Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Enjoyed this article on the topic by Matt Black of Ninja Tune / Coldcut / Jamm Pro fame
https://mattblack-ninja.medium.com/to-nft-or-not-to-nft-fd2acb019d49
In their current state, I don’t think NFTs are worthwhile regardless of the technology. (Well they’re worthwhile to the people currently making bank off them, but the serve no worthwhile purpose other than that, that I can see.)
Indeed, it is a weird concept. But seems like it can evolve to serve useful purposes. If not, yes, it’ll die.
Automobiles were similarly weird and somewhat ridiculous when first introduced as well. Go look at some of those funny videos of attempted early flying machines. Other speculative innovations have flopped spectacularly, never to succeed. So?
What in the heck is wrong with speculation? Only that some people end up losers I guess? Sheesh, the whole march of civilization has been led by speculation. Name me one useful innovation in medicine, technology, exploration, science ... that wasn’t speculative.
I’m not too sure how you mean cranky in this context, so I’ll leave that part alone.
I don’t believe you. If microwave ovens are so well shielded, why do they make you turn them off on aircraft during takeoffs and landings?
It’s not at all mysterious why blockchain is valuable. It’s the solution to a problem which had gone unsolved for a long, long time. The very fact that Bitcoin has now a greater than $1.1 trillion market cap is evidence a lot of people recognize the value of the blockchain and Bitcoin. If you are genuinely interested in finding answers, they’re out there waiting for you. Are you willing to do the research or are you committed to an intractable position of opposing something you don’t fully understand?
Wait. You take microwave owen with you into plane ?
You're right, there's nothing wrong with speculation
However in your earlier post you said that blockchain is a fact of life, and I'm simply asking why? Why is a distributed ledger better than a regular database? It's a genuine question, and one to which I haven't seen a convincing answer so far. Maybe that will change.
I've seen many of these theoretical arguments in favour of the trustless and decentralised system, this stuff is at the heart of Bitcoin. But my question is what are the actual benefits? How is this better than our existing financial system?
Does it protect us from scams, theft, or fraud? The answer is no, because Bitcoin has in its relatively short history already suffered two major hacking events where people have lost tens of millions of dollars (Mt. Gox hack and Bitfinex hack)
In fact with Bitcoin you can lose your money simply by making a typo when you send it somewhere.
In our existing banking system if you are the victim of fraud you have some recourse for compensation. I have had my credit card details stolen on two separate occasions, with hundreds of pounds spent by the scammers, and both times I simply reported the suspicious transactions to my bank who then cancelled the cards and reimbursed me in full. That's the benefit of having a central authority that is regulated: they have to take responsibility for their customers when they are the victims of crime.
With a decentralised system such as Bitcoin, there is no authority to turn to for help if you are the victim of fraud, you're on your own. So again, how is that actually better?
This post doesn't actually explain the benefits of blockchain though? What are they?
Do you have a link to it?
Happened 7+ years ago. This industry is now very different, haven't heard about any hack of major exchange like Coinbase or Binance in recent years. (no, Cryptopia really is not major exchange, it was always shit and that's why it died)
On other side goverment instututions, which are holding centralized data of citizens, are hacked all the time. Funny thing is, event this institution, which is supposed to take a care about security , was hacked in my country and their servers were compromised. https://www.nbu.gov.sk/en/index.html
Bitcoin itself was NOT hacked, and it is unlikely it ever will be. Hack of exchange and stealing stored private keys is something VERY different than hacking Bitcoin itself. As soon as you hold your private keys to your wallet in secret, nobody on earth, not even govorment using force, can take away your money from you. I personally, immedatialy after i buy bitcoin in exchange, i send it to my personal wallet, and thats it. I keep my keys secret.
Yeah i understand, many people rather sacrifice their freedom and privacy than to take full responsibility for own finance. Many people need to have authority above them, which is guarding their steps and protecting then before they do something stupid. I'm not that kind of person. I'm trying to get responsibility for all my decisions, even the bad ones.
So, my choice is obvious - if i can choose i will manage my money for myself not relying on some third party authority watching me and compensating me if i make dumb mistake - because this turns agains you when you don't expect it. It happened multiple times (even in so-called democratic coutries) that people's access to their money stored in banks was blocked, or money were even took away from them by centralised authority (typically by government). Or they were not allowed to do some transaction (even if it doesn't violate any law) just because some bank decided based on some internal rules they are refusing to do that transaction with "your" money (happened to me and to few people i know)
So for me that's one of advantages of decentralisation - i don't need to rely on any authority, i'm completely in charge over my money and nobody can control it, or even to know how many money i have.
If this is not major advantage for you (obviously it is not), i understand, but it doesn't mean it is not huge advantage for other people. So everything you can say about Bitcoin is it doesn't have any advantages FOR YOU. You have to accept it has huge advantage for other people.
