Sounds like we'd make more profit making Liverpool nfts then, and use the money on becoming the better team.
Is the Kolo Toure own goal taken? If not I suggest that as the first one
Should the club start making NFTs?
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Sounds like we'd make more profit making Liverpool nfts then, and use the money on becoming the better team.
Is the Kolo Toure own goal taken? If not I suggest that as the first one
It's short for "Non-Feasible Thing".
It's a digital file turned artefact by way of blockchain coding (I don't know what that means) to make it valuable via collossal, mindless waste of energy.
It's a digital file turned artefact by way of blockchain coding (I don't know what that means) to make it valuable via collossal, mindless waste of energy.
Just to expand on the idea proposed in the OP further with a little bit of detail....
What United would/could do is mint a number of collectible NFTs. These could be anything, they could be squad members, released each season, they could be images of iconic goals or moments in United's history...it doesn't really matter....anything that someone might want to buy/collect/keep is fine. During the minting process, a fixed number are created.
Then, using Blockchain technology that already exists, the number of NFTs minted is published and the NFTs themselves are sold off. Some of the NFTs will be numerous and fairly run-of-the-mill, so I could pay £5 for a standard 'Paul Pogba 2020/21' NFT to add to my collection.
However, some of them would be randomly assigned a rare or unique characteristic, like for example, you might get a randomly generated 'shiny' 'Paul Pogba 2020/21'. As this is rare (and because this is Blockchain you can prove it's rare), you would expect this NFT would be more collectable, and would therefore fetch a higher price. You might expect wealthier fans might bid £1000+ plus to collect the provably rarer versions of the tokens.
Then, once United (the creator) had sold the initial set of tokens, they would be traded on the open market, via sites like OpenSea. If I wanted a shiny Paul Pogba and missed out during the initial sell-off, I would have to make someone an offer to buy their token.
Now, you might think this is all stupid, and to be honest, I don't collect anything myself. However, clearly, there is a huge market for collectables. Think trading cards, action figures, football stickers...the market is massive. Whether you choose to participate or not is up to you. I remember as a kid though, I used to buy Manchester United photographs from the club shop. They were £2 a pack and you got 5 actual photographs (that makes me sound ancient...I am only 32!). Of course, you ended up with loads of swaps, as some were rarer than others, but you could also by a numbered photo album to put your unique photos in and trade the swaps with your mates
Tell me how that's different....
What United would/could do is mint a number of collectible NFTs. These could be anything, they could be squad members, released each season, they could be images of iconic goals or moments in United's history...it doesn't really matter....anything that someone might want to buy/collect/keep is fine. During the minting process, a fixed number are created.
Then, using Blockchain technology that already exists, the number of NFTs minted is published and the NFTs themselves are sold off. Some of the NFTs will be numerous and fairly run-of-the-mill, so I could pay £5 for a standard 'Paul Pogba 2020/21' NFT to add to my collection.
However, some of them would be randomly assigned a rare or unique characteristic, like for example, you might get a randomly generated 'shiny' 'Paul Pogba 2020/21'. As this is rare (and because this is Blockchain you can prove it's rare), you would expect this NFT would be more collectable, and would therefore fetch a higher price. You might expect wealthier fans might bid £1000+ plus to collect the provably rarer versions of the tokens.
Then, once United (the creator) had sold the initial set of tokens, they would be traded on the open market, via sites like OpenSea. If I wanted a shiny Paul Pogba and missed out during the initial sell-off, I would have to make someone an offer to buy their token.
Now, you might think this is all stupid, and to be honest, I don't collect anything myself. However, clearly, there is a huge market for collectables. Think trading cards, action figures, football stickers...the market is massive. Whether you choose to participate or not is up to you. I remember as a kid though, I used to buy Manchester United photographs from the club shop. They were £2 a pack and you got 5 actual photographs (that makes me sound ancient...I am only 32!). Of course, you ended up with loads of swaps, as some were rarer than others, but you could also by a numbered photo album to put your unique photos in and trade the swaps with your mates
Tell me how that's different....
Last edited:
It doesn't use much energy, you're thinking of the Bitcoin Blockchain, which uses 'Proof of Work' and is deliberately resource-intensive by design.
