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
I’m not going to spend a lot of time replying as I’m exhausted, tired all day, because I had my AZ Covid-19 jab yesterday and I’m knackered today.
Nevertheless, bitcoin is a distraction in this conversation because Bitcoin only has one use, and that is as a money. If you’re interested in the money side of cryptocurrency, then yes, bitcoin is the only way to go, all the others follow it, and all the other little cryptos are ultimately not worth the bother if all you want is a cryptocurrency. It’s unfortunate that bitcoin is proof-of-work (because that was the first way of implementing it), but soon all the bitcoins will have been mined, so the main POW consumption will be transaction fees. Bitcoin, remember, is fungible, just like pound coins – 1 bitcoin is the same as another bitcoin, same as £1 coin is the same as another £1 coin (or small change amounting to the same £1).
But, NFTs are not about cryptocurrency (obviously it’s all bundled together by the casual observer). NFTs could in theory have nothing to do with money or value.
One of the things I was trying to develop a few years ago was a business idea involving blockchain identity (mine wasn’t the only attempt). Currently, blockchain conferences are attended (well, pre-2020 they were) by business representatives almost completely uninterested in the currency aspect of blockchain, but rather, authenticity and prevention of counterfeiting in supply chains, of even the most mundane products. (I had a conversation with someone I met on a train one morning, he was a bit lost so I directed him to the platform he wanted at Clapham, and it turned out he was attending a blockchain conf, and as I was on the same train next, he told me his involvement, he worked for a brewery and they were looking at blockchain for their supply chain, to ensure authenticity and tracking).
I think NFTs are a good possibility for an alternative to, well, something like Distrokid, whereby we as artists could NFT a track and this (somehow) enables access as a decentralised alternative to centralised distribution (which is effectively what Distrokid and the like allow, they farm our tracks off to several centralised places which will silo our work). It doesn’t have to mean there’s any inflation in value of the NFT’d art, it doesn’t even have to mean there’s a link or description of the value. Or, it might. What it does do is atomically identify a specific work, and that’s what interests me. Once you’ve done that, you can do lots of other things, like distribute in a decentralised manner (eg BitTorrent, and incidentally BitTorrent is now a blockchain, and for some reason also a cryptocurrency, partly as a means of identity stamping such transactions). It opens up a possibility of managing access in a decentralised media world, in ways I can’t go into now because I’m tired, and also we haven’t fully developed those ways yet.
It's too bad the cost to mint an NFT is so high. If that could get down to the sub $10 range, it could be a bullet-proof way to copyright material even if you never sold it.
As for Ethereum being linked in value to Bitcoin? I don't believe that at all, at least as regards the future. The two are inherently different and I believe will diverge as the expanded capability of Ethereum for things such as NFTs and blockchain technology in general evolve. I think the risk of losing everything with either is far lower than alarmists believe by now, but especially so for Ethereum. They're both established enough that they are beginning to act like any other commodity. If they begin to crash, investors will buy the low and things will recover at least as well as any other commodity does. Furthermore some of the exposure to unexpected events, bad management, trade wars, etc. etc. that corporate entities are subject to are reduced by nature of the distributed and crowd-managed technology.
Oops. Sorry. That is the last OT comment I will make. I hope it doesn't trigger a bunch of responses. I won't engage if it does.
I'm glad for this thread even though it hasn't gone the direction the OP wanted. So far I've learned a lot.
The bullet proof way to get copyright is to register your claim at the US copyright office (or your local jurisdiction). NFT has no legal anything, and is probably a law suit waiting to happen. NFT doesn't prove you own something, or that the sale was valid. That requires contracts, legal work and all sorts of other lovely stuff. The copyright office is easier honestly.
Neither of them are commodities. A commodity is a raw material that I can turn into some kind of sellable good. If nobody wants to buy my gold I can still make stuff with it and that puts a floor on how low its price can be. If nobody wants to buy my bitcoin then it's worthless.
Neither Bitcoin, or Ethereum, behave anything like normal commodities btw. Occasionally commodities will show that kind of volatility, though we tend to notice with the big ones because it has an effect on our lives. If the price of wheat shoots up you get revolutions in Egypt. If the price of oil shoots up you get the collapse of the US economy in the 1970s. If the price of bitcoin shoots up you get excited posts on the less reputable parts of Reddit.
The price of bitcoin is entirely driven by people's belief that the price will go higher and the will make money. The price of copper, oil, etc is driven by real world economic demand for these things. They are entirely different markets. The comparison makes no sense.
