The only reason I know of NFTs is because of the people going around on Twitter selling other people's art without their consent and as an artist myself it scares the absolute life out of me because I don't want someone who doesn't legally own the copyright to my work profiting off of it. Great video as always!
Oh interesting. I am a hobby artist myself and I got two offers to be involved into NFT art after I started posting in large communities. Both times people did not actually offer any payment for it, instead some vague notion of future assets and dodging the question. No pre-pay, no post-pay, nothing. That's where I am associating NFTs with a scam. Now, someone selling other people art as NFT art on twitter - that's even worse!
Excellent discussion, this makes me realise that recently I have been hit hard with the FOMO. Usually I don't pay much attention to current events, but recently I have been noticing myself consider pursuing some of the recent happenings that are showing big profits. After hearing your thoughts, I see that I don't have any interest in these things and it feels good to kick them out of my mind. Thanks
Actually I can imagine it pretty well. Any famous youtuber could sell their long time survival world for at least some money to people that want the privilege to be called holders of that, just like with autographs
When it comes down to it Digital anything is just 1's and 0's. By definition, that means something can be copied and there is no way to tell the difference between the copy and the original. Now what games companies, music labels, artists do is attach something which is DRM (Digital rights management). this can be something as simple as a watermark to something complex like monitoring software which checks for copies or edits being made. NFT's are essentially that. A piece of code that is checked by on a block chain. Which has been added to some digital content. There are always work-arounds. From photoshop to remove a watermark to finding the DRM source-code hidden within the game's source-code and removing it. So what ties a NFT to an original artwork? If there isn't an NFT on the original, then it can be applied to a copy. That copy might be un-related to the owner. So if I have a DRM free game. And I add my own DRM and distribute it. I don't own the original game. I don't own the game with DRM. I just own the DRM. To own an NFT proves that you own an NFT, not the artwork. So what I think is going on is that artists are saying, if you own this NFT, then you do own the artwork. But who's to say someone who doesn't own the piece, creates an NFT and claims owning the NFT owns that art piece that they don't own? That's essentially what these bots are doing with tweets and I'm sure other things. It comes down to the very nature of digital content. It can all replicated. Something that the analogue physical world is different. People will still try. People will create copies, some almost indistinguishable from the original unless checked by an expert. But an NFT does not by default amount to ownership. So here's some things as to why some people may like NFT's. Art is used as an asset, something that is expected to increase in value over time, due to scarcity, or at least remain the same. It's used by the rich to transfer wealth and avoid tax. It matters little what the art is of, but more who made it, and how famous it is. Therefore the art isn't needed, a simple token to represent ownership is all that's needed. An NFT can't be copied or forged, unlike the art piece. So you have these rich people interested in a new way to transfer wealth which breaks down existing barriers. So large sums are paid for these NFT's. People think it's about proving an original, or giving the art some kind of value. Which it is not. But everyone has jumped in, trying to sell things which have no value to people who don't know it has no value, creating this bubble, where anything and everything can be "turned into" and NFT. If NFT's were the future, they would one day become copyright, things would be broken down into the tiniest components. Each second clip from a 10 minute video would have an NFT tied to it. I fundamentally disagree with this being how the internet works. It works against an open and free internet where things that are digital are infinite. There's always this trade off between accessibility and protecting the rights of creators. People will always find a way to pirate material. NFT's are used to transfer perceived value into a token. That's a very narrow use case and as such this is very much a bubble. This is completely separate from the environmental issue of blockchain.
But the whole point of blockchain is litetally to decentralize. Anything happening on the networks can be traced and it's all public. It's basically impossible to recreate or copy an nft. That's the point. It will never be the exact same nft with the same values.
That's definitely right. It is a cool idea because it's easy to send to anyone around the world, it's definitely a one of its kind and its not possible to create a fake copy that looks exactly like the real deal what can happen in the traditional way of exchanging art etcetera. This doesn't mean it has as much fundamental value as it seems right now. It still is just the right of saying you own a digital version of something. See it as owning a special knife in CS:GO, which works on a similar principle. But with NFT's it's able to digitalize everything that exists.
Another big short term concern is the silicon shortage, all those CPUs and videocards require it, and after being used for mining they have no resell value.