NFTs are minted on Smart Contract platforms like Ethereum, Avalanche, Fantom, Solana and Cardano, which use 'Proof of Stake' and are far more energy-efficient
Auctioning this Rangnick NFT
Let's start the bidding at £10,000
Let's start the bidding at £10,000
I guess you're technically correct, but I'm sure you know what's meant. The NFTs behind those heinous monkey jpegs have no inherent value (other than being a proof of concept) & are only bought for obscene figures with the hopes of selling them on for a profit. That is, until the bubble bursts and the last sucker who ends up holding them can't get rid of them anymore.
Not to mention, a lot of them are just wash trades, to make an impression they are more valuable/desirable, which makes it easier to reel the suckers in.
Also all use cases proposed for NTF's, including selling of low quality procedurally generated jpeg to suckers, doesn't really require a blockchain, it's actually pretty sub-optimal, but the blockchain needs a use case outside of selling crpyto (it failed flat as a currency) so they're hyped to oblivion. They are also a great way to get lonely man, looking to belong, to part with their money, so there's that.
And mine. Must be a teen thing
Deloitte happen to disagree with your analysis - https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/ins...chain-potential/global-blockchain-survey.html
So do PwC - https://www.pwc.co.uk/blockchain.html
So do Gartner - https://www.gartner.com/en/information-technology/insights/blockchain
Of course, I am being slightly flippant here, but I don't really know where to begin with your post. It's just a statement of your opinion, based on what exactly?
I want a man utd jersey that I can wear when I'm walking around the metaverse.
Maybe United should partner with Meta and create a VR Old Trafford, including the museum and red cafe, so that fans around the world can come to Old Trafford virtually where they might never have the chance otherwise.
Edit: and make sure all the purchasing of NFTs, and NFTs themselves, is based on XRP. ETH is shit!
Can you, without googling, explain to me in non-techical terms what blockchain is? Feel it's important to establish some common language, since blockchain can be a pretty broad term.
EDIT: Sorry for the edit, daily post limit and all.
Can you please also explain to me why and how exactly, do provided NFT use cases, which you have mentioned, require a blockchain and couldn't work without it. Thanks.
Last edited:
TLDR: Reference to the a previous record is hashed in the next record creating an unbreakable link between records.
Think of a dictionary. The record associated with "abaft" has a hashed reference to "abacus" so that the chain knows the sequence of the words. No one can change the sequence, abaft will always be the next word in the dictionary after abacus. Hashing makes the reference un-hackable. Trying to change the hashed reference would 'corrupt' all the subsequent hashed references, or at least theyd seem corrupt, so in the case of a dictionary, every word would have this hashed reference, by the time you get to "zebra" you have thousands of hashed references to change. Makes it impossible to hack/edit/falsify the blocks.
Put it this way, Juve wouldn't have been able to fiddle their books...
Last edited:
Yes and they should also have sample from the players hairs at the megastore.
You bought one of those monkey ones didn't you?I think some people in here are dismissing something because they don't understand it
Close, but what you've described is hash-chaining (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_chain), a concept which precedes the blockchain. I wasn't actually looking for an explanation, just wondering if our resident NTF evangelist understand the under workings of the things he so profoundly believes in.
Also hashing is just a part of what makes it hard to hack/change, but it can be, given enough consensus, which has happened before.
Well you did ask, without googling and in a non technical fashion. I tried my best to keep it simple.
in footballing terms an NFT is a Paul Pogba. Lots of people talk about them, but nobody can explain what they’re actually for or why they’re worth so much money.
Yes I can, although I should caveat by saying that it doesn't matter whether all users understand it on a deep technical level, as long as they understand the general principles.
A 'blockchain' is basically a ledger, used for validating and recording transactions via a network of nodes (users/computers, whatever) running cryptographic proofs.
The transactions are bundled together into 'blocks', on the Bitcoin blockchain (for example), a new 'block' is added roughly every ten minutes. These 'blocks' are then 'chained' together, with each block containing the bundled transactions, a timestamp and the 'hash' of the previous block. If any one piece of information in any one 'block' in the 'chain' is tampered with or amended, then all of the hashes will change, and therefore it will be easy to spot that something is wrong.