Sure. This time it's different. It always is. People told me that the dotcoms were different. In 2007 I was told that new technology meant the MBS wouldn't collapse. There's always a reason why the new thing is immune from all the problems of the past, but they never are. Human greed and incompetence always finds a way somehow.
someone with some more knowledge about NFT care to comment about this:
https://sharewithsing.medium.com/nfts-for-the-rest-of-us-70e164fce307
to quote from article: " S!NG’s job is to let any creator of any skill set — musician, photographer, designer, regular person — make NFTs without a degree in cryptographic computation.
With the S!NG app, if you can take a picture on your iPhone, you’ve just made an NFT. For real."
so basically they've taken all the gruntwork out - no making a crypto-wallet and setting up funds - just upload and you're good to go.
Replying in good faith I hope, but here is the relative price of Ethereum (pink) vs Bitcoin (orange) for the last 12 months, I think it's fair to say that Ethereum tracks Bitcoin very closely:
Of course that could change in the future, but as of right now this is the reality.
I knew several people at various points over the last several years who were looking into this. And every single one of them (who worked in different fields) came to the conclusion that it was useless, or that better things (that presumably were less sexy) already existed. I'm kind of curious at this point if anyone actually has used it for this purpose at scale.
So if I take a picture of your art work I now own an NFT? Cool. Can't see how this can go wrong.
Yes maybe, that kind of distribution model has been talked about for years, but it's a very far cry from the NFT gold rush we are currently seeing, it's a different beast altogether.
Today.
I'm talking about the future as things may evolve. I believe an NFT is a proof of ownership of sorts, and could someday evolve into a more easily legally defensible international mechanism. That is just speculation and not relevant to the current discussion. For me anyway, the high cost of minting an NFT is a non-starter for such purposes until/unless that changes.
(I think this is on-topic enough to respond to. Other OT responses to my "spoiler" comment. I may not agree, but you can have the last word.
)
One of the worst written articles I've read in quite a while, and I've been following the Royal kerfuffle so there's some competition. I got to the end and I still wasn't any clearer on what his argument was, or even if he had one.
Also I feel that an 'economic expert' really should have a better grasp of marginal cost. Though maybe I expect too much.
How does NFT prove ownership? How do you know I owned the thing I sold you? How does a court prove that the parties in the transaction were who they said they were, and that they acted in a manner that was lawful (e.g. that I didn't coerce the artwork from you)?
Not gonna get into it. I'm anything but qualified to argue and I'm avoiding further thread hijack in respect for the OP. My thoughts were speculative only.
There's already plenty of instances of shady assholes stealing other people's artwork to sell as NFT, so yeah, NFT most definitely does not prove ownership.
We have a legal system for a reason, blockchain is just a less effective libertarian alternative.
Yeah, this was written by a random guy for Trezor, a company that makes bitcoin "wallets." It's basically asking a spokesman for the tobacco industry whether menthol cigarettes are healthy.
regarding "wasting" of electricity for bitcoin mining - those who are concerned - are you also concerned about electricity wasted by traditional banking sector (which is often really dirty and drastically inefficient, when compared with mining electricity which comes more than 70% from renewable resources, which makes it basically most renewable resources using industry on earth, and is extremely efficient in terms of converting electricity into useful information), or electricity wasted by stand-by mode home electronic devices, or electricity wasted by watching netflix and youtube, or electricity wasted by warm bathtubes, or electricity wasted by christmas lights ? Or electricity wasted by electric cars ?
Becasue overy one single im mention above has comparable or also significantly bigger carbon footprint than Bitcoin mining.
it's not random guy, it's experienced and respected economy expert in Czech republic who has any financial interest in Satoshi Labs .. there is many more articles debunking bitcoin "wasting of electricity" nonsense hoax myth, this was just one i quickly found, but of course if you want stay uneducated just consuming mainstream media shitstorm, be my guest. You can use google and study, verify facts, do you own research.
Also "ad hominem" argument is pretty dumb argument, did you found some false facts or provable lies in that article ? Yes Satoshi labs are founders of first hardware wallet.
Here is see biggest issue - when average uniformed Joe gets his information about Bitcoin from mainstream media who really do not understand topic and just spreading missinformation, instead of from people from who really understand the topic. Satoshi Labs are two actually pretty modest and kind guys, who are spending a lot of money for helping other people who need help and lot of time trying to educate people like you about TRUE FACTS. But it is very easy to judge people "they sell wallet, they spread just lies to sell more" .. As i said, if you want stay uneducated, your choice, learn from what you hear on Fox, CNBS, Bloomberg, BBC and similar crap media.
