I'm not sure where the unseizable NFT assets fits in. If you own anything physical or store digital data that's tied to an NFT, it can be repossessed by government or some financial institution.
The only real merit is storing value in strictly a stable currency (like USDC) and holding the private key in a secure, hidden location. Even then, if there's any traces (bank routing) to that wallet address, the government or some other institution can legally press to take ownership.
As someone that's been in the crypto scene a very long time, I've come to the conclusion that there's no real alternative to local and federal political involvement to secure a fair economy. Crypto will not save you if politics (or a hostile mega corporation) turn against you.
Another thought experiment is what if a billionaire decides to hide all their money in crypto to avoid taxes or asset seizing?
> local and federal political involvement to secure a fair economy
That seems a lot more important in any case, in that fancy digital assets aren't going to prevent the atrocities mentioned in the beginning of the article.
If the government is willing to kill 1.5 million people, storing your assets in NFTs is not particularly useful, and anyways assets are low on your list of concerns anyways.
Again... and I can't stress this enough. The best way to get someone's password isn't phishing, it's threatening to hit them in the head with a wrench. The idea that we can create some sort of libertarian utopia seems blind to the fact that humans are inherently social.
I think the idea of making unseizable assets is noble, sort of, but the concept of property, and money or value, is social by design. The assets with intrinsic value are wheat fields, oil tankers, and silos of grain... not artistic works.
I think the idea of a digital, anonymous currency, though fraught with problems, can be extended past national (thus cultural) borders, but the same can be accomplished with the banking system. When a country plans to seize your assets, the goal should be to leave the country, not remain with hidden cryptos.
Totally agree. All this bitcoin wallet stuff that's protected by a key is more safe than cash in the ground. When somebody hits you in the head and asks for your encryption key you gonna give it.
Why would I have any reason to believe they'd stop after I told them the truth? Read Gulag Archipelago describing tortures by the Soviet regime. When these entities don't know how much information you have, they just beat and beat until they're satisfied it's enough beating that they expect they got the answers. If you tell them everything they keep beating because they think there is more; if you don't tell them everything they keep beating because they think there is more. If they don't know what information you have, whether or not you told all of what you know doesn't have much bearing on how the wrenching goes.
If you find yourself getting beat with a wrench and unable to fight back, you're going to have to accept the beating in and of itself, and accept the fraction of the full truth you tell them has little correlation to what kind of beating you're going to get.
Right now, in the warm state of being able to think calmly about the situation, you'd have absolutely no reason to think they'd stop hitting you with the wrench once you've given in to their demands.
However, in the time itself, your brain would go into it's 'survival mode' and logically tell itself that if you give in to their demands, they'll possibly let you live.
Being able to override that preset state of mind is very hard to do, and why hostage-type situations work; whether you or a loved one is the hostage in question.
Let’s actually try to grow up a bit. All these comments are basically written by Nocoiners who hate crypto. In the real world there isn’t any issue like this, because not sure you guys are aware but anyone sophisticated will be using multisig setups for large crypto holdings.
Also nobody seems to have heard of distress codes. It’s standard in home alarm systems to allow a code which disables the alarm but secretly sends a hostage alarm to authorities. Crypto multisigs will eventually have such setups. This idea that violence will be a more profitable approach when people adopt private currency is simply silly.
Being that an absolute crapload of violence for very small amounts of money happens every single day I'd really like to know what planet you've been on. When someone walks up and points a glock in your face and asks for the pin of your debit card people tend to give it up rather than risk an extra hole in their face.
All I’m saying is that nothing about crypto will increase that violence. If anything it will decrease it. Bank debit cards don’t have decoy designs or distress codes. Programable private money with heavy competition will bring solutions to this problem not make it worse.
The idea that crypto currency is flawed and violence will be used by criminals to seize wallets is absurd and that the existing legacy financial system has better solutions! seriously what world are these commentators living in.
I honestly wonder if you've actually ever been robbed at gunpoint. The kind of long drawn out process where you have time to instantiate a local crypto wallet and check it out and see if the story must match up is rare, and more like in the movies. And if the robber does not act extremely quickly and keep the tempo of surprise up they will quickly find out they're not the only one with glocks.
