Loading...
> >

NFT and the Future of Digital Content

1…4041434546…53

Comments

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 38,202

    I always thought PoS stood for Piece of Scat and PoW stood for Prisoner of War cheeky

  • plasma_ringplasma_ring Posts: 1,025
    edited April 2021
    Zylox said:

    DAZ may actually be listening to us. They appear to be switching to WAX block chain from etherium, or at least using it for new NFTs. It took a lot of digging, but I was finally able to verify that the WAX blockchain is PoS rather than PoW, so it should be significantly better for the environment. It still doesn't address the other issues, but at least it is environmentally friendlier.

    The Digitals don't seem to have adopted WAX.

     

    https://github.com/memo/eco-nft

    I'm still uneasy about their level of dedication to this and I don't know what their investment is in crypto stuff, but it's a good step. I'm not willing to make purchases while they're selling NFTs, but I'm glad to see them do something that materially reduces harm.

    Post edited by plasma_ring on
  • WolfwoodWolfwood Posts: 725

    Zylox said:

    DAZ may actually be listening to us. They appear to be switching to WAX block chain from etherium, or at least using it for new NFTs. It took a lot of digging, but I was finally able to verify that the WAX blockchain is PoS rather than PoW, so it should be significantly better for the environment. It still doesn't address the other issues, but at least it is environmentally friendlier.

    The Digitals don't seem to have adopted WAX.

     

    https://github.com/memo/eco-nft

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787

    WendyLuvsCatz said:

    I always thought PoS stood for Piece of Scat and PoW stood for Prisoner of War cheeky

    I had learned the same thing. In my oppinion, NFTs are a POS, lol.

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 9,940

    Sevrin said:

    bytescapes said:

    Mark_e593e0a5 said:

    Deadly Buda said:

    Paintbox said:

    Also the nature of Bitcoin and Ethereum is that proof-of-work will only get more complex and needs more and more power, not less. So it isn't something that will solve itself, as it stands.

    NFTs don't use bitcoin and Ethereum is moving to proof-of-stake by 2023, thereby removing the proof-of-work argument in regards to nfts.

    They are moving to proof-of-stake since 2018 "really soon". Thats better than even "Daz soon"... 

    It's gonna be awesome when we have everything fueled by hydrogen (*), Linux as the leading desktop OS, and Ethereum based on proof-of-stake. Because I'm told that all those things are coming ... next year.

     

    (*) The energy industry joke is "Hydrogen! It's the fuel of the future! Always has been -- always will be."

    Hay!  Nothing wrong with hydrogen.

     

    Ah, the first hydrogen bomb. 

  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787

    BlueFingers said:

    They are, from what I am reading, actually Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), from what I understand it's a more democratic form of PoS. Well, I'm glad they choose a more efficient way of doing things.

    @Zylox, would you have a link to those figures?

    And just wondering, who else is reading this thread while waiting on a long render?

    Sorry, I don't have a link, I am basing that on what others have said in this discussion. I think they have posted links, but that is a lot of pages to go through. The DPoS sounds better than PoS.

  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787

    @plasma_ring and @Wolfwood While I appreciate the steps DAZ has taken, I agree that we really are not the market for NFTs. In addition, buying an official link to an item posted online, rather than buying the item, seems...pointless to me(that's the kindest way I can put it).

  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903

    Zylox said:

    BlueFingers said:

    They are, from what I am reading, actually Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), from what I understand it's a more democratic form of PoS. Well, I'm glad they choose a more efficient way of doing things.

    @Zylox, would you have a link to those figures?

    And just wondering, who else is reading this thread while waiting on a long render?

    Sorry, I don't have a link, I am basing that on what others have said in this discussion. I think they have posted links, but that is a lot of pages to go through. The DPoS sounds better than PoS.

    No worries mate, I'll have a look.

  • Deadly BudaDeadly Buda Posts: 155

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

  • allenfesler_2df6b6e506allenfesler_2df6b6e506 Posts: 73
    edited April 2021

    Confused old fart here ...

