NFT is not good idea

Community General Discussion
21

I never said that ?!?! Crypto is decentralized as you know. POS or POW, does not really matter to the subject of this thread either and the discussion was if JimmyJoy collectible digital art in the form of an NFT was a good idea or not. I personally think it is a great idea and stand by that opinion.

The biggest brands in the world have embraced collectible digital art in the form of NFTs so it makes sense for JimmyJoy to do that too as it is more environmentally friendly than promoting your brand using stickers and cotton T-Shirts…

22

Let’s refocus then.

The core of that discussion is: “Should a company that uses heavy talking points around sustainability and that actively target the vegan, environmentally-aware community, use a technology (NFT) based on a framework that is not currently environmentally-friendly (Ethereum).”
This is what my reply was about.

I wish folks at JimmyJoy would have been patient and wait for the migration of Ethereum to PoS, or the Cardano NFT. That would have been a completely different discussion.

2 Likes
23

Well, I want to explain why I’m not agree with that movement.
The point is:
Jimmyjoy wants to give something of value to customers as Koningsbruggen said.

I wanna say first that the time to stop a dissaster is at beginning, and this is now. Put in the balance the goods of give to your customers something ethereal
and the possibility to start something that can grow without control and be a danger to earth.
Can you bet your life or dearest that NFT will not damage the envioronment? If only one possibility exists and you ignore it you’re part of the problem.
No matter if in the future you say “I had wrong information, I listened wrong people” How much damage are acceptable? More than 0 is a bad response.

I’m not vegan, I’m not aware about CO2 in my day to day. I started to eat shakes of ■■■■■■■ ← "the first name of the company. Why is censored?"at 02/2016, before buying I read a lot because did not trust. And I was gaining confidence in the company. The company has a message of sustainable that I don’t care really. If the bags change size is because is better for environment. If the food goes vegan, is better for the planet. If the formula change, the same. All right, that’s good and I don’t need to make nothing,and, I can make nothing very well.
What happend when the company ignore the possibility to make huge or only very little damage? Well, simply what I lose all trust in them. Now I cannot know how much things are liars. And in this case is different, now if I make nothing, I’m supporting the action, I’ll I would belong to the team of the company, and this is not good.

Now, ask your customers if they wanna be part of NFT. If they wanna start something that can be dangerous, and NFT is dangerous now. If your customers say “NO, I don’t want be part of this”. The point of give something of value dissappear. Although, what’re you doing? How many customers does it take to be heard?

NFT has a value based on artificial oddity. But NFT is that “0xe123628f9d88072758fb01632f484d445f4cbe11e4d350b59cabc58cb6fbb1f3”
What represent this? Represent that you are 1/10 owner of that token in the chain. Right?
No image, not pretty. And, the token is generated from the copy that you send to the server “formdata folks”, but no matters.
Where is the image and the info? In opensea. Yes, you’re in a platform like Twitter, here you don’t have the advantages of blockchain, is simply a web with an item linked to blockchain. Magic dissappears here. Why the platform is out of this discussion? Because it changes everything. Is the platform who has the content, the token only verify that all is correct.
What happend if opensea.io close? You have a long string, content is gone. Value = 0.
Much better a tweet with the image and @yourhappycustomer here.

Koningsbruggen mix Cryptocurrencies to argue why NFT are good but didn’t said nothing about the platform. All beneficts of cryptos are not in NFT.
NFT is the tool used to speculate, make money fast. We’re not talking about art, future, progress or nothing good, NFT is money, avarice, bussiness. The same things that caused a climate big problem.

I will not respond to any user that uses very offensive language and will ignore them. I am sorry that no moderator interceded when the situation occurred.

I canceled my subs and was not easy, I really like eat shakes and I need to because I have a strange disease and shakes help me a lot. Now, I need to search for an alternative. Thanks for all this years.

1 Like
24

There are still alternative feeless solutions that could overcome all these challenges - I have huge hopes for NFT implementation with IOTA.

1 Like
25

The fact that it’s apparently permitted on this forum to call people with environmental concerns “smelly tree-hugging hippie sh*t” is also a bit alarming

OMG, In this forum is allowed to call other people “tree-hugging”! UNACCEPTABLE!! TRIGGERED!

