this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
2074 points (99.3% liked)

memes

15250 readers
4624 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 157 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (24 children)

The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.

Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.

Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.

The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.

If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.

It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.

And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 66 points 3 days ago (9 children)

The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.

It's the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 54 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wait just a second! You have a bridge for sale? Tell me more.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 days ago (10 children)

Well first of all, it allows travel between point A and point B, usually above the ground

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

I'm in! Name your price.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn't really mean anything.

Yeah, that's possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where "I've got a bridge to sell you" is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.

And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.

[–] Warehouse@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago

It's kind of like selling a website that redirects to Facebook, and thinking that therefore you own Facebook.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 days ago (12 children)

Wouldn't a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn't tampered with.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I guess the problem NFTs try to solve is authority holding the initial verification tied to the video. If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it and the date/metadata is etched in stone, whereas otherwise some entity has to publish the initial hash.

In other words, one can hash a video, yeah, but how do you know when that hashed video was taken? From where? There has to be some kind of hard-to-dispute initial record (and even then that only works in contexts where the videos earliest date is the proof, so to speak, like recording and event as it happens).

[–] ddash@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If it’s on a blockchain, theoretically no one owns it

This is such a funny thing to say since NFTs were all about "owning" stuff on the blockchain.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 3 days ago (9 children)

This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the "oracle" and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn't add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn't also achieve.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is correct.

This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.

The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.

If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] DOPdan@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what's coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.

[–] bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that's hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).

The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).

The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.

This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.

The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago (2 children)

When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what's to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 19 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it's pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.

I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 29 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Bitcoin is still fucking shit. That just amounts to "I wish I was there first in this this pyramid scheme". It doesn't change what it is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It's so funny looking back at it (though it was funny while it was happening too), these new-flavor cryptobros tried so hard to convince themselves that they were in the right, they made "cartoons," games, I think they even planned like an island resort or something around their monkey pictures.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The national news media got behind it big, which I really don't understand.

It never made any sense.

[–] CH3DD4R_G0BL1N@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 days ago

Pump and dump deep state. It’s still happening. New sucker born every minute.

[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Explanation: Money.

Whenever you see a headline or article and don't understand why they're lying or pushing something. The answer is that it makes someone money. And a large chunk of modern media is owned by a handful of people who's goal is to make money, not tell the truth.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 days ago

My coworker had a virtual NFT gallery full of Marvel NFTs, all laid out like a showroom. He literally spent thousands, now it's worth close to nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] suicidaleggroll@lemm.ee 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Near the peak of the NFT craze I was gifted (as part of an initial mint) an NFT, which I turned around and immediately sold for $3k. Last I looked it was worth about $200. That's the extent of my experience with NFTs.

[–] ralakus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Still surprised it's worth $200. I thought it'd be worth a few cents or maybe a few dollars at most

[–] tallpaul@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's worth what someone will actually pay for it. I suspect that $200 is the price at which it is listed...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 42 points 3 days ago

NFT's used to be stupid.

They still are, but they used to be, too.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (16 children)

How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is "yes". It's always "yes".
The only question is, can you hold the tiger's tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren't the last one holding it.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

can you hold the tiger’s tail just long enough

The answer to this is also usually "no" because the people who set up the scamcoin usually don't like to leave things to chance and have a plan for when to time their rug-pull.

Trying to get in on these grifts is like spotting a bank-robbery in-progress and trying to join the crew and get paid. Sure it can happen, but you're not exactly playing with the best odds of success.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I'll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn't mean shit, it's just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.

[–] kadup@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

When I first heard of NFTs I thought the media was encoded within the blockchain - in that case sure, I wouldn't necessarily buy one but I understand how that'd be interesting.

Ten minutes later when I was told they are just proof of purchase that points to a URL hosting your monkey image somewhere, I knew they were a total scam

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

You know, I feel bad for the people who were conned by the Super Bowl commercials. Celebs added legitimacy to the con. Everyone else who actually got into it because of whatever other reason, I don't give a fuck about. And SBF? Fuck that guy. I'm glad he's in prison. (I know he was selling a crypto-currency, not NFTs. Don't correct me.)

Oh, and the late night guy and the celeb blond lady who had an awkward conversation about it (was it the hotel sex tape lady?) can also fuck right off. Someone paid them to shill and they went for it. Assholes.

But, all that being said, I'll sell you a jpeg for $1000. Or two for $1999.

Edit: Paris Hilton, don't @ me. Edit: missing "the"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You've heard of landlords, but have you heard of NFT-Land landlords? 🤭

[–] Object@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago (3 children)

"Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is it over? I stopped watching.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fifa is selling world cup nfts right now...

[–] Pnut@lemm.ee 11 points 3 days ago

Fifa is pretty fucked up and behind the times. I am not surprised.

[–] ChocoboEnthusiast@leminal.space 15 points 3 days ago

I remember seeing the monkeys and thinking, "heck I can draw that maybe I can make NFTs to sell to people who are sucked in by this."

[–] flux@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I'm sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure you could do it without nfts

Yup! There were no technical problems that weren’t already solved, but NFT bros made grand claims unrelated to reality.

[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago

Techbros are still doing it. In this thread even, and people are still falling for it judging by their upvotes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.

Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: "selling their book" as they say in Finance.

People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the "investment" assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.

Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers' talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, "the grifters grift" - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›