/lit/ - Literature

>>18119343
>this just seems like a new way to create more money in the hands of a completely useless trend. I'm disgusted by it.
You'll probably end up giving the same stupid arguments against Blockchains that every faggot on twitter develops. Read Quinn Dupont for actual deep critique and analysis of Blockchain and unironically Nick Land's book 'Crypto-Current' for a deep pro-crypto position.

go away, you already shilled this on r/selfpublishing

https://www.reddit.com/r/selfpublish/comments/mw68mh/in_a_couple_hours_i_made_more_selling_two_nfts_of/

>>18119343
Part of me feels like it's a blatant bubble waiting to pop reminiscent of the comic book bubble of the 90s but on the other hand the art collection world has proven itself to be extremely resilient in its ability to swallow bullshit over the decades so who the fuck knows.

>>18119366
Thank you, I'm specifically asking for other thoughts because I don't want to devolve into cynically dismissing it. Are there any specific articles/books by Dupont you'd recommend?
>>18119368
Stay on reddit, idiot. I have no idea what you're rambling about.

sort of tangential, but the fact that so many supposedly tech savvy people are pouring real cash into crypto shit is a good signal that quantum computing is total bunk. remember when they said that any minute now quantum computers will be able to crack any traditional encryption? so whats to stopping some genius startup from making a super quantum computer and 51 percenting the blockchain? quantum computing is a dead end is what.

>>18119389
yeah no one cared about your shitty new cryptocurrency on that thread either

>>18119416
>schizophrenic retard from reddit has fight with himself over imaginary shit in his head
Checks out.

>>18119343
it's a lucrative fad

>>18119343
I cant reconcile the coins and the technology. It seems like people are investing in these various coins with the impression that they are making some sort of investment into the actual tech of blockchain ledgers or programmable currency... really they're just buying into a specific ledger of transactions that only exists currently as an investment bubble that banks on the hopes of infinite returns.
That said, I do think that blockchain is going to change the world in a lot of fundamental ways.

>>18119343
As I understand it, there's a whole parallel reality being built through crypto. Epistemically, not cosmologically. These people are not just investing in financial assets, but in reality assets; when you buy crypto, you're buying into a reality, or maybe some kind of reality layer in the stack. For them, If it's not on the blockchain, then it just doesn't exist. Or rather, you can't guarantee its existence and you're ownership of it; its relationship to other people and other digital objects and assets.

i.e. with NFTs, one big NPC critique was that "errrr you're not actually buying anything". But then for the crypto guys, when you buy something that isn't registered on the blockchain, then it's as good as not buying anything. I think it's a fantastic solution to the problem of owning and trading digital objects that can be copied endlessly. Especially as the artist gets a guaranteed cut every time the object is traded.

Idk man it's weird. If you listen to the maximalists talk about it, you get a sense for what I'm talking about. It's their organising system for the world. It's wild.

Here's to all the artists who churned out so many pepes and wojaks for free before NFTs blew up.

>>18119343
There is no philisophy or ethics to it. It's just a mark in a vast ledger, another indicator of the vast greed that precedes the crash. No money is being created, give people fake money and they spend it on fake junk, whowouldathunk? Of course it can also be used effectively for real life proofs of ownership and ID, but that's unlikely to happen since ethereum is a bloated piece of shit owned by the CCP. Here's an example of a cryptocurrency that does well what NFTs will never do: blog.ltonetwork.com/united-nations-and-lto-network-release-worlds-first-open-source-land-registry/

>>18119343
The goal of NFTs is to register ownership. View an NFT as the deed to a house (in the romantic storybook way). The deed doesn't let you do anything per se, but it's commonly understood that there's only one of it and that owning it means something.
Applied to digital art that lets you pull a really neat trick. You can get the prestige of "owning" a piece of art and fund the artist without actually restricting who can view the art, because the art isn't actually contained in the NFT.
But you don't really need blockchain for this. I think it would work just fine with a central authority that administers everything. The only thing blockchain adds (and at great expense) is the lack of a central authority. That, and hype. Hype is the biggest driver here.
Maybe somebody will some day manage a switcheroo where they take the blockchain out of it without anyone caring. That would be good.

>>18119399
You can't use quantum computing to do a 51% attack. Bruteforcing hashes is not something quantum computers are known to be able to do efficiently.
You could use quantum computing to attack public key cryptography, and Bitcoin does rely on that. But there are complications.
You need a public key, and modern wallets don't make their public key public (instead they make a hash public). They only reveal their public key when they spend the money, which gives you an average window of ten minutes to crack the key, but then you'd also have to somehow get the miners to acknowledge your transaction instead of the real one that came earlier. I don't know enough of the math involved to say how feasible it is, but I don't think it's easy.
There is also a lot of Bitcoin from the very early days stored in old insecure wallets. You could crack those. But if you do that then I think it'll take approximately one minute for panic to break out and the price to collapse because people can tell what you're doing.
I think the same panic would break out if you tried the double spending attack on modern wallets, though it'd be a bit more delayed.
Even if you did manage to get a few billion dollars out before the whole system collapses, is it legal? Can you really just declare that as profits of your hip startup, no questions asked? Seems tricky if you also want to recruit the experts you need to carry it out.
I think a Google or an IBM is better able to make money from quantum computing than a Bitcoin robbery outfit.

>>18119366
>Nick Land
She's still posting in every thread.

>>18121990
Nigger, that's a he. Not every Land mention relates to accfag, you schizo fuck

>>18122118
>Nigger, that's a he.

>>18121057
>I do think that blockchain is going to change the world in a lot of fundamental ways.
Yes, people have been saying that for a decade but there's still no fundamental use case where there isn't a better alternative data structure. The security aspect is what really matters not the degree of redundancy. Most of the security that comes from any blockchain approach ends up not solving issues in a way that doesn't create more issues and costs.

What I want to know is: are people investing into the myriad crypto coins with the belief that crypto will one day overtake cash currency? Or is just jumping from one hype coin to the next to pump then dump then run away? I've seen advertisements for a few crypto debit cards, but who's spending their ONE $2,000-worth Ethereum coin and on what? It's what I can't wrap my head around; I understand and appreciate the need for designating unique ownership fia NFTs, but the crypto itself confuses me. I haven't seen any argument for its practical use just yet outside of it making a few lucky fuckers insanely rich if they place their bets right.