ETH Cost for Daz NFT

Ascania

McGyver said:

I'm not sure why anyone would chose to name their chat service/social media site something that means disagreement or disharmony... from what I understand they started out as VoIP for gamers, but still... You'd think maybe "Harmony" or something upbeat if you are trying to sell it as something gamers might use to coordinate strategy for teams... I suppose it works if you eventually hope to become the next Facebook, then you can just tell your critics "Yo, the name literally means disagreement, confusion and strife... what else were you expecting?"

Now I'm starting to wonder if naming my meditation and inner tranquility app "Quarrel" was a good idea... I think "Altercation" would have been a much better name... oh well.

But as far as the spam is concerned... are we talking the salty synthetic pork product or the annoying crappy jerk based product?

"I asked one of the devs about this months ago and the answer I got was that it's because of the "discord" (see the definition posted by /u/rhelawyn) in the gaming community regarding which VOIP/chat program to use. There wasn't really one really good one, so they chose 'Discord' as the name for the VOIP to beat them all and get rid of the "discord". Don't know how true this is, but I feel like it makes sense." - Source

 

You'd think maybe "Harmony" or something upbeat if you are trying to sell it as something gamers might use to coordinate strategy for teams...

Then you don't know gamers. They generally are not enticed by tools named to sound like bad dating sites.

 

 

 

 

 

PerttiA

Ascania said:

McGyver said:

You'd think maybe "Harmony" or something upbeat if you are trying to sell it as something gamers might use to coordinate strategy for teams...

Then you don't know gamers. They generally are not enticed by tools named to sound like bad dating sites.

Why not give it a proper name then, "Bloodbath" to better reflect the users mindset? 

McGyver

Well, yeah, Harmony was a terrible example, but since a lot of gamers fancy military tactics or a military mindset, I wouldnt have necessarily chose something that implies disarray as the name, which sounds counter to what you were trying to achieve... Which was coordinating your teams, or was at the time they started (if what I heard was correct)... But it works as a name when you are not focusing on working together, and just general gaming... and definitely works if they are hoping to be the Facebook of VR Metastuff, then Discord is a perfect name... the only other better name for a company that wants to be another Facebook might be Dumpster Fire, but that might be a hard sell to investors... unless maybe if you spell it differently... "DmpztaFyer"...?

Actually there probably aren't a lot of names left that would imply coordination that haven't been copyrighted already... either by military contractors, or security technology companies, so in retrospect, it probably works just fine and since most people probably don't even know what the hell the word discord actually means, it probably won't confuse anyone.

WendyLuvsCatz

I thought it sounded like yanking one's chain 

pull dis cord 

UpL8Rendering

Mint price = 0.20 ETH

Gas fees estimated at 2.4 to 3.2 ETH

I must be doing something wrong.

 

frank0314

UpL8Rendering said:

Mint price = 0.20 ETH

Gas fees estimated at 2.4 to 3.2 ETH

I must be doing something wrong.

You don't show your working, when we do the calculation the gas fees come out at 0.000987 ETH

plasma_ring

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

Yes. My point is that "the usual way" is so prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to pursue that people are already giving up dealing with NFT theft on places like DeviantArt and shuttering their accounts because they're getting notifications that their entire galleries are being stolen. OpenSea is now refusing to honor takedown requests in favor of telling people to file a DMCA claim, which means their personal information can end up being sent to the person stealing their work. 

If NFTs become so mainstream that most social media sites have infrastructure for protecting NFT owners, what we will probably see is a copyright strike system similar to the one on YouTube, which throws plenty of false positives. There are relatively well-known YouTubers who have spent months trying to get their accounts back after a mistaken copyright flag, or who have been targeted by malicious claims YouTube didn't look deeper into. In most cases, a big enough account can make enough noise and get the strike cleared. It sometimes takes a lawsuit, if they have the money and time to pursue one. Most people don't. 

That would leave most people's realistic options at: accepting the risk that your own work will be flagged because someone else minted it as an NFT and you didn't, minting it as an NFT yourself before posting it, or not posting at all. Most of these flagging systems have not had enough work or money put into them to be accurate; they're meant to show that the company Did Something, as with Tumblr's NSFW ban completely missing most hardcore bot accounts and flagging SFW images. 

