E, Shanai System Subete Wan'ope shiteiru Watashi wo Kaiko desu ka? - Vol. 2 Ch. 13

[arcosapphire]

NFT is one of the oldest ideas ever, predating even computers or electricity. And I have no idea why it suddenly became so hype and considered a scam - after all, it literally means "receipt" (best comparison is a Postal Stamp, being a receipt for buying the service of mailing the attached letter) and I get receipts from my grocery store all the time without being scammed

That's really not accurate. Let's say you buy a table, and you get a receipt for it. Cool.

Eventually someone comes along and wants to buy the table from you. So they give you some money and leave with the table. The receipt does not participate. It is irrelevant.

This is completely different from the concept of the NFT, for which you literally buy and sell the receipt, while neither of you actually possess the table. (Which is also why NFTs are extremely dumb, but that's not the point I'm making.)

That concept is pretty new. I suppose the closest "old" equivalent is a commodities market where you buy and sell ownership of something without needing to ever actually be near it, but--ultimately, someone does need to receive those things, so it's still not the same. Non-fungability is not a new concept and tokens are not a new concept, and trading abstract pointers to things isn't really a new concept either, yet NFTs really are a new concept. They weren't around before because they're a worthless idea, and became a thing once the infrastructure to run them was already in place and there wasn't a high barrier to creating such a scam anymore.

 

[feha]

That's really not accurate. Let's say you buy a table, and you get a receipt for it. Cool.

Eventually someone comes along and wants to buy the table from you. So they give you some money and leave with the table. The receipt does not participate. It is irrelevant.

You forgot to give them the receipt.
This is btw also why it is highly relevant to keep the receipt for any bikes if you intend to re-sell them, as that nft is proof of ownership and that you didn't just steal it (and why the buyer wants that receipt too).

This is completely different from the concept of the NFT, for which you literally buy and sell the receipt, while neither of you actually possess the table. (Which is also why NFTs are extremely dumb, but that's not the point I'm making.)

This argument is just as flawed as "you wouldn't steal a car". Remember that the table is digital, and in that piracy comparison the nft is your steam-receipt that you own a license to one of their game-as-a-service.
This fact that you are trading a receipt of/"license to" a service, is why the best comparison in any analogue is a postal stamp:
You don't sell the letter you sent through the mail system and expect them to somehow use it to mail their own (though you can detach the stamp and resell it), you sell the non-fungible receipt to use the service - because just like digital products it [the mailing service] is intangible goods.

Both steam licenses to a gameservice, and postal stamps, are classified as non-fungible. And I don't think anyone would disagree that a stamp is a token (and at least I would argue that the steam receipt is a token of ownership of said steam license). Making them both NFTs.

That concept is pretty new. I suppose the closest "old" equivalent is a commodities market where you buy and sell ownership of something without needing to ever actually be near it, but--ultimately, someone does need to receive those things, so it's still not the same. Non-fungability is not a new concept and tokens are not a new concept, and trading abstract pointers to things isn't really a new concept either, yet NFTs really are a new concept. They weren't around before because they're a worthless idea, and became a thing once the infrastructure to run them was already in place and there wasn't a high barrier to creating such a scam anymore.

Now you are starting to talk about the specific usage of the concept that uses the crypto blockchain.
And if we are talking about crypto NFTs used as a receipt for a license to (or even ownership of) a piece of art, then we need to make the distinction that it is not actually the art-piece itself you own (since there is no art piece to own). But rather the intellectual property rights (aka the copyrights).
Before crypto was a thing, this sort of token used to be called a contract (Or whatever you got from a commissioned hentai artist. A receipt?), and companies constantly buy and sell those, and overall force their artists to sign employment contracts handing over those rights.
And if you bought the ownership and not just a usage license, neither them nor the crypto-based ones are actually non-fungible. If you had bought the IP then you could absolutely proceed to split it into smaller parts and sell onwards (movie rights, translation rights, cinema rights, usage rights, etc). In other words, they are absolutely fungible. (which I suppose clearly proves I don't actually know what the crypto nft's actually refer to, since they shouldn't be fungible, per definition? ..But what I think it refers to, is fungible)

 

[arcosapphire]

@feha, I will don't want to gum up this thread with an involved debate over NFTs, which aren't even in the manga. Considering you don't know what fungible means, it seems pointless. It doesn't mean you can't divide something up. It means that one unit is equivalent to another. If you buy a barrel of oil, you're not buying a specific barrel. It's whichever one they hand you. They're all considered equivalent. Physical money is the same; if I need to give you a $20 bill, it doesn't matter which one. If you are buying a painting from me, it absolutely matters which one I give you! That's a non-fungible item.