I came in contact with NFTs through the sort of leftist artist sphere I'm in on Twitter, so I approached it from the anti-NFT side. One huge problem with this is copyright. Currently, anything can be tokenized without the owner's consent, and there are many Twitter accounts you can just @ with your wallet id in a comment under a tweet and boom, you've got a token of that tweet that cannot be removed from the blockchain ever again. This goes not only for tweets, but also for art, so if you drew something and put it on the internet, you can see it turned into a token, an asset to trade with, without your consent and without you receiving any benefit. This leads me to the second glaring issue with cryptoart: It's asset first, artwork second. In the traditional artwork, an artist created a painting and because people like it and there's only one, it typically has quite a hefty price tag attached to it. It's an artwork with a price tag. With cryptoart, the artwork itself can be replicated an infinite amount of times and everyone has the original, there's no inherent value to a single copy. Instead, an NFT is just an asset, and to make it unique, an artowrk etc is attached to it. Thus, it's an asset with a picture. This is seen as problematic by many artists because for the first time in art history, art is asset first and not artwork first. The artwork being more of an accessory to the asset also shows the third problem: it has no fundamental value. A physical artwork is expensive because it is one-off and because well, it's tangible, it was painted by the artist themselves. An NFT on the other hand is valuable because software says so. Why does the software say so? Because in proof-of-work currencies, value equals used energy. The more energy is used, the more valuable it is. In an age where we try to use as little energy as possible in order to somehow save the planet, wasting energy to create artificial value is a step in the very wrong direction. In the end, no matter how "green" the energy used for mining is, it is still energy we would not have otherwise used. Yes, cryptocurrencies consume so much energy that it isn't just offset with lifestyle changes or carbon-emitting things one does not do because of cryptocurrencies. Other proof systems do not have these environmental problems, but all proof systems are based on being able to invest something to start with and getting more back if the up-front investment is higher. This is not good from a social justice perspective because it just comes down to the old system making the rich richer and the poor poorer instead of being the people's financial revolution many had hoped for. Thus, to me, NFTs in general just look like a bubble that'll burst sooner or later and I wish people just didn't invest in them for our common good. Btw, here's an article that goes into far more detail explaining things, but also has a heavy leftist bias in the conclusions the author comes to: “BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH CRYPTOART WILL BE SOLVED SOON, RIGHT?" everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3
Being someone who has been in crypto semi full-time for about 8 years, I do really like your view. I agree on most of what you're saying and I'm glad you don't give your opinion on things you're not sure about if you're right. I am a long time believer in bitcoin and crypto in a whole. And in my opinion you're definitely right in that NFT's are in a hype at the moment. NFT's have very little fundamental value. It's possible to make money on NFT's, but 90%+ of people will lose money on it so I would not advice people buying those tokens. If anyone is interested in bitcoin/cryptocurrency, please do a lot of research before entering the space. First understand why it has fundamental value or not. If not, don't buy it, if you think it does have fundamental value, go ahead and buy and hold it like people do with gold. Don't invest more money than you are willing to lose.
The problem with NFT's is... what you are reselling is a token, it is not a proof of ownership. Because I can take any artwork from the internet and attach an NFT to it! Am I then the legal owner of them? That, and a lot of people I follow are small artists who are both a-technical and don't want to have anything to do with the "big money art community". Kind of how cosplays and haute couture are technically the same thing, but no cosplayer ever wants to have their craft associated with haute couture. They don't care about resell, I'm in the furry community where you often even can't resell artwork (because the characters are really personal, really meant as your own representation), and all they see is random crypto dudes attaching weird tokens to their artwork only to discover that that means it has been stolen.
@@durjam3734 you’re right and I think they’ll settle to a normal price eventually. They certainly won’t be valueless. Let’s say I do own the diamond block texture. It would be super cool but everyone else can still look at them, build with them, etc. There’s nothing you really get from “owning” it other than saying you own it.
@@ARCANODESINE it's not about owning an image (for some rich ass collectors it is tho), but about the utillity or resale value. Nft's could grant you lifelong backstage access to concerts, access to 50k warzone tournaments, party's attended by celebrities, you name it. Think of it like a fortnite skin, but instead of paying for cosmetic crap it has actual resale value and utillity, which depends on the project
i thinkmy biggest problems with nfts, is one they suck for the enviroment. they kinda suck to look at, way overpriced for what they are and if you post art online a signature near the main piece of art is near nessacary now because there are so many art theifs that will come and steal the art and turn it into a nft. if you want a unique piece of art comnission an artist, its cheaper but a higher quality and the artist would be happy as long as you arent an ass to them and keep the comission in their boundaries
Re environmental impacts of mining: Etherium is going to switch to a proof of state consensus algorithm as opposed to a proof of work consensus algorithm. With this mining won’t really exist anymore because nobody is competing to solve cryptographic puzzle. The switch is being made largely for environmental reasons
ATTENTION: If you are interested in getting in on this, don’t this about how much money you can make, i k about how much money you are ok with losing. Don’t spend money you cant afford to lose
I don't think the trading portion of unique IDs of art is going to be popular; but the utility of ensuring who owns something (like a UA-cam video) far better.