Now, we can return back to energy consumption. It concerns you mostly because you don't see any advantage of Bitcoin. So really your point of view it's wasting. I understand it.
Problem is - it's your subjective point of view. I see it highly effective because for me Bitcoin has huge benefit worth the pay the price of it's network.
What concerns me are billions of dirty money laundered by banks, huge amount of electricity and other resources wasted on banking system. So what's now ? Nothing. We both should just accept the system, which is used by other people.
Sorry Richard, completely forgot to post the link
https://mattblack-ninja.medium.com/to-nft-or-not-to-nft-fd2acb019d49
Thanks
@dendy Bitfinex was hacked in 2015 and 2016, not ancient history.
Also, if you are the victim of crime, this is not necessarily due to some bad decision you made. You can behave responsibly and still be a target for criminals. To say to people who have been defrauded by criminals that it's because they have somehow done something wrong is idiotic. To design an entire financial infrastructure around that premise is even worse.
You say that you don't want to surrender your freedom to authority, so instead you surrender to blind technology in the hope that it will somehow be less corrupt. But technology is designed by humans, and is as fallible as any other human endeavour.
No, don’t.
It’s irrelevant to this thread, I personally don’t care about energy, it has nothing to do with the original premise of the thread, which was – what do we know about NFTs.
Bitcoin is outside the scope of that, and by extension, energy discussions too.
You really don't understand that 5-6 years in such rapidly evolving industry is like ages ? Try register now on any current major exchange. Level of security is very high (including two factor verification). Those companies are periodicaly audited and are performing period security penetration tests. You have no idea how much is situation different in 2021 compared to 2015.
Ironically bigest security risk of current excahnges is becasue of KYC, which was forced to them by government. Now they had to store personal data of users including ID-cards. For this they are using third party companies certified by goverments. And it already happened that there was personal data stored from this third party companies and sold on black market.
So - always bigges issue of decentralized system is when goverment and central authority is trying to add some more "security" into it
Btw., so you're saying that centralized banks system are safer, yes ?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/11/new-zealands-central-bank-says-its-systems-have-been-hacked
In most countries that is called tax evasion, and is against the law. This is not a technological discussion, but (once again) a highly ideological one. You're saying you like Bitcoin because it helps you hide your money from the state, just like the criminals and money launderers.
Energy is relevant to the discussion of NFTs though, since that has been one of the main objections raised by artists. Minting NFTs uses a lot of energy, at least currently.
I understand, i don't opened this topic. I just need to react when i see missinformation and misunderstanding on some topic which i'm involved for years, that's all. I already proposed to create new thread about cryptoccurency and bitcoin in general if more people are interested in this branch of discussion
No that's not what I am saying - any entity can be hacked, but the Bitcoin ecosystem is not immune, so what's the advantage of this decentralised ledger?
No it's not. I didn't say nothing about avoiding paying taxes. I have no problem to pay taxes on capital gains (ok i have problem with taxes in general, i'm considering them to be stealing, but thats different topic). I have problem with my money being in control of private company (bank) or any goverment centralized institution (central bank). I have big problem with monitoring of all my purchases by third party authority.
Thats huge difference. I pay taxes, so yes, taxman knows what were my incomes. But that's all. Nobody other (especially not private company) should be interested in how many money i have and especially nobody should be capable to take my money away from me just because some politician decides that it is good thing to take away all your savings which are above some arbitrary treshold (which happened few years ago in Malta for example). Or any third party authority shouldn't be capable of avoding me spend my money just because of their internal arbitrary rules, even through i'm not breaking any law.
Bitcoin system is absolutely immune. That's point of decentralised ledger. Centralised excange is just point where Bitcoin ecosistem does necessary contact with fiat system. As soon as you don't need this contact, you don't need take a care about centralized exchanges issues.
It's no coincidence - I reckon the Venn diagram of Bitcoin advocates who also share your view on taxes shows a big overlap
A system is only as strong as its weakest link. Centralised exchanges are going to be a necessity as long as people need to trade.
For your info - there are also decentralised exchanges where you have complete control over your private keys, so you are not giving access to your money to third party authority. So yeah, in some way you're right, centralised exchanges are necessary evil need mostly for backward compatibility with old obsolete banking / fiat system. It's golden rule of all people in crypto "not your keys, not your coins" - holding money away from centralised exchanges is one of security rules. Centralised exchanges are not much more safer than banks, obviously because of they are centralised
But stating that is Bitcoin / blockchain technology any better than traditional centralised banking system just because in theory centralised exchange can be hacked, is so absurd, that i even don't want waste my time to continue discussing this topic anymore.
My goal is to be paid for my job in crypto - when i manage to do this, i immediately cancel all my bank accounts and will hold all my money crypto-only. To avoid being exposed to this weak point.
