The way I read the article, the “worth millions” is the sum of the ransom demand.
The funny part is that the exploit is in the “smart” contract, ya know the thing that the blockchain keeps secure by forbidding any updates or patches.
No one is gonna buy any NFTs for millions lmao
They’re priced like police drug busts.
People buy them for millions or their value would not be in the millions
First, DO people buy them for millions, in the present tense? I know that people did in the past, but I thought the price on most of these took a huge hit.
Second: do people BUY them for millions, in the sense that they trade things of well-measured value (like fiat currency or gold) for coins to buy these? Or do they buy them for millions of dollars in equivalent coins that they already have, and don’t want to actually sell for real goods or money because they’d realized huge losses if they actually cashed out, so they have to keep them circulating within the blockchain to maintain a hope that they’ll return anywhere near their previous value? Because if you have 10 million dollars worth of etherium that you bought at 20 million and an NFT of questionable value, can’t you just buy and sell it to a few wallets you own to make it look like it’s recently been purchased for a few million to create the illusion of value without actually ever giving or receiving anything?
I’ll get my friend to buy it from me for millions, then he can give the money back to me and when it sells again, we can split the profit. It’s win-win!
This seems like kind of a meaningless distinction when the comment was speaking about the relative value of these. How some pays is irrelevant.
This feels like you’re trying to shit on them so just refuse to believe that the concept of value has any meaning. Things are worth whatever someone will pay for them.
That doesn’t make the people willing to pay for it smart.
I’m sorry it feels that way, that’s not my intention.
I think it’s a meaningful distinction because my understanding is that many large matter holders are early adopters who acquired coins at at basement prices that them became highly valued when crypto took off. These people, as I understand it, have a different spending pattern than we associate with conventional wealth. They may shuffle their coins between digital assets with limited conversion into real world good and services, because inside the block chain they’re billionaires, but if they tried to buy a house or a vacation they’re forced to find buyers at prices that are reflective of the value among crypto holders, but not nearly as high to those outside the system who they’d need to complete cash transactions.
The distinction isn’t meaningless, it’s actually vitally important. The thing is, we’ve been here before, hundreds if not thousands of times, with the stock market and other speculative bubbles. Once a big enough entity decides to cut their losses and bail with whatever they can get, all that “value” disappears and there’s no inherent value of the asset itself to fall back on. So it has been with other crypto crashes in the past few years.
Granted, this is generally true of fiat as well, we just have a lot more people and hopefully some safeguards and, vitally, an active economy holding up that value.
All art is inherently without value, and it’s value is entirely speculative.
I think NFTs are dumb as fuck, but they’re worth what people will pay for them. Same shit with tulips in Denmark famously spiking - bubble or not, things are literally worth what someone will pay
No
That is literally what the concept of value is.
No, and that is exactly the problem.
They artificially inflate the price to make it seem more worth than it actually is.
It is a type of fraud
Things are worth what people will pay. People pay out the nose for diamonds and they are just shiny rocks and not particularly rare.
deleted by creator
Sounds like a great way to make an insurance claim on a bunch of NFTs worth “millions” that you could not convince anyone to buy.
What insurance company is dumb enough to insure NFTs?
Ones that think they can’t be stolen
You can in fact insure things that it is possible to steal. Cars, bikes, household posessions, you name it. It’s quite common.
If the insurance company thinks the nft can’t be stolen, it’s money for no risk. That’s why they would easily accept insuring an nft.
I think you misunderstood my comment.
In a highly simplified way: total risk of insuring from theft is roughly other-risks * theft-risk, so if theft risk is 0, it means that other risks, such as insanelly high risks in asset valuation are irrelevant to the total risk which will always end up as 0.
So it makes sense that being paid to insure that which cannot be stollen against theft is risk-free money quite independently of all else. (Of curse, if something has a non-zero probability - even if tiny - of being stolen none of that holds)
I think that’s the whole humourous point the previous poster was making: that which NFT promoters kept on telling us guarantees unique ownership which cannot be taken by others (and hence cannot be stollen) turns out that it can.
Ones that understand the Internet and/or technology. And believe the “secure” hype.
I’d say more likely to be able to declare a capital loss on taxes.
Can I carry that loss over for the next… 100 years or so?
Accurate headline:
Millions of dollars lost as NFTs worth a total of $0 stolen
Let me get this straight, you can steal an nft but you can’t own an nft?
You wouldn’t download an NFT…
right clicks
No! I forbid it!
Then what would you do with it? Is it purely for clout? “Hey guys, look, I got an image of this monkey.” Yes monkeys are amazing, but you don’t even own the picture, so what’s the point?
I mean low key it’s supposed to be a receipt that can’t be copied. The receipt being slapped onto an image is what most associated with NFTs but it’s more just like a code that provides proof of purchase/ownership because you can trace the history on the block chain
Except more like a star registry because there’s nothing to say you actually own the image. Other people on other blockchains might also claim that they own the image. Other people on the same blockchain might also claim the exact same image, just at a different URL.
It’s a receipt with a link to an image. The image is entirely unrelated to the NFT outside of the link that’s embedded into the NFT. It’s kinda like how you can embed an image from one website onto another separate unrelated website
The rub here being that you really only own the receipt, it doesn’t confer any legal rights or ensure exclusivity of the content it’s attached to. I get why people uninterested in being part of a PNG are excited about them, but I haven’t personally seen a use case for them that isn’t exploitable or already solved by current technology.
