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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Using NFT's for buying/reselling auv3's....

1235

Comments

  • richardyotrichardyot

    @Gavinski said:
    Which technical hurdles?

    The usual technical hurdles that apply to any blockchain, when compared with regular centralised databases: speed, cost, scalability.

    In almost every case a centralised system will win out. That's why blockchains haven't really taken off outside of cryptocurrency. Blockchains are slow and inefficient.

    And many blockchain projects rely on centralised servers or entities of some kind, making the whole thing a bit pointless. 🤷‍♂️

  • GavinskiGavinski

    @u0421793 said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Which technical hurdles?

    well, choosing the logo colour, for a start…

    Lol... The politicization of everything. Guess they need to add some red in there too. Or what's the safest colour these days?

  • GavinskiGavinski

    Yes, these three aspects are known as the blockchain trilemma and if you look at that $kda whitepaper you will see how it claims to go about solving it. If you do decide to dig in, let me know your thoughts.

    @richardyot said:

    @Gavinski said:
    Which technical hurdles?

    The usual technical hurdles that apply to any blockchain, when compared with regular centralised databases: speed, cost, scalability.

    In almost every case a centralised system will win out. That's why blockchains haven't really taken off outside of cryptocurrency. Blockchains are slow and inefficient.

    And many blockchain projects rely on centralised servers or entities of some kind, making the whole thing a bit pointless. 🤷‍♂️

  • richardyotrichardyot

    @Gavinski said:
    Yes, these three aspects are known as the blockchain trilemma and if you look at that $kda whitepaper you will see how it claims to go about solving it. If you do decide to dig in, let me know your thoughts.

    I had a quick glance - so it's multi-layer, a bit like Bitcoin + Lightning from what I can see.

    Sure, maybe, I wouldn't write it off. It's possible that something like that might be workable. It's still very likely outperformed by centralised solutions though.

  • ExAsperis99ExAsperis99

  • AudioGusAudioGus
    edited December 2021

    @Not1Iota said:
    If you observe the original thread title (and care to adhere to forum protocol) you would realise that this thread could have concluded many pages ago. Perhaps the direction this sterling example of egos has moved in warrants its own new thread, preferably in a non music related forum?

    AB forum is uniquely conversational. One of its charms and why I think people hang here. There have been many crypto threads over the years and I think when placed in ‘off topic’ they tended to go off the rails (left/right political mind waste) or ‘off topic’ itself then just got populated with multiple niche crypto threads. Maybe having it thinly tethered to app discussion is required for people to let off crypto steam and not have the forum descend into chaos.

    On that note could crypto have saved Alchemy, furthered SKRAM development or kept the KRFT server going? I submit not but these are the things that would have been worth saving!

  • ciancian

    @NeuM said:

    @cian said:

    That article doesn't really address the legal problems. Which is something blockchain types usually try to dodge, presumably because they don't have a good answer.

    The consensus mechanism provides the proof. If someone “steals” a GIF, they have only stolen an image (or an audio file, or what have you). The value of the piece is connected to the public record. People have been paying millions for the collectible aspect of NFTs and I’m sure the novelty of it all plays a part, but NFTs are also going to be things like concert tickets, movie tickets, limited editions issued by artists and celebrities. This is all just getting started and the public record is what gives a digital good its value.

    The consensus mechanism has no legal standing. And there's not mechanism for proving provenance when you buy/sell an NFT. Do I own the thing that I sold to you with an NFT? Who can say.

    Also NFTs won't be used for things like concert tickets because they're far too expensive a solution to something that already has a perfectly reasonable solution.

  • ciancian

    @u0421793 said:
    Where I see blockchains as useful in the future is in the area of manufacturing and supply chain management. A manufacturer will perhaps use a blockchain to issue tokens (with or without smart contracts) which represent an item in some way that ties the token to the item. In a meek and mild way this would simply be a checksum in the token which corresponds to a qr code on the label of the item, or some such scheme. Now the path of the item can be traced through the supply chain, if the constituent parts or ingredients also follow a similar scheme, and on the other side of the supply chain, the customer gets a receipt which also opens up this information, which lives on if they sell the item to someone else, etc.

    Not sure what's in it for the manufacturer as this wouldn't be a particularly cheap thing to do/manage.

