Hacker News Reader

Comment by acdha | Hacker News Reader

> If you were well versed in NFTs and DLT technology you'll know there is new ground being broken here. Your last sentence tells me that you are not well informed on the subject.

This is the key difference: you have been conspicuously unable to provide examples of a competitive service. Nobody in the 90s internet struggled to do that, and they rarely were asked to because there were so many cases where the internet did something useful that even a casual follower of the news would be aware of. There were plenty of dodgy companies but they weren’t the only ones, and existing major businesses were also jumping on board.

View on HN

Yeah you could write early internet use cases on a cocktail napkin:

“Buy plane tickets”

“Find rare books”

“See movie showtimes”

“Sell unwanted items”

And so on.

You can’t do that with NFTs because the whole thing is bullshit.

Yeah, I had a ton of people who were basically switching from “we take orders/provide support over the phone/mail” to “over the internet”. It wasn’t the kind of stuff which gets you on the cover of Wired as a visionary but it sure outlasted a lot of that because it was instantly recognizable as a good move.

- The instantaneous transfer of value between two parties, without an intermediary.

- The ability to publicly and immediately prove ownership (chain of provenance) to a third party.

- Multi-signatories, the ability for one or more parties to have joint cryptographic ownership over the token. For a pre-defined number of those owners (majority, 2 of 5, all members etc) to be able revoke, change, transfer the token as required, again without an intermediary.

Here’s a discussion on the subject of the benefits of NFTs and the broader concept of tokenisation as it applies to supply chains and finance.

https://youtu.be/kNgTR5lii4M?t=25m33s

This is just one clip but the point is, referring back to the OP, the idea that NFTs have failed, that they are useless, that it’s just a load of bullshit is just another way of saying you have a very narrow understanding of tokenisation in the main.

> - The instantaneous transfer of value between two parties, without an intermediary.

This is the only one that isn't nonsense word salad. But it's simply not true.

The intermediary for a blockchain transaction is the group of people who run that blockchain.

The intermediary of PayPal is the group of people who run PayPal.

And so on. You can tell they are intermediaries because without them you can't transfer the value. There's no way to do it just between the two of you, you need this loosely organized group of people in between the two of you.

And that loosely organized group of people, it turns out, is WAY less reliable than basically every other option.

I wasn’t conspicuously avoiding anything. I didn’t see you’d asked earlier. Examples given.

You’ve linked to a company’s press releases, which rather verbosely tell us that they’re doing “tokenization” or selling shares like people have been doing for centuries. What’s omitted are the benefits from doing so – a company switching from mail/phone to internet ordering, for example, could easily show how they were saving money and shipping orders faster. For this, I’d expect to see favorable metrics for customers enjoying lower costs.

The press release was the first one that came up in my search that explained things clearly enough for the uninitiated. There are many other articles elsewhere covering these things if you care to look.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com