Back with GameStop the hope was the ability to sell/trade digital content like games. Because you actually own the digital content and the proof of purchase, closest to digital ownership I’ve seen.
PlayStation out here taking games after people bought them and shit is a strong reason for NFTs imo
How would NFTs make any difference for Sony losing rights to a game and removing it from their servers? They still know who purchased it from their own records but still removed access entirely.
That’s not what’s being said here. Not Sony losing rights to a game, just entirely being unable to provide proof of ownership on digital content.
I’ve had Microsoft do this to me for Minecraft during their transition to owning it where they claimed I didn’t own the game. I had to legitimately email them a picture of a receipt I owned to get my account back. Had I not had that receipt I’d not have the game.
I’ve never had Sony do this but I hear they’ve done this exact thing to people in other ways usually DLCs.
With NFTs there’s a third party undeniable proof of purchase and ownership. It takes that whole side away from the distributor giving power to the consumer.
In a better world I could then sell that NFT and proof of purchase and the company would honor it for the person I sold it to allowing for the resale of digital content.
You very much do own an NFT you purchase, what you don’t own is the asset the NFT represents (the shitty RNG generated monkey for example).
I never had a jpeg stolen from me.
What a time to be alive.
No no, they stole the link to a jpeg, careful you will make them angry
Here, take my link to get a feeling
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/db03eae9-a3a9-42df-8cf2-f2aa8bfa2d95.webp
That’s not just a feeling, that’s something more.
You better quit yapping before I steal more of your bytes pal, it’ll be the biggest regret of your life
Another interpretation is that it’s all an insurance scam were something worthless is “stolen by hackers” and then claimed to be worth millions for the insurance claim.
But surely nobody in the “well known as impeccably honest” NFT world would ever do something like that!
Removed by mod
It wouldn’t be the first time that somebody who should’ve known better gets taken in by hype.
That said, I agree it’s unlikely.
“If some idiot wants to pay for it…”
People trying to discuss the topic have their posts pushed down while “lmao nfts” are voted up. How do you see someone saying, respectfully, “I think there’s a benefit to this.” and try to push down their contribution?
Anyone who wants a good discussion about news in this community, must leave this community. If you want to add context or opposing perspectives, better go elsewhere. You build a community like this and you get people who know Hans had a vibrator, because jokes and legit opinions are treated as interchangable.
NFTs are a joke, so it’s totally fine for a topic like this.
Like what is there to discuss? The entire concept is stupid. With NFTs the object isn’t even on the blockchain, the image isn’t there. It’s pretty much just some random information that says image x belongs to you (but you have to store image x somewhere else and can lose it).
When it comes to owning art either physical media or the rights to the image already do a much better job.
The only area where NFTs sound useful (but they aren’t) is things like trading card games. Where you can have a card in a game and you own it, but because it’s an NFT you could sell the card to another player outside the game. But the whole concept again breaks down, the game can simply block the card from being played later on or remove the card and you’re left with nothing (besides “proof” that you own the NFT for a card that existed in the past). It adds nothing of value that a normal entry in a database couldn’t provide.
One thing I’m still positive on: Crypto currency was a great idea, at least until Bitcoin was sabotaged with the 1 MB block size and transacting with it died along the way.
I seem to recall digital trading card games existing long before NFTs were ever thought up, so not even that works. In fact, every “use” for NFTs I’ve ever seen suggested has been something we already had that is actually easier without involving the things.
Well, digital trading card games do exist of course, but often you can’t even trade cards. And much less sell them for real money. With an NFT in theory you could do what you want with the card, like give it to your buddy for 10 bucks and you don’t even have to use the game client for it.
The problem here is that the card itself is in the game code, so you can freely move ownership, but the game could just remove the card and make your NFT worthless.
Maybe it’s because majority of people think that NFTs are a joke and don’t agree that there are any benefits to this? Maybe they don’t want to engage in a discussion because they already heard all the arguments and still think it’s BS? I don’t know, I’m just guessing.
Downvotes should not be used for disagreement… That’s how you make echo chambers
I don’t know, my instance doesn’t have downvotes so I don’t see them.
I guess the millions are in the transaction fees
“Potential losses”. I get the feeling that NFT owners got bit by the same bug that bit RIAA executives.
Think of it like this, when people make drug busts and they find huge amounts of cocaine or whatever and they say oh this is 300 something mod a million is worth of stuff. No it’s not. It’s maybe like not even half that not even a quarter of that, they just make it up just to make their bust even bigger
I also like the “10 Kilos of product was taken off of the street” which means like 12 grams of weed was turned into brownies
4,000 pounds of weed removed from a single basement greenhouse
ITT: a handful of people starting to sweat about their NFT retirement strategy
One of the great thing about the AI revolution is that since generating infinite number of unique random (and commonly, bad) pictures of literally anything you can think of takes only seconds, the entire concept of NFT has become completely worthless as it completely destroyed the value-from-scarcity argument. Not that it ever was a good argument to begin with.
How do you steal a hyperlink to a jpeg
"Do I look like i know what an NFT is?
I just want a picture of some gaht dang shitposts."
And why should any sane person care if you did?
It’s a digital file. Copies are exactly the same as the original.
I’m having difficulty with the word “worth”. It appears to be doing an awful lot of heavy lifting