Pokémon card packs at McDonald’s, shining fates, so much demand! I have a large-ish collection worth a decent amount, and on the rare occasion I buy some there was nothing :0. I still haven’t gotten my hands on shining fates. Not that I tried very hard.
NFT is watertight, except for one thing *Anyone* can claim an NFT on a picture. Most of the time these people aren't artists, but just people who were the fastest in claiming it. So ultimately, this isn't helping artists, it's more harming them. That's my opinion anyway. My opinion basically is "if the community thinks it's wrong (or right), then it probably is."
I like the idea of having some means of verifying ownership on digital art. Of course I have no idea why someone would buy something just to be able to say they own in when ownership doesn't actually get you anything. Bragging rights I guess?
NFT = Non fudgable twitcher - is that not the same as derp denial? But yes it's a fomo hype bubble. You can only resell if there's a market to justify the value. These speculative hyped values are unstainable long term so the bubble will burst and unless you're in it for the long term, to wait and see if values slowly recover, it's not worth it. Anyway there are easier more sustainable ways of making money while doing very little (no excess energy consumption either) ;-)
He talks about Bitcoin for half the video... The video covers many topics all linked by FOMO, those being NFT, Cryptocurrency, The .com boom ect. It’s not just about NFTs and the thumbnail reflects that.
Xisuma think of like a ready player one like world, how will a currency system work if everyone can just duplicate everything for free? This is why NFTs will be important
I don't really think cryptocurrency can be considered a bubble or trend; it's only going to become more popular. I don't see a future where money can continue to exist as it is today - "this is valueable because the government says it's valuable". Sure, bitcoin isn't physical however I think it has more logical value than fiat money. Power consumption is tricky, but as the difficulty of the network goes up, less and less people will mine it. By 2100, if bitcoin is still around, most of it will be mined and therefore the blockchain power consumption will be very low in comparison to today. That's not speculation, that's just how the technology is designed.
I don't think you quite understand how it works. Like, you definitely know the fundamentals and you know more than the average Joe, but it's not true that after all the halvings have been completed, the overall mining will decrease. Miners will still earn through the transaction fees, and the more mining power you have, the more bitcoin you make. Due to the mining difficulty, no one will be able to make big profit on just one mining rig. So to make a living you have to have a big mining facility to try to efficiently mine a lot of bitcoin to pay the electricity bill or the investment made for the electricity source. The more bitcoin is being used, the more people/companies will start mining bitcoin and therefore use a lot of energy. It's all about understanding what the mining difficulty means to the overall amount of miners. Please change my mind if you're right but I don't think this is the case.
I invested a bit of money in crypto but no more then I'm willing to loose, it's a gamble like a lottery ticket. So for the fun of it rather than a investment in my eyes. If I lost it all tomorrow I would be like: it was fun while it lasted.
the appeal of an NFT isn't just about the Thing that you own, but the idea that you own something that someone else can't. The exclusivity of an NFT is more appealing than protecting digital art or pokemon cards, for example
This is a terrible argument because the content of an NFT is entirely arbitrary. They have the largest possible supply of an object and the demand needed to sustain this doesnt exist
@@trevorWilkinson 1 an nft proves you own an nft. 2 yeah there can be infinite nft's, but each nft is different. It's not about owning a jpeg or image of any kind. It's about owning a token that offers resale value and utillity, which completely varies per project
While NFT's are propably more of a bubble, crypto really is not. Ethereum is also moving to proof of stake instead of proof of work. There won't be more mining so far less energy wasting
Also it's undeniable that real mining (gold etc) is far more energy wasting then Bitcoin. Crypto is the store of value of the future. Look at all the multi Millionaires btc has created
@@olbluelips are you aware of how the economy and stocks work? Complaining about not becoming rich from it but not participating at the same time makes you a sucker for missing out
@@fredericduwe9920 I don't even know what to say to that man, that's downright illogical. You should be careful of calling other people "suckers" My point was bitcoin is not creating wealth, it's largely just moving it around through speculation
When you talk about the scalability/power consumption of a crypto currency at a global level, i think you are forgetting that banks currently have massive servers keeping track of everything, so they are far from carbon neutral themselves. IDK what the relative consumption would be, but with ASICS (dedicated mining hardware that is far more energy efficient than GPUs) I dont think there would be the horrific power consumption you are talking about
Using PoW, power consumption will always increase the more valued/popular the crypro asset gets. ASICs don't change this. If one group starts using ASICs, the mining difficulty increases which means traditional miners will not break even so they also have to buy ASICs and in the end the power consumption will stay the same. This is why many projects are stepping over to PoS, which drastically decreases the power consumption and is agreed on being better than PoW. But I think you are already aware of this information.