    Obviously this meek and mild rendition is easily subverted, counterfeiters would swap the goods and not the label, or other naughty actions, so other means have to be laid on top to ensure that the token actually does point to what it purports to, and that that thing is the genuine thing and not some counterfeit thing introduced into the supply chain by naughty people.

    I mean sure, but once you start doing those things (all of which are hard, cost money and are circumvented by organized crime all the time), what is the blockchain really bringing here.

    But if those points are addressed, I see blockchains as a superb ingredient in supply chain management. The blockchain isn’t centralised, it’d be distributed, but only really distributed as far as the supply chain goes, not the consumers, not necessarily millions of nodes worldwide (otherwise it’d be slow and expensive).

    To work you'd need a trusted central party to manage and authenticate everything. At which point you don't really need blockchain. A simple digital signature would be simpler, cheaper and computationally way more efficient.

  • ciancian

    @NeuM said:

    @mangecoeur said:

    >

    >

    It’s incredible (and a testament to the levels of ignorance in the blockchain community) that this is even a discussion. Centralised databases have run banks since computers had less processing power than today’s watches, blockchains struggle to complete a transaction without the whole thing melting.

    Despite straw man arguments posted here by some unfamiliar with recent innovations, blockchains come in a variety of types and not all of them are hampered by high volume transactions. One type of blockchain which is rather revolutionary is Hashgraph and it has been designed from the ground up to carry massive numbers of transactions without the lag usually associated with Bitcoin.

    I'm pretty familiar with high volume transactional performance and the differences between distributed and centralized solutions.

    Hashgraph isn't even in the same ballpark as say an SQL database from 20 years ago. Anything distributed over a Wide Area Network can't be that fast.

  • GavinskiGavinski

    @cian said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cian said:

    That article doesn't really address the legal problems. Which is something blockchain types usually try to dodge, presumably because they don't have a good answer.

    The consensus mechanism provides the proof. If someone “steals” a GIF, they have only stolen an image (or an audio file, or what have you). The value of the piece is connected to the public record. People have been paying millions for the collectible aspect of NFTs and I’m sure the novelty of it all plays a part, but NFTs are also going to be things like concert tickets, movie tickets, limited editions issued by artists and celebrities. This is all just getting started and the public record is what gives a digital good its value.

    The consensus mechanism has no legal standing. And there's not mechanism for proving provenance when you buy/sell an NFT. Do I own the thing that I sold to you with an NFT? Who can say.

    Also NFTs won't be used for things like concert tickets because they're far too expensive a solution to something that already has a perfectly reasonable solution.

    Again - NFTs don't have to be expensive. NFTS minted on Eth are expensive but there are lots of cheap options.

  • ciancian

    @Wim

    I don't know why people claim blockchain is just a fad and only deluded geeks think there's any practical application. I read things all the time from serious players. Just one example: https://www.citibank.com/tts/insights/articles/article32.html (skip down to the heading "Consortium forms to digitise commodity trade finance" if you like).

    Actually this is a rare example of a practical example that might succeed. What makes it different is that they're simply digitising an existing process, in a well understood market (trade finance is one of the earliest forms of finance), where players can be legally identified easily. Blockchain here is being used to remove the necessity for a papertrail, and so if this project is successful (a number of these types of projects have failed over the past few years for a variety of reasons, not always technical - the legal issues are always complex) they will have eliminated some admin costs.

    It's not a small thing, it will save money, but it's not revolutionary. Back office automation of this kind is pretty routine in financial markets.

  • ciancian

    @krassmann
    Then you should know that with none of these technologies you could build a decentralized but trustworthy transactional system, not even thinking about smart contracts. If you don’t see the value in these innovations then I can’t help you.

    The main problems with distributed systems are not authentication. That's one problem, but it's hardly the most significant.

    Always the same argument „blockchain doesn’t scale“. This is fundamentally wrong. It’s proof of work that doesn’t scale. If you still don’t understand this difference in 2021 then it’s difficult to debate about this topic.

    Proof of work is an extreme example of not scaling (and is sort of by design), but any form of blockchain isn't going to scale once it becomes sufficiently distributed, or you have enough certificates on there. It's kind of inherent in the design. The trick as an engineer is to find something where you can keep decentralization fairly low, and the number of certificates will be tractable.