What you're confused about is that you think buying an NFT means you are buying certain meaningful rights, like the intellectual property. That's not true! You are simply buying a token that says the token is yours. That's why they are so worthless. Do you see people making money on NFTs by licensing the rights, or suing people who infringe? No. People make money on NFTs simply by selling them to people who believe they're an investment--that is, a pure speculative bubble economy based on the idea that someone will buy it from you for more than you paid. That is a scheme that inevitably collapses (we say someone is "left holding the bag"), and that's why it is a scam.

Also, if you're making the argument that NFTs are fine because really the term could refer to a range of foundational concepts beyond crypto NFTs, that's intellectually dishonest. When people talk about NFTs, they are talking about crypto NFTs.

 

[feha]

@feha, I will don't want to gum up this thread with an involved debate over NFTs, which aren't even in the manga. Considering you don't know what fungible means, it seems pointless. It doesn't mean you can't divide something up. It means that one unit is equivalent to another.

Fair enough, I'll reply to this comment and then probably let the topic rest too. And yeah you are absolutely correct, for some reason I got it into my head that it meant divisible (ie. "something is non-fungible because cutting an artwork apart removes its value") instead of interchangeable (so with same example, "the artwork is non-fungible because it is unique"). Not that it changes too much of what was said (though the postal stamp analogies did break a bit, unless you start involving their value as antiques), but I was indeed incorrect there

What you're confused about is that you think buying an NFT means you are buying certain meaningful rights, like the intellectual property. That's not true! You are simply buying a token that says the token is yours.

Yes and no. The token itself is the non-fungible thing yeah, but generally from the scams I have seen (where the ownership is a license (or the rights) to some picture, specifically one depicting an ugly monkey) it is then just a receipt, and it's deriving its value from what it's a receipt for - which means that if said thing is fungible/interchangeable, then so is the token (So you can sell fungible non-fungible tokens! ).
(sort of same reason money is interchangeable too, as it derives its value from the trust in said currency's value to buy other objects, and any token/bill of said trust is thus identical despite being unique (ie. unique from the bill's serial number).)

That's why they are so worthless. Do you see people making money on NFTs by licensing the rights, or suing people who infringe?

The only nfts I have seen ppl buy/sell, are the ones serving as receipt for the IP-rights of some ugly artwork (specifically was some news about some monkeys). So 'yes'.

No. People make money on NFTs simply by selling them to people who believe they're an investment--that is, a pure speculative bubble economy based on the idea that someone will buy it from you for more than you paid. That is a scheme that inevitably collapses (we say someone is "left holding the bag"), and that's why it is a scam.

Yeah I never argued that the way people use the concept in relation to crypto isn't a scam (rather I said the opposite: "As always, the way people use the concepts is what is a scam"). That is why I quite explicitly distanced the convo (already in first comment) from the usage/implementation people commonly refer to when they use the broader term nft, only discussing the technology/term itself: a token that is non-fungible - ie. a receipt of ownership (where either the receipt itself, or the owned object, is something non-fungible).

Though if that (it being a speculative bubble) is your argument for it being a scam (as opposed to the stuff like rampant money laundering, selling same thing more than once, etc.), then I would want to say that no, a scam involves actually fooling someone. What you described is more of a case of hot-potato lottery, and is similar to how people 'invest' in artworks or antiques/pokemon cards. Either way it's indeed a poor idea to do so (creating value out of nothing is doomed to collapse eventually), but people doing so know the 'value' is artificial and has nothing tangible to back it (so they are fools, but not fooled).

Also, if you're making the argument that NFTs are fine because really the term could refer to a range of foundational concepts beyond crypto NFTs, that's intellectually dishonest. When people talk about NFTs, they are talking about crypto NFTs.

No, when you preface the entire convo (like I did in the first comment) that you are talking about the concepts/terms themselves and not their common usage (because it is ), it is exactly that you are pointing out that the common usage is incorrectly using an extremely broad term as if it can only mean something specific (almost as if it was a name that referred specifically&exclusively to that thing). In other words, discussing the meaning of the term itself as separate to its usage in crypto is not intellectually dishonest, it is the topic of discussion itself.