Slow, methodical, systematic robbing of any significant fraction of the populace is typical an exercise done by government or de facto government. You know, the people in control of bank accounts in the first place.
>The idea that we can create some sort of libertarian utopia seems blind to the fact that humans are inherently social.
Attempting to explain this irrefutable, unquestionable fact to a libertarian is like trying to explain sports to me: they ain't interested and can't understand.
They aren't stupid or dense, it's just that their stated motivation isn't their true one most of the time.
They "get" this, but the actual goal is just to remove power from states and put it in the hands of individual property owners so that they are more free to exert it over people with less power.
I think it's really generous to think that they actually understand that libertarian-ism wont work.
Your average libertarian is poor, usually rural and not prosperous. They are generally just marks to the very few libertarians who would benefit from de-regulation and less government overisght.
For example, is this article about someone with generational trauma using that as inspiration to help prevent future atrocities or is it a puff piece about a rich guy who is motivated by a desire to keep all his assets and landed on the "unseizable property" angle as a more successful story to sell investors now that the sector he heavily invested in has crashed?
This is probably true but in my experience most libertarians are just bigots who think wrapping themselves in a freedom cloak shields their bigotry from criticism.
Thinking more there is probably a great deal of overlap between the people who fit my definition of libertarianism and those who fit yours.
I was definitely that stupid and dense during my libertarian phase. It took me a while to start generating counterexamples to the "property rights promote individual liberty" idea, though of course once I started the trickle quickly became a flood, I saw the floodwater all around me, and the gimmick was up.
Today I would fully agree with you that the most experienced "libertarians" are actually conservatives dressed up in the clothing of freedom, but there's a sucker born every minute, and the key to bumping this particular sucker out of this particular ideology was not an accusation of crypto-conservatism (of which I heard plenty) but rather a frontal attack on the core ideas of libertarianism as I understood them.
Yes this is true. I really struggle to find balance with this one.
On one hand demanding to be treated as if they are representing views in good faith when they are not is one of the most effective and exhausting strategies of the far right, libertarians included. So I try to identify it and refuse to.
But on the other hand yes, surely a lot of self-identified libertarians "on the ground" are being honest about their understanding and motivations, and it's shitty to dismiss their positions as disingenuous when they aren't.
I doubt it's possible to always get it right, and I'm not comfortable choosing one of those two errors to make exclusively. So I do my best and ask for forgiveness when I get it wrong.
This probably rates up there with buying an ICBM Silo Condo to sit out the apocalypse. I'm pretty sure if I were hired to guard that condo on a measly salary and the SHTF money would be worthless and I'd be looking at becoming the new owner of that condo and moving my own family in.
> The best way to get someone's password isn't phishing, it's threatening to hit them in the head with a wrench.
But what if you need to combine that person's password with passwords that are in the heads of 5 out of 7 other people, who are all in undisclosed locations in different jurisdictions?
Perhaps a sufficiently resourced adversary could create a realtime deepfake of you, to attend the property transfer online digital ceremony, but the adversary who imprisoned you would also have to convince all of your friends that you had gone on holiday so that they didn't raise the alarm to warn those keyholders that you are under duress.
"Oh, right, so tell us the names of the seven others whose password shares we need?", then proceeds to arrest and beat at least five of those seven others.
Nah I’ll just handover the password to the decoy distress wallet. I’ve paid 45 sats per week to a sentinel service which watches for any transactions from the distress address. I also walk around with latest Apple watch that sends out my last know position every 10 seconds. The sentinel service sees a distress transaction and locates local authorities.
If you don’t think this is realistic then perhaps you don’t have a home security system with alarm monitoring. It has a distress code that disarms the system so any attacker believes it is safe but instead simultaneously sends a hostage alert to the local police station. It works well because once I accidentally tested it by accidentally putting in my distress code when I had traveled for 48 hours and was extremely tired. 3 mins later local police had silently approached my home and were looking in the windows with guns drawn.
Did you miss where I said "in undisclosed locations in different jurisdictions"?
The other seven people would be known only by their public key, and you'd make contact with them through some onion-routed service. You'd never see their face, and all you'd know is that they were based in a different jurisdiction, where presumably the authorities that are after you don't have strong judicial connections.