Note, the degree to which a Blockchain is centralised or decentralised varies, so I'm being deliberately careful to be generic with some of the wording there, because we are talking about 'Blockchains' and not a specific Blockchain. I can tell you how the Bitcoin Blockchain works, for example, but that wasn't the question.
"Can you please also explain to me why and how exactly, do provided NFT use cases, which you have mentioned, require a blockchain and couldn't work without it?"
An NFT is basically a piece of code, deployed as a Smart Contract. Now, you may be correct that you can create an NFT without a Blockchain. I have no idea to be honest, I have never minted my own NFTs. I imagine you could, since it's just code. However, remember the purpose of an NFT, which is to "prove ownership of an asset". Let's say in the future, a Blockchain is built for the purpose of exchanging real estate. Say you own a home and you wish to sell this home, and therefore transfer ownership, to me. If the mortgage deed exists as a Smart Contract (an NFT is just a Smart Contract) on a dedicated Blockchain, then we can exchange ownership of the asset by you sending the NFT from your wallet to my wallet. By doing this on the Blockchain, we can prove exactly who owned what, when, and exactly when the exchange was made. Likewise, you could use car ownership as a similar example. Currently we are still faffing about sticking those V5C documents in the post and having to hold onto to them.
There are loads of better examples and more relevant use-cases, but those are examples most people can relate to.
Last edited:
oh, you need the double variety for this....
Watching this thread to see if redcafe is as anti NFTs as some sites I've been on...
We're hipstercafe now that we've got Rangnick, we fully support NFT's, avocado toast and rimming.
OK I now generally know what blockchain is, but hash chaining by itself does not make blockchain safe, what does? Use Bitcoin blockchain as an example if you wish since POW is at least a bit easier to argue for (ignoring the environmental impact) than POS.
On to NFTs, if we assume for a minute, that blockchains can work as ledgers (ignoring inefficiency), since all needed data is on-chain. Blockchain says I have 100 tokens, I spend 50, since all transactions are on-chain, it's easy to establish I have 50 tokens left, there is no dispute here, and no need for a third party to verify to any of this, since the ledger is (theoretically) immutable. I have no problem with distributed digital ledgers, as long as they are not based on lottery mechanics and liberterian (mis)ideals.
In you "real estate" example, I own a home and decide to sell it to you via NFT, since said home is not on-chain (being a physical object and all), who enforces ownership? I sell you the NFT, pocket the money and refuse to leave said home? Who evicts me and on what grounds? Laws, courts and police, right? So what was NFTs role in all of this, other that have to pay another bullshit fee to some third party?
Finally, since I'm all out of posts. Want to own any of the punks, apes, doods, or whatever trash they are selling you and want to have blockchain based proof that you own them. Easy, find them online, right-click, save-as and then go to any of the NFT minting sites, mint your own and voila, you're a blockchain verifiable owner of shitty art(?) without paying stupid money (you still have to pay gas fees, which is the real grift here).
No we shouldn't.
Just do a quick search anywhere for "why are NFT's bad".
https://antsstyle.medium.com/why-nfts-are-bad-the-short-version-48acff22c54b
Just do a quick search anywhere for "why are NFT's bad".
https://antsstyle.medium.com/why-nfts-are-bad-the-short-version-48acff22c54b
Both arguments in that are bs.
NFT projects exists on many blockchains. Some, like Ethereum, are environmentally bad. Other do not rely on mass-user mining, or anything like that, and thus are environmentally-friendly.
As for the second argument...what? That has nothing to do with NFTs and everything to do with the merchants who sell them. You can launder money with football shoes, as long as the merchant accepts "dirty" money. Legit NFT platforms have strong KYC and AML processes in place.
Googling something and finding the first result that support your opinion does not make it true.
I feel like I'm sitting an exam here
So, the concept of Proof of Work is that the 'miners' have expended real time and real energy to solve the cryptographic puzzle, create a hash which begins with a number of zero's (the number of zero's required isn't fixed, it changes to adjust difficulty based on amount of compute/nodes) and 'mine' a new block. In order to validate fraudulent transactions, you would have to be able to mine new blocks at a faster rate then the rest of the network combined, so you would need at least 51% of the compute power (probably way more, in reality, because just having 51% wouldn't keep you ahead for long, if at all). We could then get into changing blocks, forks etc...but in general, the bigger the network, the more total compute power, the more secure it is.