 

[chilneun]

having a dream but unmotivated, this is a conflict. i think he isnt serious about the dream at all.
damn, i could be like him in the future. not good, not good.

 

[Amariithynar]

If you have time and no money, you have to venture out into the world, take a risk by putting yourself out there. Work a crummy wage at an unskilled job with bad hours if you have to, that’s just the first step in the ladder of self-improvement.

That still requires getting the job in the first place, which can be a functional impossibility without money to support yourself while you look for said job. There isn't some magical marketplace of jobs that will just immediately hire you once you apply. I once spent over a year applying to absolutely anything, and got quite a few interviews, but that's as far as it went- and that's with marketable skills, to boot. This is why I pointed out that you need money in the first place, even if you have all the time in the world.

If you can rely on the resilient adults around you, you might not have to work part-time for study at all.

My point is made for me.

These days you can get a student loan for study and living costs

This assumes that you can get said loan in the first place. They don't just give out loans to anyone. In fact, in the USA to apply for federal aid you have to first be enrolled in the course you're applying for- which, once again, requires money.

A trade like plumbing would be pretty quick too.

Assuming he's physically fit for the job, agreed- especially since trades usually are so hungry for members that courses will accept on the spot. Though, it does bring up the question of fitness; you need to be rather fit to do most trades professionally, but if you are, and can stomach the worst of what you'll have to deal with in that field, then you can make bank.

At the very least, this character is in a position where he could probably have his living costs paid for him in order to further this career.

For this character, maybe. His mother was struggling as it was, and it didn't seem like he was still living with her. More than likely his being unemployed while a student would be too great a financial burden on her.

 

[74HC595]

the libertarian fallacy: everyone is lazy and that's why my taxes are too high.

I don’t think that’s ever been implied by libertarians, at least not beyond what the slimming of the welfare state would suggest. You see, Karl Marx was right about the unproductive class extracting the value of working people and using it to fatten their own pockets and to directly oppose the wishes of those working people. But the unproductive class isn’t factory or farm owners, land owners, it’s politicians and bureaucrats. The reason taxes are high is because we hire a large amount of people to do nothing but make things difficult for everyone else. Be that building houses, starting businesses, creating products, even paying taxes in the first place. Governments pass a new regulation, big businesses can easily comply because they already have a team of lawyers and stacks of cash, while individuals and small businesses struggle. New government employees are required to process and monitor these new regulations. People celebrate and protect these new jobs, despite them not providing a shred of value to the citizens. And that’s not even counting the corruption. There’s a revolving door between legislators and the businesses they’re meant to legislate. Policies that support more foreign military intervention get funding from military contractors, who subsequently get contracts paid in taxpayer money. Senators are legally allowed to perform insider trading.

Libertarianism comes from the observation that giving power to a government results in that government enriching itself at the expense of the people it is meant to serve. It’s a positive feedback loop, power begets more power, democracy or not. There’s nothing right-wing about this at all. Right-wing implies traditionalism, but this transcends traditional or progressive values. It is an economic position that says nothing of culture.

this kind of advice is often taken way too far

Everything with moderation, including moderation. People that work their way to the top of the corporate ladder sacrifice a lot of time and youth to achieve that, is it really better than living a more modest life with more time for family? That’s up to the individual to decide, but choose to persist with a status quo at your peril.

 

[Tsukikira]

Never touched crypto (that is half of a lie - I got some dogecoin for my placement in a smash bros tournament once, less than 1 usd worth (2k doge) just because the arranger wanted to meme and printed funny "fake fake money" bills with the Token on it. Haven't bothered to figure out how to extract the money from it though), nor nft, but just saying, the technology itself is not a scam.

Crypto is a lottery that is somehow more lottery than the stocks.
Also great way to launder your money... I would expect stocks to be as well? But maybe not?

NFT is one of the oldest ideas ever, predating even computers or electricity. And I have no idea why it suddenly became so hype and considered a scam - after all, it literally means "receipt" (best comparison is a Postal Stamp, being a receipt for buying the service of mailing the attached letter) and I get receipts from my grocery store all the time without being scammed.