If your threat model includes an adversary that is willing and able to kidnap and torture 5 innocent people from different countries around the world in order to get to you, then you're literally OBL or the leader of IS, in which case you have bigger problems than securing your passwords.
> The best way to get someone's password isn't phishing, it's threatening to hit them in the head with a wrench.
Crypto has built much to fend off wrench attacks. Multi-sig vaults, timelocks.
The first line from the article is: "Alexis Ohanian’s ancestors perished during the Armenian genocide and had their assets seized." so I think he has considered the threat of asset seizure by violence.
> When a country plans to seize your assets, the goal should be to leave the country, not remain with hidden cryptos.
Odd dichotomy? A better goal is to leave the country with your unseizable assets, rather than praying that you'll be able to withdraw your account at a time of crisis.
OK say I have a few monero wallets. You have no idea how much is in any account or what I've spent on anything, where it's going. How would you know which wallets I gave up? Sure I'll probably hand over $100, maybe even $1000 to some dude with a wrench but I'll die before I give up much more, not to mention you won't even know it was the wrong wallet. And I know this, because I've had a gun pulled to my head before and I decided I'd rather die fighting back than give up my cash -- and good fucking luck getting the key then.
Sooner or later wrenching people you'll get a few "sucidal" cases that get lucky and it's game over. Not a great business model.
Again... you can do the same thing with offshore bank accounts. If your plan is a novel way to hide money, that's been a solved problem for over a hundred years.
If you want to use your hidden money on a day-to-day basis, I think most nations are going to ban this practice simply because it's not a sustainable way to operate a state with a tax basis.
Serious question, what's the best legal option for an American to get a 5 figure offshore bank account? FATCA seems to have made Americans pariahs to the point you can't really get the offshore account (legally or not) unless you're rich. For pragmatic reasons you're kind of left with crypto for sub-$100k sums, although I'm definitely interested in your recommendations.
There obviously wouldn't a legal option in this particular scenario. Though it would obviously be doable. The entire point of this is that the prescriptions are all presumed to be illegal, as the ultimate goal is preventing the state from legally seizing assets.
The idea that a monero wallet would be perpetually legal is laughable under a scenario where the state starts seizing assets.
Buying crypto now while it is legal seems a lot lower risk to me than getting an illegal offshore account. Even if they make crypto illegal later they wouldn't be able to prove I acquired it illegally, and once I acquire it it's nigh impossible to determine whether it's been lost or not.
Again, my point isn't "what do now" it's a conceptual argument as to societies on a forward going basis. Now we likely have no reason to think that our societies are descending into a sectarian and totalitarian nightmare. Thus the vast majority of users of said currencies are likely attempting to freeload of society.
It's a double edged sword, where the only justification for something like monero is a fictional totalitarian state, coming... someday. Whereas, in the areas where totalitarianism exists, all of theses things are already trivially illegal... almost exactly at the rates you would suspect.
> When a country plans to seize your assets, the goal should be to leave the country, not remain with hidden cryptos.
Yeah. And someone with a zillion dollars is actually well-placed to help some of those people out, or maybe even help countries avoid that in the first place, although that's pretty tricky.
This article is about unseizable digital property, which is an important distinction.
I'm curious if he thinks his "unseizable" digital assets will be worth anything in the event where the US is illegally seizing assets from citizens (which seems to be his reason for "investing" so heavily in digital assets - due to past family history). In an event like that, I'd much rather have food and fresh water supplies than some NFTs.
If the government is illegally seizing your assets, sue them. Should be an open-and-shut case because it’s illegal. The real problem is when the government legalizes the procedure and uses it to seize assets. This happens all the time [1].
I think thats an issue with crypto in general. The use cases of times where a bank fails and FDIC insurance doesn't work is a time where digital money is going to have little use. Now if you decide to trust a central entity just a tiny amount, all other forms of digital currency win out in countless ways.
Collapse of US economies and banks would be devastating worldwide, but doesn't mean crypto would be worthless throughout the entire world. Our borders are large and porous and undefendable; one could escape and spend them elsewhere.