NFTs suck. You don't even own the png, you own a link to it. It was never about the art. And the artist can stop hosting that image, leaving a link to nothing.
capital can only accumulates so far until their isn't anyone who has more money than you do, and at that point, you can't sell the commodity you have, it will collapse at some point i guess
I was always a bigfan of cryptocurrency and the freedom that comes with it. And NFT I don't think it is a bubble, actually it's anamazing technology. The actual products sold with NFT I think so. Like that crypto punk, a bubble for sure, for digital art, I don't think so. Besides, paper curency based on how trustworthy is the central bank of your country is a thing of the past anyways
Yeah when's the last time anyone's use cash right? IFTs are absolutely a bubble, and a scam at that. Its an entirely abstract item being sold, and once people get tired of them, they will be worth nothing. At least beanie babies were made of physical fabric!
@@olbluelips I'm talking about economics. Cryptos are a far superior curency in every aspect that a curency might have, except for the fact that it is not yet widely accepted. But it is ever growing in acceptance.
@@RodrigoFar14 Are we talking about cryptos as a whole or NFTs? NFTs are a fad. Cryptos probably have use, but I wouldn't call them as a whole "superior" currency. Most of them are too unstable to be a trustworthy long-term store of value, and some of them (such as Bitcoin) are obscenely wasteful.
Mining is an absurd undertaking hahah I wouldn't do it. I'll rather flip nft's and trade currencies. Crypto games with tradeable items (in the form of nft's) are the future
The only reason I know of NFTs is because of the people going around on Twitter selling other people's art without their consent and as an artist myself it scares the absolute life out of me because I don't want someone who doesn't legally own the copyright to my work profiting off of it. Great video as always!
Oh interesting. I am a hobby artist myself and I got two offers to be involved into NFT art after I started posting in large communities.
Both times people did not actually offer any payment for it, instead some vague notion of future assets and dodging the question. No pre-pay, no post-pay, nothing.
That's where I am associating NFTs with a scam.
Now, someone selling other people art as NFT art on twitter - that's even worse!
“I’m gonna drink some tea,” greatest xisuma quote ever XD
I don't like tea but I agree
Lol
@@imdead-d4r tea>coffee
@@GavinThomasClimbing so you're saying tea is a bigger number then coffee?
@@imdead-d4r it's the greater than symbol so tea (is greater than) coffee
most art is used for money laundering or tax evasion. NFTs sounds bubbleish.
*expensive art
Excellent discussion, this makes me realise that recently I have been hit hard with the FOMO. Usually I don't pay much attention to current events, but recently I have been noticing myself consider pursuing some of the recent happenings that are showing big profits. After hearing your thoughts, I see that I don't have any interest in these things and it feels good to kick them out of my mind. Thanks
can you imagine someone having an NFT for a Minecraft world
Actually I can imagine it pretty well. Any famous youtuber could sell their long time survival world for at least some money to people that want the privilege to be called holders of that, just like with autographs
Yea i thought of it, totally possible
Damn
Can you predict future???
When it comes down to it Digital anything is just 1's and 0's.
By definition, that means something can be copied and there is no way to tell the difference between the copy and the original.
Now what games companies, music labels, artists do is attach something which is DRM (Digital rights management). this can be something as simple as a watermark to something complex like monitoring software which checks for copies or edits being made.
NFT's are essentially that. A piece of code that is checked by on a block chain. Which has been added to some digital content.
There are always work-arounds. From photoshop to remove a watermark to finding the DRM source-code hidden within the game's source-code and removing it. So what ties a NFT to an original artwork? If there isn't an NFT on the original, then it can be applied to a copy. That copy might be un-related to the owner. So if I have a DRM free game. And I add my own DRM and distribute it. I don't own the original game. I don't own the game with DRM. I just own the DRM. To own an NFT proves that you own an NFT, not the artwork.
So what I think is going on is that artists are saying, if you own this NFT, then you do own the artwork. But who's to say someone who doesn't own the piece, creates an NFT and claims owning the NFT owns that art piece that they don't own? That's essentially what these bots are doing with tweets and I'm sure other things.
It comes down to the very nature of digital content. It can all replicated. Something that the analogue physical world is different. People will still try. People will create copies, some almost indistinguishable from the original unless checked by an expert. But an NFT does not by default amount to ownership.
So here's some things as to why some people may like NFT's. Art is used as an asset, something that is expected to increase in value over time, due to scarcity, or at least remain the same. It's used by the rich to transfer wealth and avoid tax. It matters little what the art is of, but more who made it, and how famous it is. Therefore the art isn't needed, a simple token to represent ownership is all that's needed. An NFT can't be copied or forged, unlike the art piece.