    It’s probably the bad boy of modern computing and that is also true from the efficiency and eco footprint point if view but I say it’s also one of the greatest achievements in the history of computer science.

    My dude... It's not even in the top 100. Can you seriously name any achievements in the history of computer science.

    Show me only one single IT system that matches the achievement of Bitcoin.

    Oh I dunno, a computer that keeps a satellite working in space - a perfectly mundane use of technology that completely trumps anything Bitcoin has ever achieved. How about a supercomputer that can model the weather? Or, I dunno, a global network of computers with an open protocol that any computer system can easily attach to? How about some of the achievements of AI (an overhyped technology which at least has some serious achievements to its name).

    A globally distributed decentralized system that is completely open, even allows access to the hardware of computers that are part of the system, stores assets worth billions of dollars and survived all attacks on it (carried out even by hackers that were backed with government resources) during its uninterrupted operation since more than ten years.

    Huh? People steal bitcoin all the time, and the US government has successfully seized huge number of bitcoin assets. And bitcoin doesn't allow access to the hardware of computers. I think you're referring to some of the smart contract things out there - but they don't allow hardware access. The whole point is they're using virtual machine technology - virtual machine technology that was developed by people unconnected to crypto.

    Never been compromised. Never been down. Please, I mean it. Show me just one other system on this planet that shares the same qualities.

    I mean if we use your criteria then I guess the internet.

  • ciancian

    @Gavinski said:

    @cian said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cian said:

    That article doesn't really address the legal problems. Which is something blockchain types usually try to dodge, presumably because they don't have a good answer.

    The consensus mechanism provides the proof. If someone “steals” a GIF, they have only stolen an image (or an audio file, or what have you). The value of the piece is connected to the public record. People have been paying millions for the collectible aspect of NFTs and I’m sure the novelty of it all plays a part, but NFTs are also going to be things like concert tickets, movie tickets, limited editions issued by artists and celebrities. This is all just getting started and the public record is what gives a digital good its value.

    The consensus mechanism has no legal standing. And there's not mechanism for proving provenance when you buy/sell an NFT. Do I own the thing that I sold to you with an NFT? Who can say.

    Also NFTs won't be used for things like concert tickets because they're far too expensive a solution to something that already has a perfectly reasonable solution.

    Again - NFTs don't have to be expensive. NFTS minted on Eth are expensive but there are lots of cheap options.

    Yes but are they going to be cheaper than simply setting up a ticket server on AWS? The cost here is tiny. And why would someone like ticketmaster want to give up control over verifying tickets even it was cheaper (which it won't be).

  • dendydendy
    edited December 2021

    @cian
    Proof of work is an extreme example of not scaling

    i feel like parrot repeating same thig :lol:

    PoW has NOTHING to do with blockchain scalability. Number of processed transactions per second has ZERO to do with hashrate size, it is related ONLY to block size and number of blocks created per time interval.

    You DON'T NEED scale PoW (in terms of more hash power) to process more transactions per second.

    Otherwise, in agree with 99% things you wrote in this thread, i'm trying to explain same thing here.

    @richardyot
    usual technical hurdles that apply to any blockchain, when compared with regular centralised databases: speed, cost, scalability.

    You are true. That is price for decentralisation and lack of need having central authority. Which ismpretty much reason why Bitcoon was made - to have monetary network independent from banks and goverments.

    Good thigs, there is solution for this problem (for example LN) - so we can have both - trustless decentralized monetary nerwork which is more performant with smaller fees than traditional finance ;-)

  • dendydendy
    edited December 2021

    @Gavinski said:

    @richardyot said:

    @Gavinski said:

    @richardyot said:
    And another absurdity: let's imagine there is a blockchain network for app ownership. Maintaining that network, especially if it's based on proof-of-work, is going to be extremely expensive. Blockchains are inefficient by design.

    Who is going to pay for all that electricity? Do you seriously want to pay $100 in gas fees to transfer the ownership of a $20 app?

    If you want to mint an NFT today on the Etherium network, which basically means registering a URL link to a JPEG on a server somewhere, you'll be paying between $100 and $200 for the privilege. All that wasted electricity comes at a cost, and someone has to pay for it.