What situation would the US collapse not be the biggest global catastrophe since WW2? No matter where you escape everything is collapsing at that point.
All though, to be clear, I think the risk of a collapse isn't worth worrying about. It's like prepping for a nuclear war. The chances of happening are tiny and the chances of surviving are even smaller.
Imagine you're a disgraced german soldier at the end of WWII, Would you rather be holding Reichsmark or gold when you take the ratlines to South America? Even in a collapse there is value in having something value dense you can use in the least collapsed of your options.
Of course gold is still a great option, the most obvious disadvantage is it can be physically seized at the border.
The wild thing to me with this "unseizable" fantasy is that it in practice opens the door for far more property loss. Scams, phishing, hacking, market manipulation, fraud, corporate malfeasance (e.g. SBF), ransomware and other sorts of fraud and theft are rampant in the cryptocurrency space.
Your government may not be able to seize your property from you, but they also can't seize your property back from criminals. And they still know where you live and have guns, so I'm not sure how much unseizability is gained.
If the US government wanted his digital assets, they would get his digital assets.
Currencies that aren't state backed will always have massive fluctuation in value anyway. If you are Argentinean, the USD is a better store of value than BitCoin.
A pump and dump with a good story is still just a pump and dump. NFT's and crypto are for suckers and those who prey upon them.
First OpenSea has to do this work to format it in a human-readable way. If the authorities contact OpenSea, this may be disabled.
Next, the ipfs.io domain has to keep resolving. This can be stopped by the authorities and ICANN.
Next, ipfs.io has to keep returning data at those URLs. That can be stopped by the authorities and whover runs ipfs.io.
And if we work around the need for an IPFS proxy and talk to IPFS directly, then this still only works so long people keep on hosting that image. I don't know how many people is that world-wide, but probably not that many.
Even assuming this survives a hostile government and keeps working, the real-life owner is usually easily found and targeted.
there are plenty of SVG NFTs where everything is stored in the contract.
I personally think its useful to qualify your statement to be about improper common uses of NFTs, since few other people knows there is a difference too.
He could host the image himself. He could even just show you the image and transaction proving that he's the owner (of course you'll have to consult the blockchain to check if he hasn't sold it afterwards).
That said, (a) NFT infrastructure is notoriously bad and doesn't work as it is now and (b) why on Earth would you do all that just to prove you own a picture of monkey.
wonderful response.
people forget this is why nothing online is untrackable or free from tracking, its obfuscated, but trackable.
Ultimately the govt has shown that private does not actually mean private. you can build a network, business, or even a country and if someone doesnt like it. buh bye. no questions just consequences.
we need a wireless, encrypted, and secure network, we do not have one yet.
until then this is all make believe fun until someone in government finds out they can make money controlling it. and then it gets real, fast.
Besides, the "depends on external infrastructure" argument is just as true of the underlying blockchain itself. You need a peer to share the blockchain data with you too.
Why does anyone listen to ICANN when the government issues a seizure order? Why do cryptocurrencies have value if they’re not a good database for this? How can a domain be less secure on a blockchain than money?
NFTs extend past pictures that services agree to honor in their metaverses with contractually enforced royalties.
Doesn't that ipfs.io URL contain an IPFS content address? And the JSON blob at that address also contains another IPFS content address of the actual image file? It's obviously true that the ipfs.io web server and/or domain could be taken down by the authorities, but it would be more difficult to take down all the peers hosting that IPFS content (assuming there was enough interest in these NFTs to have a decent number of independent parties hosting the content on IPFS).
So I'm not sure if the "depends on external infrastructure" criticism really holds. It does require some participation in the IPFS peer-to-peer network, at least for you to download the content the first time, but that's also trivially true of the blockchain itself.
> Doesn't that ipfs.io URL contain an IPFS content address?
Some NFTs contain an HTTP URL to a specific IPFS proxy. This one in particular indeed doesn't, which is better.
> but it would be more difficult to take down all the peers hosting that IPFS content
True, but IPFS isn't private. If the authorities want it badly enough they can create a fair amount of trouble.