But it's not theory, it's reality. Bitcoin wallets have been hacked, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Advocates love the theory, critics look at the reality. 🤷♂️
Wallets get hacked, people lose their keys - the system is as flawed as any other system designed and/or run by humans.
To the believers the system is perfect and flawless, beyond criticism. But is that realistic?
Actually they’re not, that’s what DeFi is all about.
DeFi is made possible by DApps, which are made possible by Smart Contracts (typically on Ethereum, but not limited to that blockchain (but nothing to do with Bitcoin), and that is the essential mechanism behind NFTs.
How is that better than a standard common law contract though? We have centuries of contract law behind us - how is this system better? Does it protect from scams, no: NFTs are riddled with scams (people stealing artwork and selling as their own, wallets being hacked etc). None of this stuff replaces the existing legal system in any meaningful way. It's a solution in search of a problem.
Why should anything replace something else entirely? It's all about an alternative, not a replacement. It's come out of a need for different options. No one is saying anything is infallible
A blockchain or distributed ledger has a few qualities that are useful, and possibly future databases might themselves encompass these aspects too, I wouldn’t be surprised.
The two concepts of immutability and consensus. Once an entry on a blockchain exists it can’t be unwritten or modified, and also in order to become an entry on a blockchain enough other nodes must supply consensus that it is a valid block entry.
If a distributed spreadsheet could do this (and I don’t really see why it can’t in the future) it might well turn out to be useful and taken for granted that of course it works like blockchain. The particular type of plumbing behind blockchain isn’t overly glamorous but it does solve a few problems that cropped up a few decades ago when digital money was being talked about a lot but wasn’t implemented widely.
I don’t want to bang on about using blockchain for money as I’m really not interested in that aspect of it but, historically, a few quite good research ideas got off the ground early on for tokenisation of value to represent money. I studied some of this sort of thing when I did my MSc. Tokenisation of currencies can occur in history (outside of technology) for various reasons – when a nation’s currency loses the trust of the people (either politically or due to rife forgeries, clipping, etc); when a village or area decides it should run it’s own currency for whatever reasons; amusement arcades and casinos don’t use money but their own types of token; and even my old Oyster card is a stored-value card which I can put fiat money on but not as easily take fiat money out of (it would if I could just wave my Oyster and buy what the developers called ‘purse value’ items, such as magazines, coffee, but that facility never came to pass).
A big prob with those early digital cash initiatives was verification – could someone else ‘supply’ the digital cash in a fraudulent way? Either by, for example, arranging a double-spend (through various ways, eg time delaying transactions to allow a further spend before the (soon to be realised as invalid) transaction rolled back, but by then the perp has got the goods and is over the hills); or by even bigger means, by ‘faking’ the entire bank of the chosen token, to make it seem as though they are the legitimate store of currency and the real one is not (the 51% problem, which is still a concern in blockchains today, but is generally overcome). The verification would be solved by consensus and the reason for consent would be immutability of successive block entries and also basing those entries on the hash product of preceding entries. I mean, this is simplifying it all almost uselessly, but those two things dropped into place the opportunity for a digital value system that could actually be used properly into the future.
Obviously the first use was for money, as that’s part of the impetus that drove the development, but soon after it became generalisable to other forms of value beyond just money, such as certification of authenticity. That’s the interesting thing for me, as it opens the door to traceability, and while the links to how it fits into the art and creative world are nebulous at the moment, and I consider all the fuss about big money being made by selling NFTs a bit of an in-group joke, when all that dies down, NFTs are probably going to be more useful to us than any legacy ‘record industry’ framework of how to implement contracts; rights; copyright; royalties; etc. Same with the visual arts and other arts. That’s the thing that interests me.
Sure, fair point. (although I think you will find that many Bitcoiners do indeed think it's infallible). It's possible, even likely, that something useful will emerge out of all of this. I'm just not seeing it right now
If we stay on-topic: do NFTs provide something tangibly useful? It certainly seems to be up for debate, and I'm currently deeply sceptical. Time will tell eventually. I'm happy to be wrong though.
So if we take this concept and apply it only to NFTs (ignoring the digital money side), what value does it provide? It still has to run on trust somehow, because there is no obvious way to prove ownership outside of the blockchain - anyone can mint an NFT of the Mona Lisa for example, or steal someone else's work to claim as their own. Just because there is a record in the ledger doesn't really mean anything if that record has no legal weight behind it.
For me this is one of the central flaws of the entire discussion: the blockchain is an attempt to create legal structures through technology rather than the state, but how can these be enforced?
Yep, all true.
Then again, the legal system is entirely based on precedent and consensus of the value of that precedent, the whole jurisprudence thing is surprisingly floaty.