I thought this was a safe space where non of my beliefs would be questioned in any way!! CANCEL, CANCEL, CANCEL.

:joy: :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy:

1 Like
26

I wanna say first that the time to stop a dissaster is at beginning, and this is now.

There is no such disaster. You are taking things out of proportion.

can grow without control and be a danger to earth.

No.

Can you bet your life or dearest that NFT will not damage the envioronment? If only one possibility exists and you ignore it you’re part of the problem.

Your answer on this forum on this server damages the environment.

How many customers does it take to be heard?

I would hope that more than just a couple of uninformed ones.

money, avarice, bussiness. The same things that caused a climate big problem.

Sure, progress is disgusting. If we were all living in caves, then the climate problem would be smaller.

I canceled my subs and was not easy, I really like eat shakes and I need to because I have a strange disease and shakes help me a lot. Now, I need to search for an alternative. Thanks for all this years.

Bye

1 Like
27

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But, remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:

  • Name-calling.
  • Ad hominem attacks.
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
  • Knee-jerk contradiction.

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

Always Be Civil

Nothing sabotages a healthy conversation like rudeness:

  • Be civil. Don’t post anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.
  • Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit.
  • Respect each other. Don’t harass or grief anyone, impersonate people, or expose their private information.
  • Respect our forum. Don’t post spam or otherwise vandalize the forum.

These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of the New York Times.

This is a public forum, and search engines index these discussions. Keep the language, links, and images safe for family and friends.

2 Likes
28

I guess sarcarsm is also not allowed either, even it does not break any of the mentioned rules.

It’s fine though. I’ll go back to my chambers to amend for my sins. May the lord open!

download

1 Like
29

I’m gonna skip past all the arguing and just add a +1 to the anti-NFT vote.

4 Likes
30

Jimmy joy ships things to me on a regular basis to keep me fed, usually with so much extra air that it needs to be padded to keep the product intact during shipping. I loved the incidental bonus things I’ve received in existing shipments, but these were shipments that needed to happen either way, so the whole “shipping costs more CO2 than POW mining” is nonsense.

The whole reason I don’t like the most common implementations is exactly BECAUSE I’ve looked into it quite a bit. And no, this is not some recent thing, I’ve disliked the worse than linear scaling of these technologies since at least the last few times Etherium promised to switch to POS (must’ve been… 2015 or something? When is soon™ exactly?). I’ve seen too many variations on “you must not know anything about crypto, because you are critical of the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. Here’s an article from a CEO that earns his money selling crypto”.

The “only surplus energy” argument is nonsense, because any increase in power demands requires more infrastructure than if it wasn’t used by miners, and there are plenty of better ways to deal with spikes in energy production that coincide with dips in power usage. At least if these mining setups where doing something useful like doing protein folding simulations or something, there would be an argument for the computations being acceptable. But no, we’re doing all kinds of variations of calculating hashes that have no further value beyond the next block they might represent.

And it’s not even just the energy usage, but it’s not even surprising to see the cost of GPUs drop exactly at the same time as a bunch of new crypto currency regulation is announced. These unregulated currencies spike so often that hardware keeps going in and out of profitability messing with the entire supply chain. I’m not going to claim we wouldn’t have had supply chain issues without miners, but they definitely made it worse. Those spikes in demand for hardware from miners also result in more REAL mining of precious metals than necessary, especially because the hardware is used so intensely, and the amount of hardware production required so volatile, that you end up with more precious materials going to e-waste in a shorter amount of time, instead of being available for hardware that’s actually useful.

And it’s not like any of the reported benefits of NFTs are actually unique to a blockchain setup. Worse, many NFT marketplaces and exchanges act like such centralized hubs (because convenience), that the whole decentralization aspect of it is incredibly diminished. And while there’s often talk of “yeah, but royalties are automatically given to original authors, etc etc” among other uses of ‘smart contracts’, I’ve yet to get a proper reply from anyone as to what actually stops anyone from republishing work outside of the blockchain without respecting their existing contracts, any more than centralized systems do.

You already have a centralized system here: these forums, your store. This is also where your time traveler status is established, so any trinket system might just as well use these existing systems, with orders of magnitude higher efficiency than any POW blockchain can manage at scale.