To be clear, the perfectly legal rent-seeking behavior in this case is not the person stealing the art (although the people stealing the art are unlikely to be stopped, punished, or prosecuted because they're operating at scale). It's the platform saying, "Oh, I see people are stealing your art! :( It's a good thing we have this blockchain setup here specifically designed to ensure you never have to worry about filing a DMCA takedown notice or having your art sold as an NFT without your permission. All you have to do is mint it right here on our site, and you can sell it as an NFT yourself. That will be $10-$70, please."

This is the core of every single pitch I've heard for why NFTs are supposedly good for small artists, and when small artists say, "I don't want to do that, actually, I want sites to give me the tools we've actually asked for to protect our work" the response tends to be, "Oh, don't worry! :) You'll be forced to when every site incorporates NFTs into everything." 

An NFT is not any kind of proof of copyright claim, so your penultimate paragraph makes no sense at all. The NFT itself doesn't steal your art, the promo page (and possibly the page the NFT points to) do.

I agree about the major drawback you point out with with the DMCA, that for individuals without a lawyer they involve exposing personal details, but that is a general issue and has no connection with NFTs.

One of the biggest issues I've found in trying to explain the problems with NFTs is that it involves refuting nonsensical claims that are ridiculous on their face, and talking about how they operate in grey areas where--for decades--bad actors have taken advantage of how slow and deliberative the law is around things like copyright to completely overwhelm it. So I also sound completely absurd. 

NFTs are not attempting to be a proof of copyright. The whole pitch is that copyright law is useless and NFTs are a replacement for it. 

Copyright law is often functionally useless to small artists because very few of us have the time, money, or connections to file paperwork or go to court to fight to get maybe one piece of art taken down when the art is being uploaded by bot networks with difficult to find owners. That is why, if an artist has had their work stolen and re-uploaded and resold enough that they can no longer keep up with it or their only option is to start filing DMCA claims, they will often just shut down their entire business or close their galleries because it's impossible to fight. 

A company like Disney has the ability to crush artwork theft with a lawsuit not only because they have money to keep fighting, but because the sites that host the stolen work are terrified of getting targeted themselves. They are not scared of me. They have the power to take down my stolen art without me filing a copyright claim, but it means they need to be willing to spend money on human moderators who can look at my obvious evidence of ownership and make a judgment call. Many sites are not willing to do this reliably, and so getting work taken down without expensive, time consuming legal action is hit or miss. Some artists have also seen art thieves file malicious counter-reports, and they got unlucky and whatever system was in place ruled in favor of the art thief. This can take weeks, months, or even years to untangle. And it does often involve exposing your personal information to someone who, on the other end, is completely anonymous and possibly malicious. 

If sites implement systems that determine who "owns" an image by checking against blockchain entries to see who minted it officially (again, I am taking NFT fans at their word that this is how NFTs will be able to protect artists' work!), and the person who minted it is not the original artist, the legal burden is still on the original artist to prove it's theirs by filing a copyright claim. In the meantime, their work will be down and their account will potentially be flagged and closed based on the number of "violations." They will be filing lots of paperwork and paying all the associated fees while the art thief is making money. 

Or they could pay OpenSea $50 once to never worry about it again. It is not illegal for OpenSea to offer that "protection." 

Another way to put it is that it's illegal to steal my bike, but I know very well that if it gets stolen the odds of me ever seeing it again or the thief ever being caught are like...a fraction of 1%. That's why I buy a bike lock. It's not illegal to sell me a bike lock; there are entire companies who do just that. If I don't want to buy a bike lock, I'm free to leave my bike unlocked and scream at the thief that it's illegal for them to do that and I plan to pursue legal action. NFTs are claiming they're the online, digital equivalent of a bike lock for your art.

The issue is that sites have had the ability to offer artists better protection for their bikes all along, and have refused to do it because it costs them money to worry about it. And now they're very, very jazzed about being able to offload that to someone who wants to sell bike locks, and the bike lock people are very, very jazzed about the potential to rebuild the entire internet around the assumption that you have bought one from them. Also, if I leave my proverbial bike unlocked in this scenario, someone else can just claim it's theirs because look! They bought a lock for it. :^)

Richard Haseltine

plasma_ring said:

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

Richard Haseltine said:

plasma_ring said:

frank0314 said:

And those people need to be prosecuted to the fullist extent of the law and made examples of for their theft in which would be a felony for 1 count.

