'rare'
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
193 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13787 readers
709 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Extinct
tfw what you purchased was not an ape, nor an image of an ape, but a claim to a link to an image of an ape
NFTs made me dislike humanity more as a whole. A large percentage of influencers were using them to scam the public.
Probably should have just downloaded the image.
This is such an obvious thing to happen, I can't spend a hundred bucks without looking into it, let alone a million
hey its the thing that was extremely obviously going to happen happening
man spends a million dollars and cant be arsed to encode the image in the blockchain
he forgot about his slurp juice
this is what happens when you don't use multiple slurp juices on one ape
Such a simpler time. When a Paris Hilton could go on Jimmy Fallon and show him her ape. It aged like bejeweled Von Dutch trucker hats.
Those things have the possibility of coming back, unlike a deleted jpg
They also provide shade unlike a jpg
They got funged
push me to the ETH
all my apes are dead
They weren’t putting the image’s base64 encode on the blockchain or something like that? Just a URL?
yes. It's too expensive to put the actual image on the blockchain so they just put the urls
immutable ledger my ass
well the url is still in the chain isn't it? put up one of the classic shock images or a ytmnd of nelson laughing.
theres no way its too expensive when youre paying over $1m for it.
Yep people were clowning on it from day 1 for this exact reason
Well, among other reasons you could also put exactly the same image onto the chain as often as you wanted because there's no actual relationship between the NFT functionality and whatever it was linking to or defining.
You could also copy and paste it for free
Yeah we all know right click save, but I feel it's a deeper critique that the asset itself can be infinitely reduplicated on the same chain because there's no guardrails or security or relationship between token and asset.
It depends. Some of the pixel art ones are. Some of them are hosted through IPFS which means any computer can host the same data at the same url. Others obviously use regular urls that can change.
IPFS is torrent magnet stuff?
The concept is pretty similar, but it is its own thing. The important bits are that it has a new protocol (IPFS instead of http). But there are http forwarding websites people use to play nice with browsers. Another key concept is that a file's contents is effectively the url id. A url my stop having "seeding" users, but if someone has a copy, it can be seeded again.
no
Moxie Marlinespike had a good bit where he sold nfts that would change to the poop emoji
Right click --> save enjoyers vindicated again
Even if you did the good old "right-click, save" trick them as the owner and you still have your image on your hard-drive, if the link is dead then you can't prove that your specific image of a baboon's ass is linked into that nft that is supposed to be worth X amounts of fiat.
Are we back to laughing at people who believe in IP now?
Say what you want about IP rights but at least they're real. You can go to a court and have your trademark or copyright or whatever enforced. NFT's were hyped to be somehow a superior form of "owning" art but reality it is just in-game poker chips with an URL attached.
Later versions did put the data in the blockchain. NFTs are just the logical ~~conclusion~~ progression of IP.
We never should have stopped
Wait, who stopped? Show yourselves!
some liberals overcorrected against "ai" even though there's plenty of legitimate reasons to not want it around and especially to not have corpos owning the output.
some liberals overcorrected against "ai" even though there's plenty of legitimate reasons to not want it around and especially to not have corpos owning the output.
I'm convinced the hyperfocus on generative ai models somehow iNfRiNgInG upon holy copyright protections was entirely a corporate psyop to begin with, because at the end of the day that line of arguing further enshrines the power of corporate property and gives an easy pivot to whitewashing proprietary corporate "not InFrInGiNg" models.
The closest to ethical that AI gets are open source models that can be run locally, and they're coincidentally the most "infringing" models, while the least ethical ones are the secretive proprietary corporate models being trained on data that's laundered by corporations unilaterally claiming the right to license it for that purpose.
Like what are the biggest problems? Endless mountains of low-grade slop, mostly coming out of corporate hosted models; companies trying to replace workers with dogshit chatbots, which are 100% proprietary corporate services; media companies threatening to eliminate actors using internal proprietary models they claim they have the property rights to train; etc. Not one problem comes from copyright not being expanded to also cover being able to license and restrict how someone looks at a copyrighted thing, and almost every problem comes from huge corporate property holders with most of the rest coming from petty bourgeois grifters.
What if I call it the people's democratic intellectual property, is it cool now?
load more comments
(1 replies)
most logical economic system
Lmao get rekt
view more: next ›