Unless the goal is actually to hope for giant spikes in value for these trinkets, in an as of yet unregulated way.

But I have no interest in contributing to the usage of these POW backed systems, regardless of whether or not people are doing this anyway. Just like there’s no need for me to resort to insults, just because some people are already doing that in the posts above anyway.

  • A Timetraveler
3 Likes
31

Looks like a fun can of worms in this thread.

+1 to NFT/New technology/Trying something new.

I don’t own any NFTs, I really struggle to understand the idea of a digital asset being worth something when it can be 100% replicated - but at the same time I don’t see why a specific painting is worth so much money either (just because some famous person just so happened to touch the canvas). Hours put into digital art for me = hours put into physical art, so although I don’t “get” NFTs, I can see how people do.

I see Jimmy Joy as a great R&D company - trying out new concepts and challenging the norms (I mean, come on, food traditionally wasn’t made by mixing powders with water right? (lets ignore bread here)). I also see Jimmy Joy changing their opinions based on new research over time (v1.0 gas vs v2.0 no gas, etc). I have faith that you’re all looking out for the best and inform yourselves as best possible when things change. Keep it up, and keep going forward. Fear of change won’t get us anywhere.

1 Like
32

I didn’t see anyone using the argument “Change == bad” in this thread. Rather: “Current proposal has significant problems”.

2 Likes
33

since at least the last few times Etherium promised to switch to POS (must’ve been… 2015 or something? When is soon™ exactly?)

It is clearly indicated as 2022. Maybe you did not read so much about it after all.

At least if these mining setups where doing something useful like doing protein folding simulations or something, there would be an argument for the computations being acceptable.

You do not define what is useful or not.

I’ve yet to get a proper reply from anyone as to what actually stops anyone from republishing work outside of the blockchain without respecting their existing contracts, any more than centralized systems do.

Nobody claimed that NFTs stop people from republishing work outside the blockchain so the question that you ask is nonsensical.

But I have no interest in contributing to the usage of these POW backed systems

Do not purchase NFTs then. Simple.

1 Like
34

It is clearly indicated as 2022. Maybe you did not read so much about it after all.

What I’m saying is that I’m skeptical about their ability to successfully transition by that time, because they’ve been talking about this for years already.

You do not define what is useful or not.

My definition of whether or not something is useful is most definitely relevant when it comes to my opinion of whether or not it’s worth spending computation resources on it. But even beyond my opinion, validating transactions + folding proteins for research is automatically MORE useful than only validating transactions.

Nobody claimed that NFTs stop people from republishing work outside the blockchain so the question that you ask is nonsensical.

If they don’t, the non-fungible part of NFT starts losing its purpose. A smart contract that only applies to identifiers inside of its own ecosystem is more of a hope than an actual contract.

Do not purchase NFTs then. Simple.

It would be nice if it was that simple. But I also have to indicate to companies that I give money to on a regular basis that I’m not a fan of the systems they intend to use, so they have a chance to pivot to something more productive.

2 Likes
35

It is first of all fantastic to see the engagement on this topic and as expected the opinions could not be further from each other on this.

The main point here from the Jimmy Joy stance is as per Joey’s reply, as we are into the latest technology for the greater good of people and the planet, we thought to try something new.

Without going too far into the discussions going on, the bottom line for us is that we’ve given it a fair chance within the reasons we had to do this, and there was a lot of positive feedback, but as with all changes, not everyone agrees and we are happy to see those as well, we’re all learning, always.

And to close off with Joey’s quote: “As said the NFT seemed like a nice way to communicate our appreciation for some of our most loyal customers in a futurist way but we’re not married to continuing them.”

Thank you all for your participation in this, positive and negative! <3

1 Like
36

Blockquote My definition of whether or not something is useful is most definitely relevant when it comes to my opinion of whether or not it’s worth spending computation resources on it.

It is very common to make statements as if they were facts to try shift the narrative. Opinions lacking solid arguments to support them are not relevant for the discussion.

Blockquote validating transactions + folding proteins for research is automatically MORE useful than only validating transactions.