    For the moment let's not worry about how much energy it takes to make a PoS/PoW 'coin'; I'm more interested in what it will (or won't) do for me as a semi-artist/scifi-writer.

    As I semi-understand things, to play this NFT game you have to generate or buy/convert enough cash to whatever coin is needed to make the NFT (well over $100 from what those in the thread were saying).

    Then you have to 'sell' the NFT - and there's a transfer fee! (also over $100 I believe someone said).

    And then you have to cash out the coin - hoping the value hasn't dropped to a point less than you paid to play this little game. (may be another converter fee?)

    So a person has to believe that there's someone else out there willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a 'link' to their art/story - because it will have to sell for hundreds just for you to break even, more if you were hoping to make a profit.

    Did I miss something big? Because it looks like the only sure winners are the ones selling the NFTs to the artists and the ones collecting those transfer fees. If the artist doesn't charge enough they lose money, if it doesn't sell they lose money, and the buyer buys proof that they bought proof of a link - which can go down or the contents change at any time.

    I know there are a few others out there that remember 'War Games' - where the only winning move is a nice game of chess ... ;-)

    Post edited by allenfesler_2df6b6e506 on
  • droidy001droidy001 Posts: 282
    BlueFingers said:

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    Thank you BlueFingers, you just made me spit coffee all down myself.
  • droidy001droidy001 Posts: 282
    allenfesler_2df6b6e506 said:

    Confused old fart here ...

    For the moment let's not worry about how much energy it takes to make a PoS/PoW 'coin'; I'm more interested in what it will (or won't) do for me as a semi-artist/scifi-writer.

    As I semi-understand things, to play this NFT game you have to generate or buy/convert enough cash to whatever coin is needed to make the NFT (well over $100 from what those in the thread were saying).

    Then you have to 'sell' the NFT - and there's a transfer fee! (also over $100 I believe someone said).

    And then you have to cash out the coin - hoping the value hasn't dropped to a point less than you paid to play this little game. (may be another converter fee?)

    So a person has to believe that there's someone else out there willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a 'link' to their art/story - because it will have to sell for hundreds just for you to break even, more if you were hoping to make a profit.

    Did I miss something big? Because it looks like the only sure winners are the ones selling the NFTs to the artists and the ones collecting those transfer fees. If the artist doesn't charge enough they lose money, if it doesn't sell they lose money, and the buyer buys proof that they bought proof of a link - which can go down or the contents change at any time.

    I know there are a few others out there that remember 'War Games' - where the only winning move is a nice game of chess ... ;-)

    I think you pretty much nailed it. But I'm no expert, I'm just going on the duck theory.
  • icprncssicprncss Posts: 3,694
    When I buy art, I want the actual work of art. Not some nebulous link to a digital reproduction. So far, I haven't seen anything all that impressive. Portrait renders are portrait renders. I've seen the same quality or better in a number of promo renders. Not even the promise of the assets used or that inspired it, are enough to raise interest beyond a brief glance. Perhaps if the prices weren't so inflated and an accurate listing of the accompanying assets was provided, I might view this as something more than a cyber scheme. Maybe I'm wrong. But that's what NFT's feel like.
  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787

    allenfesler_2df6b6e506 said:

    Confused old fart here ...

    For the moment let's not worry about how much energy it takes to make a PoS/PoW 'coin'; I'm more interested in what it will (or won't) do for me as a semi-artist/scifi-writer.

    As I semi-understand things, to play this NFT game you have to generate or buy/convert enough cash to whatever coin is needed to make the NFT (well over $100 from what those in the thread were saying).

    Then you have to 'sell' the NFT - and there's a transfer fee! (also over $100 I believe someone said).

    And then you have to cash out the coin - hoping the value hasn't dropped to a point less than you paid to play this little game. (may be another converter fee?)

    So a person has to believe that there's someone else out there willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a 'link' to their art/story - because it will have to sell for hundreds just for you to break even, more if you were hoping to make a profit.

