|
NoneMoreNegative posted:
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
mystes posted:I like that it's "calibrated for beginners" like some sort of videogame difficulty setting. *loses entire life savings to UltraScamCoin*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:also how does the ownership rights of an ape nft image deal with an animator making a dozen variations of it for animating? is that like art forgery or something? i'm assuming TRAF here basically falls under BAYC, since they mention it in the tags at the bottom of that youtube screenshot? if so, then unless some other provisions apply for this variation of dumb ape art, then it does not actually appear that buying an nft entails any transfer of IP rights, as the BAYC terms and conditions posted elsewhere (maybe just in the grey forum thread, i forget) state that the buyer gains a license (in essence just a right to use the company's IP under certain conditions and for certain purposes). more importantly, this license isn't even defined as being exclusive or irrevocable, so for all you know BAYC might at some point decide to withdraw or alter the license, or decide that it's fine if someone other than the person/wallet with the nft does anything with the IP - or at least isn't worth the bother of any legal action anyway does anyone have any idea what the legal concept is behind buying this episode? i went to the bit.ly link and it told me nothing except that somehow at the time of writing it has 211 owners. are you supposed to be entitled to a cut of whatever revenue it might make, or be able to decide in any way on how this IP is used, or is it simply another case of "idiot people are expected to be willing to pay massive amounts of money for this for no remotely sensible reason whatsoever, so you'd better get in on it right now if you want to get rich"?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
RPATDO_LAMD posted:it's an nft, you aren't actually buying the episode or any legal device related to the episode to wit: Main Paineframe posted:a percentage of streaming revenue will be distributed to owners...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Wachter posted:This screenshot taken today
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Computer Serf posted:https://c4ss.org/content/55643 i guess it's all right if a few dozen or even a few hundred people with roughly equal shares get into a DAO, your vote might still carry some weight then and you could even conceivably lobby among the other shareholders for any particular decision, but good flippin' luck having any meaningful impact on what happens to a DAO if everyone else actually does end up buying in and your vote is just one among tens of thousands if not more, or - and this is obviously more likely yet - the majority of votes is controlled either by a handful of big-money investors or simply the actual DAO's creators themselves and if they don't think that'll happen to lefty initiatives if those initiatives actually stand to generate money as the article helpfully highlights, well, lol it also has a twitter screenshot of someone identifying as a "blockchain socialist" who's really excited about crypto for the labour movement because with regular currency the government can just seize unions' money if it wants to. apparently the fear of government interference is why crypto and DAOs appeal more to these people than boring old NGOs and crowdfunding services, but i wonder what they believe will actually happen if such a union needs to spend money after it's converted its regular currency to crypto, or when a poor oppressed Ethiopian farmer needs to buy something with the crypto a bunch of white people from the other side of the Atlantic sent him also, from the same article: quote:Web3: A broad field, still being defined, but gesturing towards a decentralized internet where users control their data
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2021 13:22
|
|
maybe it’s a system for scamming people but what if you used it for good!? 
|
Shame Boy posted:did i miss this getting posted somehow because i feel like i'd remember it if it was posted it's like some sort of unholy crypto-themed real-life version of tropico but exclusively for the absolute worst of the worst among new money alive today also: "look at the quality of this 3d animation!" also also: "crypto [something] crypto [something] crypto crypto etc. etc." also also also: "welcoin" it's all too idiotic to be real, yet, somehow, simultaneously too idiotic to be satire i don't like this steve jobs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
what kind of creature would write a sentence like "war is something we will always avoid because it does not align with our values"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:make your own research
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
lih posted:even in that set of seven you can see a bunch have the same melted face, and two have the same red & black rocks skin, and two have the same weird glasses with mouths
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:i'm the rare, suspicious "non-valuable tokens" Hammerite posted:I propose an alternative model for identifying scam tokens, which consists of answering "yes, it is a scam" every time
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
at last, the blockchain has solved the age-old problem of two wrongs not making a right
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:so presumably hacking a bitcoin exchange is illegal. all the "code is law" proselytising notwithstanding, at the end of the day the people who've acquired crypto currencies or nfts or whatever's being traded via the blockchain by exploiting vulnerabilities in smart contracts (i do so hate that term) do not have any valid legal title to their newfound wealth. nobody had actually intended them to make off with all those assets without any kind of recompense. think of it like this: if you build your own house but you are a complete idiot or lunatic and you end up not adding any locks to your door whatsoever, and someone then walks in and takes anything of value from your house, is that person liable in terms of criminal and/or civil law? the answer is obviously "yes", and i see no reason whatsoever to treat anything related to the blockchain differently (even if everything to do with the blockchain is monumentally stupid and i wish it would all simultaneously explode) as for rug pulls, that's just plain fraud. you start out by making these promises and then absconding with all money or other assets people have given you based on those promises. you might be able to construe a more-or-less valid legal argument that you've done nothing wrong if you actually had not said anything at all about what you were offering or going to do after people had started buying, and if you actually did provide buyers with the assets they could reasonably have expected to receive, and if those assets may be used in whatever fashion the buyers may reasonably have expected, but that's never the case with these rug pulls, is it? it's always "BUY NOW AND FAME AND FORTUNE AND A SHITE GAME AWAIT YOU" and then after the initial sale suddenly everyone finds that the entire project is dead and all money has been drained from its pool and nobody else has any interest whatsoever in whatever you paid for. the key question is basically: were these people deceived? even if the rug puller miraculously had no evil intentions, the buyers would most likely still be entitled to nullify the underlying contract and be refunded if they had specifically been moved to buy the assets because of incorrect representation by the rug puller (i.e. if they would not have decided to buy had the rug puller truthfully said "oh after the initial offering i'll be moving to liechtenstein under a new name so don't expect your [whatever] to be worth anything or useful for anything this time next week")
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 13:05
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:basically no court is going to accept that a bunch of idiots have discovered the one weird trick to throwing out literal centuries of common law to avoid the jurisdiction of said court. v. much looking forward to how that one case will turn out with the guy openly admitting to stealing a bunch of crypto so that he'll be taken to court and Soylent Pudding posted:How long before someone hacks starlink to mine the Hitler dog coin?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Hammerite posted:what exactly is "open" about it? why is it "open" also Escape From Noise posted:Look, it's an investment. uh, actually i'm investing in my future as the destitute laughing stock of the family, dad
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:By the surly beard of Grift, Gripnr steals from all man!! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
The Rugging DAO-lites
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
DOGE Another Day
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
it's like the most absurdly roundabout, least equitable and hilariously unintended beginnings of a communist revolution
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2022 14:03
|
|
|
99.8% ayes i'm not sure whether it's funnier to believe that it's all fixed and in actuality less democratic than north korea so that solend can do whatever the hell it wants, or that all the other whales actually overwhelmingly voted against one of their own, paving the way for their own liquidations if such ever proves convenient to solend and smalltime solana-holders
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Don't get too excited his replacement was hired into squenix in 2020 from a buzzword factory.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2023 22:33
|
|