So you have these rich people interested in a new way to transfer wealth which breaks down existing barriers. So large sums are paid for these NFT's. People think it's about proving an original, or giving the art some kind of value. Which it is not. But everyone has jumped in, trying to sell things which have no value to people who don't know it has no value, creating this bubble, where anything and everything can be "turned into" and NFT.
If NFT's were the future, they would one day become copyright, things would be broken down into the tiniest components. Each second clip from a 10 minute video would have an NFT tied to it.
I fundamentally disagree with this being how the internet works. It works against an open and free internet where things that are digital are infinite. There's always this trade off between accessibility and protecting the rights of creators. People will always find a way to pirate material.
NFT's are used to transfer perceived value into a token. That's a very narrow use case and as such this is very much a bubble.
This is completely separate from the environmental issue of blockchain.
But the whole point of blockchain is litetally to decentralize. Anything happening on the networks can be traced and it's all public. It's basically impossible to recreate or copy an nft. That's the point. It will never be the exact same nft with the same values.
I think I’m still confused
Is it basically just check that says: ‘You own this’ ?
But instead of usual you can give that check to others for money?
That's definitely right. It is a cool idea because it's easy to send to anyone around the world, it's definitely a one of its kind and its not possible to create a fake copy that looks exactly like the real deal what can happen in the traditional way of exchanging art etcetera. This doesn't mean it has as much fundamental value as it seems right now. It still is just the right of saying you own a digital version of something. See it as owning a special knife in CS:GO, which works on a similar principle. But with NFT's it's able to digitalize everything that exists.
A large part of it is investing in the reputation of the artist as well
It's basically a signature to say you own this. And there's a check for who put that signature there.
You know, I’ve watched a few videos on NFTs, but you’re the first to actually explain what it is for me to understand! Thank you!
Haven't been able to catch many streams lately, what a wonderful way of catching up on your in-depth conversations. :)
Another big short term concern is the silicon shortage, all those CPUs and videocards require it, and after being used for mining they have no resell value.
I came in contact with NFTs through the sort of leftist artist sphere I'm in on Twitter, so I approached it from the anti-NFT side. One huge problem with this is copyright. Currently, anything can be tokenized without the owner's consent, and there are many Twitter accounts you can just @ with your wallet id in a comment under a tweet and boom, you've got a token of that tweet that cannot be removed from the blockchain ever again.
This goes not only for tweets, but also for art, so if you drew something and put it on the internet, you can see it turned into a token, an asset to trade with, without your consent and without you receiving any benefit.
This leads me to the second glaring issue with cryptoart: It's asset first, artwork second. In the traditional artwork, an artist created a painting and because people like it and there's only one, it typically has quite a hefty price tag attached to it. It's an artwork with a price tag. With cryptoart, the artwork itself can be replicated an infinite amount of times and everyone has the original, there's no inherent value to a single copy. Instead, an NFT is just an asset, and to make it unique, an artowrk etc is attached to it. Thus, it's an asset with a picture. This is seen as problematic by many artists because for the first time in art history, art is asset first and not artwork first.
The artwork being more of an accessory to the asset also shows the third problem: it has no fundamental value. A physical artwork is expensive because it is one-off and because well, it's tangible, it was painted by the artist themselves. An NFT on the other hand is valuable because software says so.
Why does the software say so? Because in proof-of-work currencies, value equals used energy. The more energy is used, the more valuable it is. In an age where we try to use as little energy as possible in order to somehow save the planet, wasting energy to create artificial value is a step in the very wrong direction. In the end, no matter how "green" the energy used for mining is, it is still energy we would not have otherwise used. Yes, cryptocurrencies consume so much energy that it isn't just offset with lifestyle changes or carbon-emitting things one does not do because of cryptocurrencies.
Other proof systems do not have these environmental problems, but all proof systems are based on being able to invest something to start with and getting more back if the up-front investment is higher. This is not good from a social justice perspective because it just comes down to the old system making the rich richer and the poor poorer instead of being the people's financial revolution many had hoped for.
Thus, to me, NFTs in general just look like a bubble that'll burst sooner or later and I wish people just didn't invest in them for our common good.