On your question about the practicalities of exchanging mortgage deeds and V5C documents on the Blockchain, clearly, we are a way of this being implemented in practice. Remember, in my post, I was careful not to talk too much, if at all, about not requiring 3rd parties or arbitrators. Of course, you would, at least for the foreseeable future. However, Blockchain can reduce the amount of administration required by recording info. in a traceable, transparent and immutable way.
There would still be instances where someone might dispute something, but that would be the exception rather than the rule, and the rest of the time the transfer of ownership can be handled seamlessly and efficiently.
Two industries which are already adopting blockchain technology and NFT-based 'transfer of ownership' are the shipping and logistics industries. I have chucked a few links at the bottom, bit dry, don't really expect people to read that, but the point is, ports and border control still largely rely on paper-based documents. This won't be the case for much longer!
https://cargox.io/
https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/posts/12-companies-tackling-trade-document-digitization-head-on/
https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_transferable_records
Also, just for the record...I own no NFTs, I am not advising anybody buying NFTs. I don't care to be honest. I just responded to a post about United releasing some NFTs, which I thought was quite a cool idea...but would I buy them...maybe...but if I did, it wouldn't be because I thought I could make money selling them on.
Of course we should. Another way to make shitload of money and sell fans a new product. I think Inter even have their own token
Yes, with some nice utility, depending on the rarity obviously.
edit, NFTs can be other than just a picture, they can have utility attached to them (like for example, if you let’s say own a rare Ronaldo nft, you can get an autographed shirt with two tickets or whatever they decide). Also many crypto miners rely on renewable energy, so it’s not all destroying humanity as it’s being portrayed.
edit, NFTs can be other than just a picture, they can have utility attached to them (like for example, if you let’s say own a rare Ronaldo nft, you can get an autographed shirt with two tickets or whatever they decide). Also many crypto miners rely on renewable energy, so it’s not all destroying humanity as it’s being portrayed.
Last edited:
Much like the Bitcoin, speculation and resell value
I feel like I'm sitting an exam here
So, the concept of Proof of Work is that the 'miners' have expended real time and real energy to solve the cryptographic puzzle, create a hash which begins with a number of zero's (the number of zero's required isn't fixed, it changes to adjust difficulty based on amount of compute/nodes) and 'mine' a new block. In order to validate fraudulent transactions, you would have to be able to mine new blocks at a faster rate then the rest of the network combined, so you would need at least 51% of the compute power (probably way more, in reality, because just having 51% wouldn't keep you ahead for long, if at all). We could then get into changing blocks, forks etc...but in general, the bigger the network, the more total compute power, the more secure it is.
On your question about the practicalities of exchanging mortgage deeds and V5C documents on the Blockchain, clearly, we are a way of this being implemented in practice. Remember, in my post, I was careful not to talk too much, if at all, about not requiring 3rd parties or arbitrators. Of course, you would, at least for the foreseeable future. However, Blockchain can reduce the amount of administration required by recording info. in a traceable, transparent and immutable way.
There would still be instances where someone might dispute something, but that would be the exception rather than the rule, and the rest of the time the transfer of ownership can be handled seamlessly and efficiently.
Two industries which are already adopting blockchain technology and NFT-based 'transfer of ownership' are the shipping and logistics industries. I have chucked a few links at the bottom, bit dry, don't really expect people to read that, but the point is, ports and border control still largely rely on paper-based documents. This won't be the case for much longer!
https://cargox.io/
https://www.tradefinanceglobal.com/posts/12-companies-tackling-trade-document-digitization-head-on/
https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_transferable_records
Also, just for the record...I own no NFTs, I am not advising anybody buying NFTs. I don't care to be honest. I just responded to a post about United releasing some NFTs, which I thought was quite a cool idea...but would I buy them...maybe...but if I did, it wouldn't be because I thought I could make money selling them on.
