:cassandra-flummoxed:
> trend has obvious flaw
>
> flaw leads to inevitable conclusion
> surprise
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
210 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13789 readers
708 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
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
'rare'
Extinct
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
They got funged
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
Not if I downloaded it first…
They also provide shade unlike a jpg
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
theres no way its too expensive when youre paying over $1m for it.
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.
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.
Moxie Marlinespike had a good bit where he sold nfts that would change to the poop emoji
load more comments
(4 replies)
push me to the ETH
all my apes are dead
Right click --> save enjoyers vindicated again
Are we back to laughing at people who believe in IP now?
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?
one time i read about some libertarian scheme to fund some kind of UBI with "royalties" for ancient inventions like the wheel and firemaking.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
This is just like when my parents sold my beanie babies at a garage sale. Had my shit all figured out. The babies. Pokemon cards. I was gonna live large but look at me now
Pokemon cards are still out there selling for obscene amounts of money. Beanie babies, not so much.
(Image is legible when opened in new tab)
E) also, underrated subtle detail is the ex-husband representing himself vs the ex-wife who hired a lawyer for the "divvying up the stuffies" civil case
Maple the bear was the first to go
One of the worst #1 picks of all time. Like when the Clippers took Michael Olowokandi over Vince Carter, Dirk Nowitzki, and Paul Pierce in '98
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Now that they don't exist, the law of supply and demand demands that my NFTs are infinitely valuable
I want them to sue and be ruled against because the URL to the dead jpg still exists.
Legally you only own an entry in a distributed ledger that contains the value "https://dumbassclub.scam/18e67ddf-8469-404c-9820-0eab4631c905.jpg".
load more comments
(3 replies)
most logical economic system
I was having a bad until I read this post
Should have used the slurp juice smh
view more: next ›