Even accepting that statement for the debate’s sake, the fact that there are better ways to use the servers does not make NTFs or other blockchains useless. And following that argument, this server where we now discuss would also be more useful if it was dedicated to that task too. Apply that to almost anything.

Blockquote If they don’t, the non-fungible part of NFT starts losing its purpose. A smart contract that only applies to identifiers inside of its own ecosystem is more of a hope than an actual contract

Sure, many of the initiatives related to blockchains are fueled on hope. Hope to design an infrastructure better for the world. It is as we critized e-mail in 1985 because almost nobody could be reached by that via. Things get time to improve, to adjust, to settle.

Blockquote It would be nice if it was that simple. But I also have to indicate to companies that I give money to on a regular basis that I’m not a fan of the systems they intend to use, so they have a chance to pivot to something more productive.

Please, the relation between Jimmy Joy and NFTs is purely anecdotal. It has nothing to do with their main business. Just a gimmick. Taking things completely out of proportion is something we see constantly happening by people that claim to be worried about the planet.

1 Like
37

Sigh, here we go again.

Then I suggest you start using solid arguments.
I’ll attempt to clarify mine for you: the usefulness depends on the goals, which are inherently based on opinion. The issue is twofold:

  1. I don’t think NFT is particularly effective at achieving its own goals of decentralization and paying those who contributed non-token value (e.g.: art), for the reasons outlined above.
  2. I don’t think the remaining goals (boom/bust cycle based “let’s hope we get rich”) are worth the cost, especially because the cost is paid by third parties and future us. This part is inherently related to opinion.

No, the uselessness was already the starting point because of the previous arguments, my suggestion was merely a way to redeem blockchains.

Hope is not an effective planning strategy. It is nice for motivation, but hope alone cannot fix the technical issues with blockchain.

No, I’m criticizing it because if it reaches the scale that email has, we’re in a worse situation than with trusted parties (e.g.: central servers) because of the exponential costs of scaling Proof of Work blockchain. And NFT doesn’t even work without trusted central platforms. So it is the worst of both worlds.

It based on their previous statement of intent. It’s good to see them reconsidering after this very thread.

The only thing that is out of proportion is the (lack of) contribution of NFT to society, relative to its energy usage.

3 Likes
38

Sigh, here we go again.

Yes, here we go again. This is an open forum. If you do not like your position to be questioned you know where the door is.

my suggestion was merely a way to redeem blockchains.

No true. You were trying to plant the idea that the resources used of NTFs should be better used for folding proteins, as if that is what would happen if they did not exist. This argument is no only false, but it could also be applied to any money/resource used in the world. It can always be used for something better. This fallacious argument was detected and deactivated.

Hope is not an effective planning strategy. It is nice for motivation, but hope alone cannot fix the technical issues with blockchain.

I did not say that hope would fix technical issues. In the lack of a counterargument, you resort to the classical strawman fallacy, attacking a position hold by no one. Useless noise to the conversation. If you want to know how the blockchains are technically evolving to deal with the problems they face, there is plenty of information out there.

No, I’m criticizing it because if it reaches the scale that email has, we’re in a worse situation than with trusted parties (e.g.: central servers) because of the exponential costs of scaling Proof of Work blockchain

In this case you portrait a situation in the future where NTFs are ubiquitous but yet you leave out the transition from PoW to PoS because it suits your position better. Another dishonest argument.

The only thing that is out of proportion is the (lack of) contribution of NFT to society, relative to its energy usage.

LOL. False. There can be X amount of things out of proportion, you do not get to dictate how many. As a tactic to avoid assessing you reaction level in regards to the extremely tiny involvement of JimmyJoy in NFTs, is really weak.

1 Like
39

It’s just…

…Projection.

And in some cases it feels like you haven’t even read what I wrote above:

I find your replies uninteresting, irrelevant, and exhausting. That’s where the sigh comes from.

I have read plenty of it, I have described my position based on that knowledge, and all I get back is self congratulatory stuff like:

instead of arguments.

It’s about the involvement, not the exact amount of contribution. “I only did a little bit of [insert bad thing here]” wouldn’t be a good look either. Therefore worth bringing up.

2 Likes
40

NFT is a waste of time and energy

2 Likes