are sold something they aren't getting (something copyright-like); that's a problem (big trouble if mixed with DMCA/CFAA).

Call them "digital trading cards": much more accurate. Nobody is under the illusion you can't xerox one of those, but people trade them anyway.

· · Web · 4 · 7 · 28

I'm not the first to observe the DMCA/CFAA part (I think @rysiek was first to point it out to me) but DRM, for instance, is not enforced by code as much as law.

By mis-selling NFTs as copyright-like, it actually *could* be made manifest so under shitty present laws: right-clicking as "circumvention".

Don't pretend you're selling something you aren't.

But that is *not* something we want to see as precedent.
I know a bunch of people in the "cryptocurrency space" who I feel like are being mostly quiet on this risk because there's too much adjacent funding.

But it could hurt everyone, them especially, but everyone.

Be clear.

@cwebber i thought "Don't pretend you're selling something you aren't." was already illegal, called "fraud"

@sys64738 In this case they're not actively claiming, they're just not dispelling popular misconceptions.

@cwebber @rysiek I hadn’t ever thought about it from that angle. There could even be some sort of RIAAesque entity to protect interests of NFT holders against right-clicking “pirates,” seeking $1MM+ in damages. Bright future!

@cody @cwebber @rysiek Sure. But then you don't need the NFT (or the burning truckload of lignite coal). You are back to plain old copyright and all these messy things with lawyers and courts and jurisdictions and rhetoric.

The whole dream of "smart" contracts is that you don't have to trust people or institutions or unreliable stuff like human judgment and interpretation. You just have "code". It's perfect!

There's just one or two little issues with rights management that I'm sure will be ironed out by somebody else any day now.

@praxeology @cody @rysiek The original "smart contracts" stuff was extremely anti-copyright and pro-being-clear. It's too bad the term was destroyed by the current blockchain space.

@cwebber @cody @rysiek Interesting! Can you point to some examples of these earlier concepts?

@praxeology @cody @rysiek about a decade before blockchains appeared

notably that crew was extremely good about being clear about what is and isn't being claimed

Are you aware that there is a new plan run browsers on "#theCloud", right?

Cloudflare bought this tech and departments dedicated to rolling #RemoteBrowser out as part of "helping to build a better internet".

But keep making right-click jokes.
@praxeology @cody @rysiek

You are aware that there's a plan to run browsers on "#theCloud", right?

Cloudflare bought this tech and departments dedicated to rolling #RemoteBrowser out as part of "helping to build a better internet".

They say browsers are too dangerous and for businesses that need #compliance, they should not run their own browsers.

They don't want basic computing in the hands of people, folks.

But let's keep making right-click jokes.
@praxeology @cody @rysiek

Fine print: , If they define whatever the code says to be law. Then bugs cannot exist because whatever it did was de facto correct.
@praxeology @cody @cwebber @rysiek

@drwho @feonixrift @praxeology @cody @cwebber but they repeatedly had a chance of upholding their convictions and saying "yes, the smart contract is binding, that code *is* law" in cases of smart contract bugs in DAOs and whatnot.

And basically ever single time when large sums of money were involved, they always bent over backwards (up to and including *forking ETH*) to roll back and "fix it".

@drwho @praxeology @cody @cwebber @rysiek

I heard this exact quote about ethereum at a blockchain meet up in Berkeley in 2017 and I knew at that exact moment that the entire space was a scam.

Also discussed was using ethereum as a distributed computer for things like neural networks and databases, but they couldn't explain how running the exact same computation on all of the nodes allowed you to scale up the throughput.

@cody @cwebber @rysiek Since right-click + view source is a known hacker technique, it's not that much of a leap to conclude that right-clicking in general is only used for criminal activities. /s

@cody @cwebber that's exactly my huge worry. There's been a whole separate thread about this. First people buy into this bullshit, then they get aggrevated that others can just right-click-save anyway (thus "stealing their investment"), then they *demand* that that "problem" is fixed. All because they were led to believe things work in a way they simply don't. So suddenly they demand regulation to force technology to work the way they want.

@cody @cwebber @rysiek Dang but I wish that NFT zealots understood that they purchased a receipt and not some receipt of purchase.

@jaycie @cody @cwebber oh wow, this is a fantastic way of putting it.

"NFT: a purchase of receipt, not receipt of purchase."


@cwebber I feel that weirdly that's kinda what these things used to be... I don't think anybody thought they were holding copyright to CryptoKitties cats, and Rare Pepes (ugh) were actually made up to look like cards.

I think that didn't really work for creating financial instruments that would actually be valuable to people, though, which is why current NFTs are vaguely attached to art, as if they're certificates of owning that art or whatnot, so as to increase their value in the mainstream.

@cwebber I think the name nonfungible token is perfectly clear, actually

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!