It depends.. as i said i'm not big fan of NFTs but here i can answer. You wallet from which you paid for NTF has unique number (so called "private key") and public key generated from this private key is marked in blockchain together with information about that purchase. So yeah, you can pretty much prove YOU are owner of that NFT until that blockchain exists. Because that blockchain (ethereum blockchain in this case) exists simultaneously on millions of computers over the world, it's very unlikely that it disappears. Also storing information in blockchain is basically most safe way of storing information, it's technically irreversible (at loest for such big blockchain - the "mining" computing power is basically what makes it soo safe, more computing power == more safe)
So, as soon as you save and hold your wallet private keys, there is proof of NFT owning. There is no better technology on planet at this moment for this kind of proof than blockchain.
you are pretty much probably year behind current development .. big institutions and investors are now going into bitcoin at large scale, narrative changed to "store of value", they're placing Bitcoin on company balance sheets as hedge agains inflation of fiat currencies (obviously especially USD on direct road to super high inflation, because of FED ran totally insane with printing new money. Bitcoin with is limited supply 21M is used now by institutional investors as long-term store of value .. For example TESLA recently purchased BTC for 1.5billion of USD, and many other are following (Square, payment company by Jack Dorsey who is also founder of Twitter)
Lol... great joke :-)) I hope it was not mentioned seriously
Still some misconceptions here...
NFT value does not depend on the Bitcoin, Ethereum or any other coin. NFTs are certificates of ownership and not a currency. This is another usage of blockchain than currency. NFTs values are in fiat (€ $ £ ¥ etc.) because that‘s what the people usually spend for them. Well, of course no one can stop people from trading NFTs for cryptocurrencies. There is only one relationship that I see: If Ethereum would totally collapse, then most probably most node operators of the Ethereum network would loose interest in operating their nodes. Then the network is in danger to be taken over by a malicious party as they could gain the majority of nodes. The Ethereum blockchain is decentralized so the majority of nodes could change the rules and make a fork of the chain where they redefine ownerships of NFTs and effectively steal them.
Value of NFTs as a certificate is ensured if the original artist issues the NFT. Then everyone in the world can validate that by a cryptographic method called fingerprinting. On blockchains the ownership of a block is defined by the possession of the cryptographic keys for that block. Blockchains are using asymmetric cryptography where the keys have a public and a private part. An artist can publish their public key for an NFT and then everybody can validate by fingerprinting that the NFT originated at the artist. If subsequently the NFT is traded then still the history of transactions that transferred the ownership is public on the blockchain and could traced back to the original artist.
@krassmann thanks for clarification
One more thing in relatition to general understanding of cryptocurrencies and Bitcion (because i see tons of misunderstastndings in this thread). In case anybody is interested to get valuable proper information and facts, i would suggest this Youtube channel, that guy is commited to education of people for years, he is one of best. Very valuable and eye opening content.
Andreas M. Anotonopoulos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJWCJCWOxBYSi5DhCieLOLQ
Yeah Andreas is a good resource. He is so bright and it’s very entertaining to see him speaking. I saw him once at a conference and even had a short chat with him and a selfie
@dendy the hard money/fiat money debate has been ongoing for centuries, so if Isaac Newton and John Locke were not able to resolve their disagreement on this subject in the 1690s I don't think we're going to manage it in a forum thread. You are a hard money advocate, and I am on the Keynesian side of this debate - and that's cool, let's agree to disagree.
I would also add that what you might see as misconceptions are actually just different ways of looking at things. Bitcoin and Blockchain advocates like to explain the theoretical underpinnings of the technology, whereas critics like to point out the real-world consequences.
For example advocates claim that Bitcoin is a great hedge against inflation, but critics will point out that its volatility makes it a terrible hedge against inflation. If Bitcoin is a currency then you could fairly describe the 2019 crash as an episode of hyperinflation, and that Bitcoin is far more likely to experience episodes of inflation and deflation than a real currency such as the US dollar.
The same applies to the Etherium/Bitcoin relationship. Sure, in theory Ethereum (and thus NFT) is independent of Bitcoin, but that's not the reality in practice. So at this point in time, NFT value is absolutely driven by the price of Bitcoin. Maybe that will change, but this is the situation right now.
Just some more thoughts on NFTs. The whole idea has a lot of potential. Especially for artists to cut out the middleman and market their artworks themselves. Building a community of fans. At the moment it is somewhat similar to the hype about cryptocurrencies. It is very much driven by speculation and greed.