There are plenty of cases in which this is perfectly legal, because it isn't technically theft. Ideally, copyright law defends people from having their art stolen and sold without their permission, but it doesn't protect them in a scenario where, say, NFTs become the most common method of granting digital access and the only way you can ensure that no one else charges for digital access to your work is to do it yourself. The person stealing your work is doing something illegal, but they're counting on you not being willing or able to spend the money or effort on taking them down. The third party that mints your NFT to prevent theft is profiting off you feeling the need to do that to avoid the hassle. 

Any time a for-profit venture aims to mainstream a method of dealing with a problem without actually solving the root cause of that problem, it's creating a situation that incentivizes never solving the problem in order to keep the profit opportunity alive. 

An NFT is not the art - it is, generally, a link to the art. In the case of selling a link to someone else's art the person may put up a copy of the art on the sale page, and that would be an infringement that could be pursued in the usual way.

Yes. My point is that "the usual way" is so prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to pursue that people are already giving up dealing with NFT theft on places like DeviantArt and shuttering their accounts because they're getting notifications that their entire galleries are being stolen. OpenSea is now refusing to honor takedown requests in favor of telling people to file a DMCA claim, which means their personal information can end up being sent to the person stealing their work. 

If NFTs become so mainstream that most social media sites have infrastructure for protecting NFT owners, what we will probably see is a copyright strike system similar to the one on YouTube, which throws plenty of false positives. There are relatively well-known YouTubers who have spent months trying to get their accounts back after a mistaken copyright flag, or who have been targeted by malicious claims YouTube didn't look deeper into. In most cases, a big enough account can make enough noise and get the strike cleared. It sometimes takes a lawsuit, if they have the money and time to pursue one. Most people don't. 

That would leave most people's realistic options at: accepting the risk that your own work will be flagged because someone else minted it as an NFT and you didn't, minting it as an NFT yourself before posting it, or not posting at all. Most of these flagging systems have not had enough work or money put into them to be accurate; they're meant to show that the company Did Something, as with Tumblr's NSFW ban completely missing most hardcore bot accounts and flagging SFW images. 

To be clear, the perfectly legal rent-seeking behavior in this case is not the person stealing the art (although the people stealing the art are unlikely to be stopped, punished, or prosecuted because they're operating at scale). It's the platform saying, "Oh, I see people are stealing your art! :( It's a good thing we have this blockchain setup here specifically designed to ensure you never have to worry about filing a DMCA takedown notice or having your art sold as an NFT without your permission. All you have to do is mint it right here on our site, and you can sell it as an NFT yourself. That will be $10-$70, please."

This is the core of every single pitch I've heard for why NFTs are supposedly good for small artists, and when small artists say, "I don't want to do that, actually, I want sites to give me the tools we've actually asked for to protect our work" the response tends to be, "Oh, don't worry! :) You'll be forced to when every site incorporates NFTs into everything." 

An NFT is not any kind of proof of copyright claim, so your penultimate paragraph makes no sense at all. The NFT itself doesn't steal your art, the promo page (and possibly the page the NFT points to) do.

I agree about the major drawback you point out with with the DMCA, that for individuals without a lawyer they involve exposing personal details, but that is a general issue and has no connection with NFTs.

One of the biggest issues I've found in trying to explain the problems with NFTs is that it involves refuting nonsensical claims that are ridiculous on their face, and talking about how they operate in grey areas where--for decades--bad actors have taken advantage of how slow and deliberative the law is around things like copyright to completely overwhelm it. So I also sound completely absurd. 

NFTs are not attempting to be a proof of copyright. The whole pitch is that copyright law is useless and NFTs are a replacement for it. 

Copyright law is often functionally useless to small artists because very few of us have the time, money, or connections to file paperwork or go to court to fight to get maybe one piece of art taken down when the art is being uploaded by bot networks with difficult to find owners. That is why, if an artist has had their work stolen and re-uploaded and resold enough that they can no longer keep up with it or their only option is to start filing DMCA claims, they will often just shut down their entire business or close their galleries because it's impossible to fight. 

A company like Disney has the ability to crush artwork theft with a lawsuit not only because they have money to keep fighting, but because the sites that host the stolen work are terrified of getting targeted themselves. They are not scared of me. They have the power to take down my stolen art without me filing a copyright claim, but it means they need to be willing to spend money on human moderators who can look at my obvious evidence of ownership and make a judgment call. Many sites are not willing to do this reliably, and so getting work taken down without expensive, time consuming legal action is hit or miss. Some artists have also seen art thieves file malicious counter-reports, and they got unlucky and whatever system was in place ruled in favor of the art thief. This can take weeks, months, or even years to untangle. And it does often involve exposing your personal information to someone who, on the other end, is completely anonymous and possibly malicious. 

