Comment on one step closer to 100%'ing life!!

• LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  What was their mission statement? Here’s a picture that you own the copyright of? I don’t see how they could ever make sense unless they were legitimately fabulous images that people loved and wanted to buy prints of

  source

  • Nerdulous@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    To own a digital asset that only had one original. Something that could have an identifiable, singular owner despite being a digital asset. Problem is no one gives a shit if you’re the original, provable “owner” of a jpg someone else made. Which makes these worthless to all but idiots who fell for it.

    source

    • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      You didn’t even own the JPG; you owned a receipt for the JPG.

      source

      • Warehouse@piefed.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It’s like claiming you own Facebook because you bought a link that redirects to it.

        source
      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Wasn’t it more like a receipt with an url on it that may or may not still be the image that was at that url when the purchase was made. Or maybe you could do a hash of an image, at which point changing a single pixel or cropping it would change it into an image you don’t “own” and most people won’t have any idea how to even check it.

        Really, with the lack of tech savyness out there, the best way to own an NFT would be to just lie about buying one and what it is.

        source
    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The dumbest thing in all this is that NFTs could have been legitimately useful for a bunch of tasks, but the whole thing got burned by cryptobros.

      source
  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Oh they typically didn’t even include the copyright. That’s at least an asset and why would they include an asset

    source