I think instead of a single NFT for an artwork, an artist could also issue many but limited number of NFTs for the community of fans. This would be something similar like a company is issuing shares and fans of the artist become shareholders. An artist could offer serious benefits for the shareholders, better token holders, for instance exclusive content, access to an inner circle of fan contribution, access to voting on the character of the artist’s next projects - the possibilities are endless. We already had this kind of idea some years ago when artists started to issue their own coins (ICOs) for a similar purpose. But it was still mostly driven by the hope that the value of these coins would go up dramatically. But these coins were not smart, just like cryptocurrencies.
Modern blockchains like the Ethereum blockchain is actually a kind of distributed computing because it has so called smart contracts. That means the block that is secured by the blockchain does not contain a number of coins, it contains a piece of code and that means this code can not be tampered with. For instance this code could handle voting on a new album and if enough token holder have voted for it it will be done. Already six years ago some smart people built a complete investment fund on this principle, called DAO: distributed autonomous organization. Well, the Dow was a failure but it’s a different reasons because Ethereum had a bug and got hacked but that’s another story. Anyway, I’m quite confident that this technology opens up a whole new universe of opportunities that we haven’t really utilized so far. And I believe that NFTs could go in this direction.
That’s not true. Show us a chart where the Bitcoin price and NFT prices have the same movements. The price of an NFT is defined by what people are willing to pay for the ownership of that artwork and nothing else. That does not mean that this is not driven by speculation but it is a different speculation than the one that applies to bitcoin.
I posted the chart above 👆
Ethereum tracks the price of Bitcoin very closely. NFTs are traded in Ethereum, if Bitcoin crashes, so will Etherium (see 2019). If that happens, what do you think will happen to the NFT market?
Bitcoin is not about which economic school you worship (yeah, of course i'm big fan of Austrian economy, but i was even before i learned about Bitcoin)
Anyway, it's not anymore about Bitcoin replacing fiat. Bitcoin evolved into something which is not competition for fiat money, or to be more exact it's goal is no replace fiat. This type discussion is in general obsolete (of course some conservative libertarians are still holding this old narative, but for most it's not topic anymore)
Bitcoin is now considered as digital gold, or gold 2.0, which removes some disadvantages of real cold (for example high costs of transfer of value from owner A to owner B, or very complicated validation of quality, purity) and adds even higher level of scarcity.. The narrative is it can COEXIST with fiat currency system, which has it's advantages as money, undobtly.
Regarding volatility - first, you have to take a care about it really just if you are watching on short time frame. When we are talking about store of value, we are talking about many years, or even tenth's of years..
There is good reason to expect it will continue this way at least for next 12, 24, 48 .. years .. But that's for another pretty long post explaining why Bitcoin behaves like it behaves. It is not random, there is very deep logic in that and now we have also very good on-chain analytics data where we can see what is happening behind in almost real time. So it's actually moct predictable asset on market.
Another thing - volatility is result of fact it's still very early. As market capitalisation grows, short term volatility is going down (it's easy to move price singnificantly if market cap is 1 billion of dolars, but not that much if it is 1 trillion, and it is even harde when it will be 10 trillion of dollars).
I have in my portfolio some pecentage of fiat currency - for everyday spending. I have in my porfolio also Bitcoin, and my intention is not spend it in next 5-10 years. Ideally i don't want to spend at all - i will just use it as collateral for borrowing fiat money - so i can hold it forever. For me Bitcoin is not speculation, i don't expect small amount i have will make me rich - i entered this market too late for that - but it is my saving, it stores part of value which i'm now producing by ma work, it transfers this value into my future without loosing it (which is totally not possible with fiat money, they are good for spatial transfering of value, but totally fails in transfering value through time - because o all fiat currencies are all the time just loosing it's value and they forever will be)
To clarify further: NFT is a derivative of Etherium, which in turn is a derivative of Bitcoin.
You could class NFT art as a market in sub-prime memes.
That’s nonsense. NFTs are not bought for their value in Ethereum, that is only the way to document the ownership. Neither is Ethereum a derivate of the Bitcoin. Ethereum is a completely different coin and its own blockchain.
@dendy @krassmann all cool, we see things differently
No-one knows the future, I say we let history be the judge.
You can compare that to the silver Dollars that had been minted 1976 - 200 years independence. If you would pay with that coin the shop it would be 1$ but if you sell it to a collector you will get much more. So the NFTs have a nominal value in ETH but actually a collector of art is willing to pay much more for it. Their true value is based on the ideal value of the ownership.
It’s true that the Bitcoin is the leading coin in the crypto space but that does not mean that the other coins are technically coupled to it. That are rather market mechanics that have to with the behaviour of large players. It’s similar at the stock market.
Not technically coupled, no. But coupled nonetheless, at least for the time being. Theory is one thing, reality is another.