> So I'm not sure if the "depends on external infrastructure" criticism really holds. It does require some participation in the IPFS peer-to-peer network, at least for you to download the content the first time, but that's also trivially true of the blockchain itself.
IPFS is far more vulnerable than the blockchain. Arguably you're not participating in anything specific when you run a blockchain node. On IPFS you voluntarily mirror content. That means that to provide an extra source of data not only you must run IPFS, but you must voluntarily take the step to mirror this particular file.
So while on say Ethereum there's as many copies of everything as there are nodes, on IPFS it's very possible there's just a single server in the entire world that's hosting that particular data.
I would worry that if the infrastructure to access these things would be taken down, either by law, war or some kind of great depression, people would value other things than a picture of a monkey and how to keep IPFS running.
This sort of reminds me how land (not property) tends to be under taxed.
Land requires administration and military protection which is an ongoing fee but there are a lot of people who think it should be free.
This then requires cross subsidization by income tax which in turn means the GDP must never go down as that would cut into income taxes that pay for land related services which are provided for free.
Here the NFT is kind of like land in that it requires both administration (OpenSea) and protection (Proof of stake). In principle the owner of an NFT would have to pay an insignificant "rental" fee to keep his NFT alive/hosted.
oh look. Some techbro billionaire fretting about his billions.
Why is this news? What's next, an indepth look at finding 'just the right bunker' for the apocalypse.
I mean, yeah a bad thing happened. His family survived, and he's gotten a better life than 99% of the population on the planet. Cool.
Maybe rather than worry about hoarding his stuff he could find ways to improve the planet? Or better yet, collect some digital thing, obfuscated behind other digital things all with some arbitrary value - that won't feed you, keep you warm and or provide clean water in a real emergency.
NFTs, and crypto as a whole, have a lot of interesting use cases. Unfortunately, the way crypto works currently, any sort of utility gets drowned out in a sea of pump and dump schemes and speculative mania.
his ancestors had property siezed in the armenian genocide, and that's why he wants to sell me a chunk of text proving that i own a png commemorating the superbowl?
I’ve always found it odd that in the US today, there is a show called “The Young Turks” seemingly in honour of the group that planned and executed the Armenian genocide. I can only presume they don’t have a very large Armenian-American audience.
83 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadThe only real merit is storing value in strictly a stable currency (like USDC) and holding the private key in a secure, hidden location. Even then, if there's any traces (bank routing) to that wallet address, the government or some other institution can legally press to take ownership.
As someone that's been in the crypto scene a very long time, I've come to the conclusion that there's no real alternative to local and federal political involvement to secure a fair economy. Crypto will not save you if politics (or a hostile mega corporation) turn against you.
Another thought experiment is what if a billionaire decides to hide all their money in crypto to avoid taxes or asset seizing?
That seems a lot more important in any case, in that fancy digital assets aren't going to prevent the atrocities mentioned in the beginning of the article.
I think the idea of making unseizable assets is noble, sort of, but the concept of property, and money or value, is social by design. The assets with intrinsic value are wheat fields, oil tankers, and silos of grain... not artistic works.
I think the idea of a digital, anonymous currency, though fraught with problems, can be extended past national (thus cultural) borders, but the same can be accomplished with the banking system. When a country plans to seize your assets, the goal should be to leave the country, not remain with hidden cryptos.
If you find yourself getting beat with a wrench and unable to fight back, you're going to have to accept the beating in and of itself, and accept the fraction of the full truth you tell them has little correlation to what kind of beating you're going to get.
However, in the time itself, your brain would go into it's 'survival mode' and logically tell itself that if you give in to their demands, they'll possibly let you live.
Being able to override that preset state of mind is very hard to do, and why hostage-type situations work; whether you or a loved one is the hostage in question.
They'll probably keep hitting you if you talk. The will surely do it if you stay silent. What use is your crypto once you’re dead?
The idea that crypto currency is flawed and violence will be used by criminals to seize wallets is absurd and that the existing legacy financial system has better solutions! seriously what world are these commentators living in.
Slow, methodical, systematic robbing of any significant fraction of the populace is typical an exercise done by government or de facto government. You know, the people in control of bank accounts in the first place.