    Did I miss something big? Because it looks like the only sure winners are the ones selling the NFTs to the artists and the ones collecting those transfer fees. If the artist doesn't charge enough they lose money, if it doesn't sell they lose money, and the buyer buys proof that they bought proof of a link - which can go down or the contents change at any time.

    I know there are a few others out there that remember 'War Games' - where the only winning move is a nice game of chess ... ;-)

    That's how I understand it works, too. Some NFT services, such as the one DAZ is moving to, charge a lot less to create and sell the token/NFT. It is still a lot like gambling or speculating on the stock market, if the stock market were completely unregulated. To make it even more exciting, the media are talking about how it looks like the NFT bubble either has or is about to burst. Doesn't mean it will burst, but it does add a further layer of uncertainty.

  • Deadly BudaDeadly Buda Posts: 155

    BlueFingers said:

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    I can be, and that is what is good about it. When you buy a model on Daz using Paypal, you have a unique receipt, gets e-mailed to you, has licensing terms, etc. The good thing about NFTs is it rolls all this into one digital contract, eliminating a bunch of steps and middlemen. 

    So, you can do this too. It doesn't have to be through a particular vendor. So if you sell something you have the terms built in. A unique smart contract (what an NFT basically is) can be way more efficient for the artist or whoever utilizes one.

  • icprncssicprncss Posts: 3,694
    Question? My money is backed by the FDIC. Who backs cryptocurrency? Maybe there are times "bypassing" the banks and attorneys is viewed as "easier". But after a number of things I've had to deal with, I'll take my bank and attorneys and a good, old fashioned hard copy contract anytime.
  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903
    edited April 2021

    Deadly Buda said:

    BlueFingers said:

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    I can be, and that is what is good about it. When you buy a model on Daz using Paypal, you have a unique receipt, gets e-mailed to you, has licensing terms, etc. The good thing about NFTs is it rolls all this into one digital contract, eliminating a bunch of steps and middlemen. 

    So, you can do this too. It doesn't have to be through a particular vendor. So if you sell something you have the terms built in. A unique smart contract (what an NFT basically is) can be way more efficient for the artist or whoever utilizes one.

    * Sigh * I've ran out of words, I hardly ever do,....I think I should put them in NFTs, just learned they are a scarce commodity. 

    Have you read my signature or this thread?

    Post edited by BlueFingers on
  • Deadly BudaDeadly Buda Posts: 155

    allenfesler_2df6b6e506 said:

    Confused old fart here ...

    For the moment let's not worry about how much energy it takes to make a PoS/PoW 'coin'; I'm more interested in what it will (or won't) do for me as a semi-artist/scifi-writer.

    As I semi-understand things, to play this NFT game you have to generate or buy/convert enough cash to whatever coin is needed to make the NFT (well over $100 from what those in the thread were saying).

    Then you have to 'sell' the NFT - and there's a transfer fee! (also over $100 I believe someone said).

    And then you have to cash out the coin - hoping the value hasn't dropped to a point less than you paid to play this little game. (may be another converter fee?)

    So a person has to believe that there's someone else out there willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a 'link' to their art/story - because it will have to sell for hundreds just for you to break even, more if you were hoping to make a profit.

    Did I miss something big? Because it looks like the only sure winners are the ones selling the NFTs to the artists and the ones collecting those transfer fees. If the artist doesn't charge enough they lose money, if it doesn't sell they lose money, and the buyer buys proof that they bought proof of a link - which can go down or the contents change at any time.

    I know there are a few others out there that remember 'War Games' - where the only winning move is a nice game of chess ... ;-)

    What you are missing is that NFTs haven't been properly explained to you. NFTs are basically digital contracts that are unique. The contracts get executed and pay out in the particular cryptocurrency they are part of, and can be programmed to do so in the future based on certain events (like your art re-selling and you get 10% of the sale). So its a contract and payment system all in one. 

    All the other stuff about marketing, transfer fees, etc. that you mention are only after-effects of some hyped transactions and services. These problems are temporary and just part of the developing nature of the technology. NFTs can potentially replace banks and lawyers to a large degree, giving artists a more streamlined way of getting paid directly from their fans or businesses.