As always, the way people use the concepts is what is a scam. And I will never understand the PR-ppl who decided it is a good idea to use a cryptocurrency as a database for their new game (to be exact, it could make sense if you absolutely can't host your own, as a form of free "cloud" backend. But the cases I heard of were big companies that absolutely can, and were going to have a regular db too, for other sutff...).

Just to be clear here, Crypto-currency is not a lottery. It's a 'currency' given artificial scarcity and buoyed by people with money to burn and illegal activity. If the money to crypto was to stop due to say, a law being passed, it would lose all it's value overnight.

NFT is not 'one of the oldest ideas ever', it's a declaration that you have ownership over some digital content that you cannot duplicate. The problem with NFTs are simple - they are essentally glorified hyperlinks. The problem at the core of the technology is the hyperlink image CAN BE DUPLICATED, because it's just data.

The PR-people that use NFTs (Crypto-block-chain) technology for their game are essentially saying that they are selling you an object that has some backing that says you own it. Which is technically true as long as the crypto block chain exists. The main problem here is... that crypto-block chain is only as useful and the items are only as rare as the makers intend. So they can make 100,000 copies, and print more, etc, essentially for free. And since it's only a glorified hyperlink, the NFTs for images, etc are essentially copyable by anyone with even the tinest bit of intelligence.

 

[feha]

Just to be clear here, Crypto-currency is not a lottery. It's a 'currency' given artificial scarcity and buoyed by people with money to burn and illegal activity. If the money to crypto was to stop due to say, a law being passed, it would lose all it's value overnight.

NFT is not 'one of the oldest ideas ever', it's a declaration that you have ownership over some digital content that you cannot duplicate. The problem with NFTs are simple - they are essentally glorified hyperlinks. The problem at the core of the technology is the hyperlink image CAN BE DUPLICATED, because it's just data.

You are only talking about NFT's in terms of the trending types placed on the blockchain though, not about NFTs in general. I think I was clear I was talking about the concept (a token that is non-fungible) in more general terms, distancing from the specific usage "cryptobros" use the term for.

The PR-people that use NFTs (Crypto-block-chain) technology for their game are essentially saying that they are selling you an object that has some backing that says you own it. Which is technically true as long as the crypto block chain exists. The main problem here is... that crypto-block chain is only as useful and the items are only as rare as the makers intend. So they can make 100,000 copies, and print more, etc, essentially for free. And since it's only a glorified hyperlink, the NFTs for images, etc are essentially copyable by anyone with even the tinest bit of intelligence.

Except they could have achieved the same result by giving you a receipt. Or even without it, the sheer existence of a bank-transaction is arguably enough proof-of-purchase to say you own what you bought.

 

[Tsukikira]

You are only talking about NFT's in terms of the trending types placed on the blockchain though, not about NFTs in general. I think I was clear I was talking about the concept (a token that is non-fungible) in more general terms, distancing from the specific usage "cryptobros" use the term for.

Right, but the point is why it's a scam is because when business types talk about NFT's, they are solely talking about the technology on the blockchain. 'NFTs', Non-fungible-tokens, cannot be talked about in any general term and still be called an NFT. It's a term invented specifically for this technology, and the fact it happens to resemble a paper receipt does not make a paper receipt into an NFT.

Except they could have achieved the same result by giving you a receipt. Or even without it, the sheer existence of a bank-transaction is arguably enough proof-of-purchase to say you own what you bought.

The intention of NFTs is sort of like a Deed to a House, or Deed to a car, etc. Except what the Deed is pointing to is a hyperlink to content not locked into the blockchain. There's nothing stopping the digital copying by the company, aside from the Company pretending it's limited.

As you note, they could have achieved the same result by flipping a database record and keeping a copy of your transaction in a non-blockchain format. It's just so ridiculous that they are selling a 'magical artificial scarity' over a resource that isn't scarce.

 

[wallsg]

I definitely agree with you on this aside from the age part. That's why I self-study during company time after I finish my tasks ahead of schedule.

If you can finish ahead of schedule then you're not being given enough work. If there isn't any more work to give you then there are too many employees.
-- The Management

 

[DesertStorm]

If you can finish ahead of schedule then you're not being given enough work. If there isn't any more work to give you then there are too many employees.
-- The Management

and that's why I don't tell management that I finished ahead of schedule.