Attempting to explain this irrefutable, unquestionable fact to a libertarian is like trying to explain sports to me: they ain't interested and can't understand.
They "get" this, but the actual goal is just to remove power from states and put it in the hands of individual property owners so that they are more free to exert it over people with less power.
Your average libertarian is poor, usually rural and not prosperous. They are generally just marks to the very few libertarians who would benefit from de-regulation and less government overisght.
Thinking more there is probably a great deal of overlap between the people who fit my definition of libertarianism and those who fit yours.
Today I would fully agree with you that the most experienced "libertarians" are actually conservatives dressed up in the clothing of freedom, but there's a sucker born every minute, and the key to bumping this particular sucker out of this particular ideology was not an accusation of crypto-conservatism (of which I heard plenty) but rather a frontal attack on the core ideas of libertarianism as I understood them.
On one hand demanding to be treated as if they are representing views in good faith when they are not is one of the most effective and exhausting strategies of the far right, libertarians included. So I try to identify it and refuse to.
But on the other hand yes, surely a lot of self-identified libertarians "on the ground" are being honest about their understanding and motivations, and it's shitty to dismiss their positions as disingenuous when they aren't.
I doubt it's possible to always get it right, and I'm not comfortable choosing one of those two errors to make exclusively. So I do my best and ask for forgiveness when I get it wrong.
But what if you need to combine that person's password with passwords that are in the heads of 5 out of 7 other people, who are all in undisclosed locations in different jurisdictions?
Perhaps a sufficiently resourced adversary could create a realtime deepfake of you, to attend the property transfer online digital ceremony, but the adversary who imprisoned you would also have to convince all of your friends that you had gone on holiday so that they didn't raise the alarm to warn those keyholders that you are under duress.
If you don’t think this is realistic then perhaps you don’t have a home security system with alarm monitoring. It has a distress code that disarms the system so any attacker believes it is safe but instead simultaneously sends a hostage alert to the local police station. It works well because once I accidentally tested it by accidentally putting in my distress code when I had traveled for 48 hours and was extremely tired. 3 mins later local police had silently approached my home and were looking in the windows with guns drawn.
The other seven people would be known only by their public key, and you'd make contact with them through some onion-routed service. You'd never see their face, and all you'd know is that they were based in a different jurisdiction, where presumably the authorities that are after you don't have strong judicial connections.
If your threat model includes an adversary that is willing and able to kidnap and torture 5 innocent people from different countries around the world in order to get to you, then you're literally OBL or the leader of IS, in which case you have bigger problems than securing your passwords.
Crypto has built much to fend off wrench attacks. Multi-sig vaults, timelocks.
The first line from the article is: "Alexis Ohanian’s ancestors perished during the Armenian genocide and had their assets seized." so I think he has considered the threat of asset seizure by violence.
> When a country plans to seize your assets, the goal should be to leave the country, not remain with hidden cryptos.
Odd dichotomy? A better goal is to leave the country with your unseizable assets, rather than praying that you'll be able to withdraw your account at a time of crisis.
Sooner or later wrenching people you'll get a few "sucidal" cases that get lucky and it's game over. Not a great business model.
If you want to use your hidden money on a day-to-day basis, I think most nations are going to ban this practice simply because it's not a sustainable way to operate a state with a tax basis.
The idea that a monero wallet would be perpetually legal is laughable under a scenario where the state starts seizing assets.
It's a double edged sword, where the only justification for something like monero is a fictional totalitarian state, coming... someday. Whereas, in the areas where totalitarianism exists, all of theses things are already trivially illegal... almost exactly at the rates you would suspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cryptocurrency_by_...
It's prepper mentality, and unfortunately, it's being exploited by tons of folks entirely happy to cheat on their taxes.
Yeah. And someone with a zillion dollars is actually well-placed to help some of those people out, or maybe even help countries avoid that in the first place, although that's pretty tricky.
I'm curious if he thinks his "unseizable" digital assets will be worth anything in the event where the US is illegally seizing assets from citizens (which seems to be his reason for "investing" so heavily in digital assets - due to past family history). In an event like that, I'd much rather have food and fresh water supplies than some NFTs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
All though, to be clear, I think the risk of a collapse isn't worth worrying about. It's like prepping for a nuclear war. The chances of happening are tiny and the chances of surviving are even smaller.
