• PatFusty@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      211
      ·
      7 months ago

      It was not ‘pictures of monkeys’ it was art. It was digital art. If you don’t get that then you don’t understand money laundering.

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Most people who bought them are likely still in the green compared to holding the cryptocurrency they used to purchase them, which itself is with more than the USD used to purchase the crypto.

        So you’d probably be disappointed.

          • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            7 months ago

            Wow some clowns spent nearly half a million on some of the laziest JPGs ever drawn. Wish I had been in on a grift like that. If someone can afford to spend that much on a PNG they don’t need the money so it is basically victimless.

            • Moonrise2473@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              7 months ago

              But it also come with extra privileges like going to exclusive parties where powerful UV lights can cause eye damage

          • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            And aren’t the bored apes the ones that somewhat held their value over time ? I heard somewhere that all the other jpgs NFTs plummeted even harder

      • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        98
        ·
        7 months ago

        It is with a heavy heart I announce the sale of my long term ape, Salazar. Most of my early followers know me as this ape. My kids know me as this ape. I met my wife when I WAS this ape and had my first kid when I was still proudly wore this ape. By extension, it is part of me.

        I’m sure his wife and kids are deeply relieved by this news.

      • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wow, if this is actually sincere and not a gift of some kind… this person is really sad and pathetic.

        • vzq
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          deleted by creator

            • skulblaka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              I mean, ha ha funny joke, but realistically, yes. Someone with no money and no friends or family with money is a waste to advertise to. You fly under the radar by virtue of being a statistically bad investment. You’ll still get hit with all the same shotgun-style advertisement that the rest of us do, but you’re unlikely to find yourself being a priority for targeted advertisement. It’s a little bit of a silver lining to an unhappy situation.

              • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                Oh don’t worry I was cutting along the ‘funny because it’s true’ line.

                Some of the shotgun stuff would get me, if I could buy basic amenities without crying.

                I’m full on with team silver lining, I have a roof, for now.

            • Noodle07@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 months ago

              When a homeless person asks me for money and I tell them I’m unemployed and live on the basic income the state gives me they say they’re sorry and wish me good luck, they know lol

          • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Collecting Magic: the Gathering cards works much the same way, except you at least have some tangible cardboard with a highly variable price instead of a digital token signifying you own the concept of an ugly piece of digital art at the end of a day.

      • Moonrise2473@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        7 months ago

        I wasted 15 minutes of my life to understand why he is staying that “blur” is crashing the price of that jpg

        It looks like that there’s a new nft marketplace that created some shitcoin as a reward for users. When someone trades a jpg , the platform print this worthless monopoly money and give as a reward for the user. Because there’s dumb people that is buying this monopoly money thinking that surely it would be worth something, whales are exchanging those jpgs between them in order to get the free monopoly money as a gift, so they can dump them immediately and buy more jpgs to exchange.

        What a waste of compute energy

      • rutellthesinful@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        but what kind of protest is “I’ll have no choice but to sell the ape”?

        like even if your “threat” is losing you as a member of the community, you’re still selling it to somebody else who will just take your place

      • ThoranTW@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Two weeks ago myself and around 15 other high ranking ape members gathered at the recent International Ape Workshop in Miami

        I have no idea how someone can say this with a straight face

      • dumbass@toast.ooo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Wtf did I read lol, half way through I thought I was having a stroke, apes vs Pacman!

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      NFT owner thinks no one should be able to use an NFTs pic as a PFP except the owner, but unfortunately thats not how this game works

      As long as they arent using the image for profit, they can kinda do whatever they want

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I can think of a few other reasons other than the technology being new. But considering the general enshittification our civilization is going through, I can agree that this may be where it’s headed.

          • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            A decentralized ownership platform would be good for consumers. Currently all digital rights management is centrally managed by corporations and that ownership is revoked or lost when the company is sold or goes out of business.

                • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  We are talking about the topic you brought up - digital rights management. The thing that prevents you from using software (or, nowadays, even hardware) without a license is not some magical karma woven into the fabric of the universe. It’s code that the companies put in their product. No matter how much blockchain technology improves and not matter how much popular it gets - you still need these companies to actively implement NFT based DRMs. Why would they do that? Why would they relinquish control over their product? I jokingly said earlier that it’ll happen because the trend is to make everything worse, but companies that make their product worse do it to gain more control over their users and extract more money from them.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes pictures can be copied and pasted. Digital receipts cannot be forged. It’s the difference between “here is an image” and “I own this image”.

          • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Obviously that’s not how ownership works.

            EDIT: I’m surprised to be getting so many downvotes on this. Are people under the impression they own movies and music they download through torrents? Again, obviously there is a difference between “I have this digital content” and “I own this digital content”

            • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m out of the loop here, how does ownership actually impact the world in these cases? If I buy an nft image do I own the copyright to it? Do I get legal control over its use? What’s the deal here? I see a lot of talk about ownership of a digital asset but I have thousands of digital images stored and I don’t get why a blockchain is needed in the situation?

              • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Good question! In almost all cases, you ONLY own the NFT “wrapper” around the content

                For example, if you own an NFT of a picture, you only own the NFT. You do not own the picture or any kind of rights to it

                • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I did not no, I’m an ardent believer that proprietary file format is a bad form for media as it relies on a single entity to maintain its support.

              • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Again, that’s obviously not how ownership works. You can download movies and music too. Doesn’t mean you own them. If your argument is “it doesn’t stop piracy” I’m not disagreeing with that.

                • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  I didn’t say that. You genuinely don’t understand what NFTs are or how any kind of “ownership” works with them. I don’t blame you for your ignorance because that’s how they sell them. I blame you for passionately defending your ignorance instead of learning the actual, objective truth

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Blockchain (assuming that’s what your digital receipts are based on) has no concept of identity. They’re anonymous by design. Because of that, the concept of “ownership” doesn’t really jive with blockchain, because the concept of “ownership” is inherently based on identity. All blockchain is good for is “yes, this transaction is valid”, or “no, this transaction is invalid”, where a “transaction” is simply the transfer of digital goods (cryptocurrency, nfts, whatever else) from one crypto wallet to another. Anyone with the keys to a particular crypto wallet can access the contents of said wallet, whether they “own” it or not.

          So yes, the receipt cannot be forged. The receipt is next to useless though, because all it says is “here’s a record of this valid transaction between these two crypto wallets” - there’s no record of real, actual ownership or identification involved. And at the end of the day, bits are bits. You can wave your receipt at me all day and claim your bits are the “real” ones, but they’re no different from my bits that I downloaded from Twitter.

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              No they can’t. They can cryptographically prove that a particular transaction on the ledger is valid. That transaction is not linked to an identity, by design, so it means absolutely nothing as far as ownership goes.

              • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Buddy, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Private key signatures have been used to prove identities for decades. Do a little research on the basics of digital cryptography before speaking on the subject.

                • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You just proved my point. By itself, blockchain cannot do identification. You need to use something external like private key signatures to do that.