  • plasma_ringplasma_ring Posts: 1,025

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    That is not how it's being used on a massive scale right now, and that matters. In an enormous push, artists were sold the idea that now their digital art has value to people--so much value that rich collectors are falling over themselves to pay obscene prices to claim ownership of a token linking them to it and nothing else. And because it was presented as this huge paradigm shift that was going to make unique instances of virtual art trades worth a lot of money going forward, people who bought into that thought they were making investments by collecting them. As a result, thousands of people started using this platform who otherwise wouldn't have if you'd gone to them and said, "Hey, when you're selling stuff, did you know you can do it this way?"

    People pointing that out aren't the ones approaching the subject incorrectly, and this has likely ruined any practical approach for a very long time. This is why I can't trust crypto. I can see good applications for some of it, I can acknowledge that it's legitimately useful to some people for some purposes. And then all the rest of it is people with too much money playing investment games and people with much less money buying into it hardcore because they think they're going to be rich and validated when it finally pays off. 

     

     

  • Deadly BudaDeadly Buda Posts: 155

    BlueFingers said:

    * Sigh * I've ran out of words, I hardly ever do,....I think I should put them in NFTs, just learned they are a scarce commodity. 

    Have you read my signature or this thread?

    Your analogy about power consumption is totally off base, though. Crypto mining uses probably less than 10% of resources of traditional banking. Ethereum probably maybe like less than 1%. NFTs.... like a fraction of 1% of ethereum transactions. 

    An NFT can be used as a financial instrument... what's the point. That's what it is supposed to do.

  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903
    edited April 2021

    RobotHeadArt said:

    DAZ just transfered more of their NFTs to the trash.

    I think they were being transferred to Wax when this happened.

    Post edited by BlueFingers on
  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903
    edited April 2021

    Deadly Buda said:

    BlueFingers said:

    * Sigh * I've ran out of words, I hardly ever do,....I think I should put them in NFTs, just learned they are a scarce commodity. 

    Have you read my signature or this thread?

    Your analogy about power consumption is totally off base, though. Crypto mining uses probably less than 10% of resources of traditional banking. Ethereum probably maybe like less than 1%. NFTs.... like a fraction of 1% of ethereum transactions. 

    An NFT can be used as a financial instrument... what's the point. That's what it is supposed toq do.

    https://www.loop-news.com/p/the-big-problem-with-nfts-energy

    https://www.wired.com/story/nfts-hot-effect-earth-climate/

    https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/15/22328203/nft-cryptoart-ethereum-blockchain-climate-change

    "An NFT can be used as a financial instrument... what's the point. That's what it is supposed toq do." You do realize you are making my point here,....I really hope so since my sarcasm apparently got lost.

    Post edited by BlueFingers on
  • ironclawxiiironclawxii Posts: 172
    edited April 2021

    Diigitals: So how long can I have my advertisements on your front page?

    DAZ: Yes.

    Post edited by ironclawxii on
  • droidy001droidy001 Posts: 282
    Deadly Buda said:

    BlueFingers said:

    * Sigh * I've ran out of words, I hardly ever do,....I think I should put them in NFTs, just learned they are a scarce commodity. 

    Have you read my signature or this thread?

    Your analogy about power consumption is totally off base, though. Crypto mining uses probably less than 10% of resources of traditional banking. Ethereum probably maybe like less than 1%. NFTs.... like a fraction of 1% of ethereum transactions. 

    An NFT can be used as a financial instrument... what's the point. That's what it is supposed to do.

    Unfortunately using "probably" is undermining your comment. If we use guesses then I would guess that the number of traditional bank transactions per day is orders of magnitude more than crypto. You would have to do it on cost per transaction. The way you have put it assumes at least 10% of all the world's transactions (both traditional and crypto) are crypto, to make it anywhere near comparable.
  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903

    droidy001 said:

    BlueFingers said:

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    Thank you BlueFingers, you just made me spit coffee all down myself.