Of course gold is still a great option, the most obvious disadvantage is it can be physically seized at the border.
Your government may not be able to seize your property from you, but they also can't seize your property back from criminals. And they still know where you live and have guns, so I'm not sure how much unseizability is gained.
Try to "seize" the belief in the death and resurrection of Christ from one billion believers (or even from one sufficiently devoted).
Even if the story isn't real, it has very real and tangible consequences.
A painting is seizable. But if it is simple enough, it can be recreated from memory. How could you seize it?
Ultimately it depends on what you care about. Often we care about seizable things. But not everything is seizable.
Currencies that aren't state backed will always have massive fluctuation in value anyway. If you are Argentinean, the USD is a better store of value than BitCoin.
A pump and dump with a good story is still just a pump and dump. NFT's and crypto are for suckers and those who prey upon them.
Here's a monkey: https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061...
But what's actually on the blockchain? A pointer to an IPFS URL:
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmeSjSinHpPnmXmspMjwiXyN6zS4E9zccariGR3...
Which in turn points to a picture again on IPFS.
For this to work:
First OpenSea has to do this work to format it in a human-readable way. If the authorities contact OpenSea, this may be disabled.
Next, the ipfs.io domain has to keep resolving. This can be stopped by the authorities and ICANN.
Next, ipfs.io has to keep returning data at those URLs. That can be stopped by the authorities and whover runs ipfs.io.
And if we work around the need for an IPFS proxy and talk to IPFS directly, then this still only works so long people keep on hosting that image. I don't know how many people is that world-wide, but probably not that many.
Even assuming this survives a hostile government and keeps working, the real-life owner is usually easily found and targeted.
I personally think its useful to qualify your statement to be about improper common uses of NFTs, since few other people knows there is a difference too.
Why you would do that is another question.
That said, (a) NFT infrastructure is notoriously bad and doesn't work as it is now and (b) why on Earth would you do all that just to prove you own a picture of monkey.
Ultimately the govt has shown that private does not actually mean private. you can build a network, business, or even a country and if someone doesnt like it. buh bye. no questions just consequences.
we need a wireless, encrypted, and secure network, we do not have one yet.
until then this is all make believe fun until someone in government finds out they can make money controlling it. and then it gets real, fast.
I'm not saying NFTs are the answer to anything, just that there is more than one way to implement.
NFTs extend past pictures that services agree to honor in their metaverses with contractually enforced royalties.
So I'm not sure if the "depends on external infrastructure" criticism really holds. It does require some participation in the IPFS peer-to-peer network, at least for you to download the content the first time, but that's also trivially true of the blockchain itself.
Some NFTs contain an HTTP URL to a specific IPFS proxy. This one in particular indeed doesn't, which is better.
> but it would be more difficult to take down all the peers hosting that IPFS content
True, but IPFS isn't private. If the authorities want it badly enough they can create a fair amount of trouble.
> So I'm not sure if the "depends on external infrastructure" criticism really holds. It does require some participation in the IPFS peer-to-peer network, at least for you to download the content the first time, but that's also trivially true of the blockchain itself.
IPFS is far more vulnerable than the blockchain. Arguably you're not participating in anything specific when you run a blockchain node. On IPFS you voluntarily mirror content. That means that to provide an extra source of data not only you must run IPFS, but you must voluntarily take the step to mirror this particular file.
So while on say Ethereum there's as many copies of everything as there are nodes, on IPFS it's very possible there's just a single server in the entire world that's hosting that particular data.
https://twitter.com/kcimc/status/1628275447049109504
Land requires administration and military protection which is an ongoing fee but there are a lot of people who think it should be free. This then requires cross subsidization by income tax which in turn means the GDP must never go down as that would cut into income taxes that pay for land related services which are provided for free.
Here the NFT is kind of like land in that it requires both administration (OpenSea) and protection (Proof of stake). In principle the owner of an NFT would have to pay an insignificant "rental" fee to keep his NFT alive/hosted.
You may not owe techbro billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
sounds pretty goofy to me.