Btw, here's an article that goes into far more detail explaining things, but also has a heavy leftist bias in the conclusions the author comes to: “BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH CRYPTOART WILL BE SOLVED SOON, RIGHT?" everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3
Being someone who has been in crypto semi full-time for about 8 years, I do really like your view. I agree on most of what you're saying and I'm glad you don't give your opinion on things you're not sure about if you're right. I am a long time believer in bitcoin and crypto in a whole. And in my opinion you're definitely right in that NFT's are in a hype at the moment. NFT's have very little fundamental value. It's possible to make money on NFT's, but 90%+ of people will lose money on it so I would not advice people buying those tokens. If anyone is interested in bitcoin/cryptocurrency, please do a lot of research before entering the space. First understand why it has fundamental value or not. If not, don't buy it, if you think it does have fundamental value, go ahead and buy and hold it like people do with gold. Don't invest more money than you are willing to lose.
Or don't invest in crypto at all because it's contributing to the destruction of the environment.
@@jetlag1488 if you don't know what your talking about, don't talk about it please.
@@Ramon314 well said
@@Ramon314 Look up cryptomining and cryptofarms, please.
@@jetlag1488 look up what bitcoin is, how it works, how the future of mining will be and what that means for the future please. ;)
Ive been avoiding NFT's or NFT-people like a plague. Because Ive seen people who are in on it and the obsession it comes with. No thank you.
Hmm I wonder where he got the idea for derpcoin
coming back to this and seeing how accurate x was with the whole bubble bursting thing is incredible
We know where the s8 derpcoin came from
The problem with NFT's is... what you are reselling is a token, it is not a proof of ownership. Because I can take any artwork from the internet and attach an NFT to it! Am I then the legal owner of them?
That, and a lot of people I follow are small artists who are both a-technical and don't want to have anything to do with the "big money art community". Kind of how cosplays and haute couture are technically the same thing, but no cosplayer ever wants to have their craft associated with haute couture. They don't care about resell, I'm in the furry community where you often even can't resell artwork (because the characters are really personal, really meant as your own representation), and all they see is random crypto dudes attaching weird tokens to their artwork only to discover that that means it has been stolen.
Exactly, It's like adding a signature to your art piece. I could add my signature to someone else's art piece. Then sell that signed piece of art.
Theres surely gonna be laws coming for that. And all you're owning is the nft. Not the original artwork btw
People actually do own the cards that Logan Paul is opening. He sold the individual packs on auction, and the buyers own the cards. He just opens them
Wow, this feels like an upgraded podcast. I’d recommend this to parents.
Yeah they’re almost certainly a bubble since they don’t really have value to back them
But they do, you own the art! Like imagine you owned the diamond block texture!
@@durjam3734 you’re right and I think they’ll settle to a normal price eventually. They certainly won’t be valueless. Let’s say I do own the diamond block texture. It would be super cool but everyone else can still look at them, build with them, etc. There’s nothing you really get from “owning” it other than saying you own it.
@@durjam3734 and why would you want to own an png that much?
@@ARCANODESINE it's not about owning an image (for some rich ass collectors it is tho), but about the utillity or resale value. Nft's could grant you lifelong backstage access to concerts, access to 50k warzone tournaments, party's attended by celebrities, you name it.
Think of it like a fortnite skin, but instead of paying for cosmetic crap it has actual resale value and utillity, which depends on the project
You shud do a video on those yt ads about making really quick money
i thinkmy biggest problems with nfts, is one they suck for the enviroment. they kinda suck to look at, way overpriced for what they are and if you post art online a signature near the main piece of art is near nessacary now because there are so many art theifs that will come and steal the art and turn it into a nft. if you want a unique piece of art comnission an artist, its cheaper but a higher quality and the artist would be happy as long as you arent an ass to them and keep the comission in their boundaries
paper walls! something else I never thought about that vanilla minecraft should have.
Re environmental impacts of mining: Etherium is going to switch to a proof of state consensus algorithm as opposed to a proof of work consensus algorithm. With this mining won’t really exist anymore because nobody is competing to solve cryptographic puzzle. The switch is being made largely for environmental reasons
No gas!!!!
I absolutely love these videos, just listenling to your opinions is very refreshing, especially with the calming Minecraft in the background.
ATTENTION: If you are interested in getting in on this, don’t this about how much money you can make, i k about how much money you are ok with losing. Don’t spend money you cant afford to lose
Never have I ever thought I'd hear "Nickelback" in a Xisuma video... *Regretting the past*
I don't think the trading portion of unique IDs of art is going to be popular; but the utility of ensuring who owns something (like a UA-cam video) far better.
Pokémon card packs at McDonald’s, shining fates, so much demand! I have a large-ish collection worth a decent amount, and on the rare occasion I buy some there was nothing :0. I still haven’t gotten my hands on shining fates. Not that I tried very hard.
i love the videos you should really put a pod cast on spotify and upload these videos into podcast on that
Non fudge-able 😂🤣😂
NerdCubed just made a great video about this, would be interesting to hear your opinion on his view on NFTs... ^^
X saying the word digital has got to be one of the most British ways to say it ever
NFT is watertight, except for one thing
*Anyone* can claim an NFT on a picture. Most of the time these people aren't artists, but just people who were the fastest in claiming it.