You kind of are, burden of proof and all
So there is no benefit to having this on-chain or in NFT form, other than some perceived reduction in amount of administration (how so?). Immutability is both a feature and a bug at the same time, so a double edged sword at best. Guess my point stands, we can do this, we don't need blockchain or NFTs, specially not ones where we pay fees to private enterprises and it will be orders of magnitude more efficient (not wasting CPU cylces and resouces on a digital lottery).
Blockchain is mostly hype, yes to digital ledgers (under right circumstances), everything else is just companies jumping on the hype train. Blockchain does not solve any real problems in supply chain industries, which weren't solved already and doesn't address the number one problem, which is human error and since it's immutable those are harder to fix. Not everything can be solved by technology, just like everything is not running on Java. Blockchains are generally not the best solutions to any given problem, but it will attract VC money, which is why it's tackled onto everything.
That's it form me for today, have a good one and remember; Friends don't let friends
Do you want a simple explanation?
Yes, and build Old Trafford in the metaverse whilst at it.
I can see it from two points of view.
I am a collector of Manchester United memorabilia and as such have a pretty decent collection.
So, imagine I am missing a certain card from my card collection (Billy Meredith 1908)...or a programme (postponed Wolves after Munich)...or anything else that is very rare and I have virtually no chance of seeing or affording in the future. I just keep my collection which is 95-98% complete...and put all the images on Flickr as a record of my collection.
However, if someone has the original card, programme, menu, itinerary etc they could copy the image and make say ten copies as a limited edition print. They make the ten copies open to public sale as a NFT and you are allowed that image. The record is kept on a blockchain and I can upload the image to my collection.
So now there is one original and ten 'authorised' copies (from the original owner). The original owner can charge what they like. I might pay a few quid but that's it. Others are willing to pay thousands to become part of the 'ten' who own the NFT. They can sell it on, keep it or whatever.
Personally, I like original items and know enough people to give me coloured images of items that I am missing. But it's not the same.
So with really interesting stuff like rare art, baseball cards etc its a big spiralling industry...particularly with people with big egos and plenty of spare cash.
I can't see it taking off with football memorabilia as there is so much already available.
Having said that....Topps football cards are really expensive in todays collecting world. Take a look on eBay.
So who knows.
I am a collector of Manchester United memorabilia and as such have a pretty decent collection.
So, imagine I am missing a certain card from my card collection (Billy Meredith 1908)...or a programme (postponed Wolves after Munich)...or anything else that is very rare and I have virtually no chance of seeing or affording in the future. I just keep my collection which is 95-98% complete...and put all the images on Flickr as a record of my collection.
However, if someone has the original card, programme, menu, itinerary etc they could copy the image and make say ten copies as a limited edition print. They make the ten copies open to public sale as a NFT and you are allowed that image. The record is kept on a blockchain and I can upload the image to my collection.
So now there is one original and ten 'authorised' copies (from the original owner). The original owner can charge what they like. I might pay a few quid but that's it. Others are willing to pay thousands to become part of the 'ten' who own the NFT. They can sell it on, keep it or whatever.
Personally, I like original items and know enough people to give me coloured images of items that I am missing. But it's not the same.
So with really interesting stuff like rare art, baseball cards etc its a big spiralling industry...particularly with people with big egos and plenty of spare cash.
I can't see it taking off with football memorabilia as there is so much already available.
Having said that....Topps football cards are really expensive in todays collecting world. Take a look on eBay.
So who knows.
I see you've read the Crypto thread.
I'm surprised we haven't heard from @Murder on Zidane's Floor yet
I mean, if anyone thinks it's a good idea that will make them wealthy beyond imagination, they won't listen to me, on a forum, when I tell them that it's complete hokum.
The draw of (insert random new sounding tech words) plus (money) = suspend your critical thinking capacities to some people.
Good luck to those who wish to partake but as ever, only invest what you can afford to lose.
First one should feature Pogba with blue hair. The amount of trolls and haters it would create would exponentially increase the price.
Dogecoin?
But you've literally targeted your search to find a reason why they're bad? I could search "why oxygen is bad for the lungs" and probably find some crackpot source that'll back me up.