If sites implement systems that determine who "owns" an image by checking against blockchain entries to see who minted it officially (again, I am taking NFT fans at their word that this is how NFTs will be able to protect artists' work!), and the person who minted it is not the original artist, the legal burden is still on the original artist to prove it's theirs by filing a copyright claim. In the meantime, their work will be down and their account will potentially be flagged and closed based on the number of "violations." They will be filing lots of paperwork and paying all the associated fees while the art thief is making money. 

Or they could pay OpenSea $50 once to never worry about it again. It is not illegal for OpenSea to offer that "protection." 

Another way to put it is that it's illegal to steal my bike, but I know very well that if it gets stolen the odds of me ever seeing it again or the thief ever being caught are like...a fraction of 1%. That's why I buy a bike lock. It's not illegal to sell me a bike lock; there are entire companies who do just that. If I don't want to buy a bike lock, I'm free to leave my bike unlocked and scream at the thief that it's illegal for them to do that and I plan to pursue legal action. NFTs are claiming they're the online, digital equivalent of a bike lock for your art.

The issue is that sites have had the ability to offer artists better protection for their bikes all along, and have refused to do it because it costs them money to worry about it. And now they're very, very jazzed about being able to offload that to someone who wants to sell bike locks, and the bike lock people are very, very jazzed about the potential to rebuild the entire internet around the assumption that you have bought one from them. Also, if I leave my proverbial bike unlocked in this scenario, someone else can just claim it's theirs because look! They bought a lock for it. :^)

I still don't see how an NFT would do anything there, let alone well enough to be irresistable. At best it would, pending site reorganisation, show that there was a URL that pointed to a certain artwork at a certain date (or, I supose, it could contain some kind of hashed key that was derived from the image at a certain date)

PerttiA

Richard Haseltine said:

I still don't see how an NFT would do anything there, let alone well enough to be irresistable. At best it would, pending site reorganisation, show that there was a URL that pointed to a certain artwork at a certain date (or, I supose, it could contain some kind of hashed key that was derived from the image at a certain date)

Also, how long have the URL's in the net stayed up? Take some links to information on MS products and or updates to them, or sites that you have visited over the years - How much is the NFT worth after someone pulls the plug of the server, where the URL is pointing at? 

UpL8Rendering

frank0314 said:

UpL8Rendering said:

Mint price = 0.20 ETH

Gas fees estimated at 2.4 to 3.2 ETH

I must be doing something wrong.

You don't show your working, when we do the calculation the gas fees come out at 0.000987 ETH

Maybe it's a Metamask thing. Attached below is what happens in MetaMask when I try to mint one.

I could "try anyway" but don't want to spend the gas and not have it go through.

UpL8Rendering

I figured out that I can't math. I always mess up some mundane detail like the decimal point. I thought I had already transferred the ETH I needed to my wallet. The amount available was .02 not .2 like I thought.

Hopefully minting one tonight!

AgitatedRiot

I can not believe you can't mention burning.

97 GWEI | Watch The Burn: EIP-1559 Real-Time ETH Burn Visualization for Ethereum

McGyver

In case anyone isn't familiar with "coin burning", it's when a cryptocurrency token is deliberately sent to an unusable wallet address to remove it from circulation.
This address, which is called a "burn address" or "eater address", can't be accessed by anyone or assigned to anyone.
Once a token is sent to a burn address, it's gone forever, locked away at that inaccessible address.
Anyone who owns any sort of cryptocurrency can burn it, but that's not really something you'd want to do for no reason, since you'd basically be throwing money away. 
The most common reason to burn coins is because the developers of a cryptocurrency decide to burn a certain amount to drive up the price. 
Coin burning reduces the supply, making tokens of that cryptocurrency scarcer.  
That scarcity can lead to an increase in price and benefit investors.

Its like when you burn a portion of your collection of celebrity skulls to make the others more valuable... no... wait... celebrity skulls are technically non-fungible... it more like when you dump your hoard of gold bars into the ocean to drive up the the price of gold... no...  that's not right either...

Sounds pretty shady actually now that I said all that...