    Does this get me a badge on the forum? wink

  • droidy001droidy001 Posts: 282
    BlueFingers said:

    droidy001 said:

    BlueFingers said:

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    Thank you BlueFingers, you just made me spit coffee all down myself.

    Does this get me a badge on the forum? wink

    Minted especially for you.
    me-sarcastic-no-badges-400x400.jpg
    400 x 400 - 23K
  • BlueFingersBlueFingers Posts: 903
    edited April 2021

    droidy001 said:

    BlueFingers said:

    droidy001 said:

    BlueFingers said:

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    Thank you BlueFingers, you just made me spit coffee all down myself.

    Does this get me a badge on the forum? wink

    Minted especially for you.

    ROFL, I'll wear it with pride! 

    Post edited by BlueFingers on
  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787

    Deadly Buda said:

    BlueFingers said:

    * Sigh * I've ran out of words, I hardly ever do,....I think I should put them in NFTs, just learned they are a scarce commodity. 

    Have you read my signature or this thread?

    Your analogy about power consumption is totally off base, though. Crypto mining uses probably less than 10% of resources of traditional banking. Ethereum probably maybe like less than 1%. NFTs.... like a fraction of 1% of ethereum transactions. 

    An NFT can be used as a financial instrument... what's the point. That's what it is supposed to do.

    After doing a minimal amount of research, using pro-crypto sites data, you are right. Currently Bit Coin uses aproximately 1/4 the energy used by traditional banking.

    https://medium.com/@zodhyatech/which-consumes-more-power-banks-or-bitcoins-8302750fe2bc

    However, only a little over 106 million people use crypto currency. The current world population is 7.79 billion, with 70% being adults age 18+. If crypto currency is to replace traditional banking, it will need to be used by 5.45 billion people. That is an increase of 5100%, or 51x as many people. Even assuming remarkable efficiency, crypto currency would use significantly more energy than traditional banking.

    https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/crypto-users-pass-100-million-boomers-gen-x-bitcoin-btc-ethereum-2021-2-1030122720

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world

    Using the numbers from these pro-crypto web sites, bit coin currently uses 32.56 TWh for 106 million people, or 307KWh per person per year. Traditional banking and money uses 140 TWh for 5.45 billion people, or 25.6 KWh per person per year. Yes, these are very rough numbers, being based on assumptions made in the articles I linked to. Also, bit coin does not account for 100% of the crypto currency in use, so the energy use per person for crypto currency would actually be higher, perhaps more than double my figures based on the comparitive energy use and market share fo bit coin and etherium.

    Finally, the PoW(proof of work) model commonlly used in crypto mining is designed to get less efficient over time, using more energy.

     

    Summary: crypto currency currently uses more than 12x the energy per customer that traditional banking does, and is designed to increase energy use over time.

  • ZyloxZylox Posts: 787

    BlueFingers said:

    droidy001 said:

    BlueFingers said:

    droidy001 said:

    BlueFingers said:

    Deadly Buda said:

    Wolfwood said:

    While it is step, i think the better step would have been to dich NFTs.

    I think you guys and gals aren't approaching this subject correctly. An NFT is essentially a unique contract. Basically a digital contract that replaces a paper contract, and can have parameters built into it. So if your art sold for $7 vi NFT, it could be programmed that the resale, say at $10, would confer 10% to you. So another $1s worth of the crypto goes instantly to you. So you bypass banks and lawyers, it makes life way easier. The NFT can be attached to a digital file, or a real object. It just depends on the use-case scenario. People buying digital art is one such scenario that  a lot of people enjoy. 

    The way NFT is hyped, is perhaps leading some people to miss the point. It's a "smart" contract, not some new type of art format.

    Oh,..you mean like a financial instrument.

    Thank you BlueFingers, you just made me spit coffee all down myself.

    Does this get me a badge on the forum? wink

    Minted especially for you.

    ROFL, I'll wear it with pride! 

    I'm jealous! angry

    Nice badge, lol.

This discussion has been closed.