So ultimately, this isn't helping artists, it's more harming them.
That's my opinion anyway.
My opinion basically is "if the community thinks it's wrong (or right), then it probably is."
Derp coins to the moon🚀🚀
diamond..eh I mean.. derpy hands! ^^
I like the idea of having some means of verifying ownership on digital art. Of course I have no idea why someone would buy something just to be able to say they own in when ownership doesn't actually get you anything. Bragging rights I guess?
Xisuma watches Finn? Hell yeah!
Finn? As in programmer socks Finn?
@@narpas_ As in the Punk Rock MBA
NFT = Non fudgable twitcher - is that not the same as derp denial?
But yes it's a fomo hype bubble. You can only resell if there's a market to justify the value. These speculative hyped values are unstainable long term so the bubble will burst and unless you're in it for the long term, to wait and see if values slowly recover, it's not worth it. Anyway there are easier more sustainable ways of making money while doing very little (no excess energy consumption either) ;-)
Well X let me introduce you to Spiffcoin!
why does the thumbnail show bitcoin? It's not an NFT
He talks about Bitcoin for half the video...
The video covers many topics all linked by FOMO, those being NFT, Cryptocurrency, The .com boom ect. It’s not just about NFTs and the thumbnail reflects that.
Watts measure how quickly energy is used. To measure the amount of energy, multiply the power (watts) by a unit of time.
Irony: all the ads for this video are for crypto currency. 😂
van goff is horribly wrong, but it's significantly less painful to my ears than van Go
Xisuma think of like a ready player one like world, how will a currency system work if everyone can just duplicate everything for free? This is why NFTs will be important
some things like food just can't be duplicated
Some one told me that only Bitcoin mining is constantly consuming as much power as half of sweden is doing at the same time.
your Van Gogh pronunciation was actually closer than the usual English one ("Van Go") 😅
Make merch that is a phisical coins with your derp emote on it
Monero removes the FOMO factor.
I say yes to derp coin!
Derpcoin... so thats where it started
Would love to hear your thoughts on the environmental impact of streaming, video games, and watching streams/videos
Easy moneyy (sick king crimson beats)
Well you know crypto is becoming more mainstream when minecrafters start talking about it.
New Xisumasays 🎉🎉
ah yes. Van Goff.
I don't think you need an api for what you're thinking. All these twitch channel point ideas and research...but you'll never know now
What mod is he playing
I don't really think cryptocurrency can be considered a bubble or trend; it's only going to become more popular. I don't see a future where money can continue to exist as it is today - "this is valueable because the government says it's valuable". Sure, bitcoin isn't physical however I think it has more logical value than fiat money.
Power consumption is tricky, but as the difficulty of the network goes up, less and less people will mine it. By 2100, if bitcoin is still around, most of it will be mined and therefore the blockchain power consumption will be very low in comparison to today. That's not speculation, that's just how the technology is designed.
I don't think you quite understand how it works. Like, you definitely know the fundamentals and you know more than the average Joe, but it's not true that after all the halvings have been completed, the overall mining will decrease. Miners will still earn through the transaction fees, and the more mining power you have, the more bitcoin you make. Due to the mining difficulty, no one will be able to make big profit on just one mining rig. So to make a living you have to have a big mining facility to try to efficiently mine a lot of bitcoin to pay the electricity bill or the investment made for the electricity source. The more bitcoin is being used, the more people/companies will start mining bitcoin and therefore use a lot of energy. It's all about understanding what the mining difficulty means to the overall amount of miners. Please change my mind if you're right but I don't think this is the case.
Bitcoin is actually less viable than fiat currency because it order to mine it you have to convert it all to heat energy
I Like scratching things
I would purchase Derpcoin. Like self earning patreon...
Having second thoughts?
I invested a bit of money in crypto but no more then I'm willing to loose, it's a gamble like a lottery ticket. So for the fun of it rather than a investment in my eyes. If I lost it all tomorrow I would be like: it was fun while it lasted.
I’m just here to watch him build
You're smart
the appeal of an NFT isn't just about the Thing that you own, but the idea that you own something that someone else can't. The exclusivity of an NFT is more appealing than protecting digital art or pokemon cards, for example
This is a terrible argument because the content of an NFT is entirely arbitrary. They have the largest possible supply of an object and the demand needed to sustain this doesnt exist
1: An NFT doesn't prove you own the thing.
2: You can make an NFT of anything meaning there are infinite NFT's.
@@trevorWilkinson 1 an nft proves you own an nft.
2 yeah there can be infinite nft's, but each nft is different. It's not about owning a jpeg or image of any kind. It's about owning a token that offers resale value and utillity, which completely varies per project
While NFT's are propably more of a bubble, crypto really is not. Ethereum is also moving to proof of stake instead of proof of work. There won't be more mining so far less energy wasting
Also it's undeniable that real mining (gold etc) is far more energy wasting then Bitcoin. Crypto is the store of value of the future. Look at all the multi Millionaires btc has created
@@fredericduwe9920 lmaooo "created millionaires". By taking the money of the people who bought their tokens
@@olbluelips are you aware of how the economy and stocks work? Complaining about not becoming rich from it but not participating at the same time makes you a sucker for missing out
@@fredericduwe9920 I don't even know what to say to that man, that's downright illogical. You should be careful of calling other people "suckers"
My point was bitcoin is not creating wealth, it's largely just moving it around through speculation
NFTs are extremely bad for the environment because they require a huge amount of computing power
So this was the start of derpcoin huh? Lol
yes new xisumasays!
My friend calculated if mining crypto currency was worth it for him, and he would just break even with germanys high electricity prices.
epic cool vid bro
When you talk about the scalability/power consumption of a crypto currency at a global level, i think you are forgetting that banks currently have massive servers keeping track of everything, so they are far from carbon neutral themselves. IDK what the relative consumption would be, but with ASICS (dedicated mining hardware that is far more energy efficient than GPUs) I dont think there would be the horrific power consumption you are talking about
Using PoW, power consumption will always increase the more valued/popular the crypro asset gets. ASICs don't change this. If one group starts using ASICs, the mining difficulty increases which means traditional miners will not break even so they also have to buy ASICs and in the end the power consumption will stay the same. This is why many projects are stepping over to PoS, which drastically decreases the power consumption and is agreed on being better than PoW. But I think you are already aware of this information.
What mod is this?
I think it's the bee one. X has the first few streams of it on his vods channel
I believe it's called Sky Bees
derpcoin?
Nft is not cool people's art is on the line
It doesnt give you actual legal ownership of the image, owning an images NFT is entirely independent.
But yes they are a bad idea an a waste of money
NFTs suck. You don't even own the png, you own a link to it. It was never about the art. And the artist can stop hosting that image, leaving a link to nothing.
it sort of, slightly, sounds like the idea of labour vouchers in a socialist society... a little bit
ok nvm, it sounds sort of like the opposite
capital can only accumulates so far until their isn't anyone who has more money than you do, and at that point, you can't sell the commodity you have, it will collapse at some point i guess
Moo
I was always a bigfan of cryptocurrency and the freedom that comes with it. And NFT I don't think it is a bubble, actually it's anamazing technology.
The actual products sold with NFT I think so. Like that crypto punk, a bubble for sure, for digital art, I don't think so.
Besides, paper curency based on how trustworthy is the central bank of your country is a thing of the past anyways
Yeah when's the last time anyone's use cash right?
IFTs are absolutely a bubble, and a scam at that. Its an entirely abstract item being sold, and once people get tired of them, they will be worth nothing. At least beanie babies were made of physical fabric!
@@olbluelips I'm talking about economics. Cryptos are a far superior curency in every aspect that a curency might have, except for the fact that it is not yet widely accepted.
But it is ever growing in acceptance.
@@RodrigoFar14 Are we talking about cryptos as a whole or NFTs? NFTs are a fad.
Cryptos probably have use, but I wouldn't call them as a whole "superior" currency. Most of them are too unstable to be a trustworthy long-term store of value, and some of them (such as Bitcoin) are obscenely wasteful.
@@olbluelips for the last three years it has been working for me as a trustworthy long term store of value. 😁
But good luck with your fiat currency.
@@RodrigoFar14 thanks man I use it to buy things
I really like the channel and all, but for some reason, I get a headache from your voice ;-;
I don't, but I understand what you mean. I think it's the mic being used, it's quite tinny and doesn't utilize the lower freqs. :)
You could sell hermitcraft world with NFT and spend it on charity or project development
At the end of the season i mean
xisuma crypto mines? Disgusting
He said that he did it for a month and regretted it
@@renanbo6562 oh my bad. I should've probably watched the entire video
Mining is an absurd undertaking hahah I wouldn't do it. I'll rather flip nft's and trade currencies. Crypto games with tradeable items (in the form of nft's) are the future
@@arie8515 sure thing buddy enjoy your scam
@@arie8515 you sound like an npc
Cant believe im so early XD
Jasper should do this with the minecraft textures! Imagine owning the diamond block texture!
X is woke.