    Those gas fees are an ethereum problem. Gas fees on Kadena $kda are virtually non existent, even though it is also proof of work

    Does that apply if the network scales though? I mean even Bitcoin had low fees ten years ago, but the bigger the network gets, the more computer power is involved and the higher the electricity bill becomes, by design (in order to secure the network). Is Kadena somehow getting around this problem?

    Kadena uses braided chains that make it pretty much infinitely scalable. It's still relatively little known, but is aiming for a spot in the top 5. Unlike Bitcoin it is still profitable for individuals to mine and they are looking at ways to incentivize green mining.

    "As network demand increases, Kadena's energy use remains constant. Its unique architecture makes it the only platform that can deliver increased energy efficiency as TPS (Transactions per Second) scales."

    White paper etc here:

    https://docs.kadena.io/

    hm i need look at this more in depth because it sounds like nonsense to me :-) Like trying to do two contradictory things (with PoW, inevitably coin price rise MUST lead to hashrate increase, which means less profitable if you don't add more mining machines, otherwise network will become unsecure)

    will check their description, curious if i find some flaws in their logic ..

  • dendydendy
    edited December 2021

    @Gavinski
    Unlike Bitcoin it is still profitable for individuals to mine and they are looking at ways to incentivize green mining.

    This is big problem, and it sounds more like marketing bla bla ..

    • individual / small miners can hardly choose what electricity they use for mining - they run rig usually at home, so can't switch from non-green to green electricity, they simply use what they have
    • who CAN proactively search for renewable resources are BIG mining operations - which is exactly happening in Bitcoin, big miners are in constant hunt for cheap electricity so they're searching abundant electricity and electricity from renewables (which is usually more cheap)
    • when price of coin rises up, you inevitable need higher hash rate to make network secure.. which leads to decline of profitability for small miners, who can't switch to more cheap electricity sources ..

    so if they are stating thew want to stat profitable for small miners yet looking at ways to incentivize green minig there are 2 big contradictions ... i'm very suspicious here ..

  • echooperaechoopera
    edited December 2021

    Let me just ask, if MixBox from IK Multimedia were an NFT on the Lightning blockchain, would we be having these issues we are having now with their latest mishap/update?

    Asking for a friend at a Tea Party.

  • dendydendy
    edited December 2021

    Biggest irony with NFTs is, that most people think they are really physically stored in blockchain. Like that little jpeg of Cryptokittie, Cryptopunk, Bored Ape or any other NFT nonsense picture, is stored on blockchain or even inside your wallet.

    That is not true. That picture itself is NOT stored on blockchain. On Blockchain is stored only identifier (some hash, number) and infromation that your wallet address currently owns this hash.

    Image itself is stored on some central server, usually website - like Opensea.io, where in normal relational database is infomration "this image is has identifier XYZ".

    So in moment somebody attacks this server and wipes out those physically stored images there, you stay with worthless token in your wallet, which holds just identifier which now points to any real existing object. LOL.

    Good example why NFTs on blockchain are giga nonsense. You have decentralized information about owning some object which itself is placed completely outside of blockchain and fully controlled by some centralized authority.

    It's all bad joke.

  • echooperaechoopera

    So if MixBox were an NFT we’d have the same issue since the only thing on the blockchain is my name/wallet on the ledger.

    We’d have the same issue to be resolved right.

    So…gotta get some Pims to add to the Tea now.

  • krassmannkrassmann

    @cian said:

    @krassmann
    Then you should know that with none of these technologies you could build a decentralized but trustworthy transactional system, not even thinking about smart contracts. If you don’t see the value in these innovations then I can’t help you.

    The main problems with distributed systems are not authentication. That's one problem, but it's hardly the most significant.

    Decentralized and distributed is not the same and I wasn‘t talking about authentication. A distributed application can be operated by a single entity and usually this is the case. A decentralized application is operated by multiple parties at the time.

    Always the same argument „blockchain doesn’t scale“. This is fundamentally wrong. It’s proof of work that doesn’t scale. If you still don’t understand this difference in 2021 then it’s difficult to debate about this topic.

    Proof of work is an extreme example of not scaling (and is sort of by design), but any form of blockchain isn't going to scale once it becomes sufficiently distributed, or you have enough certificates on there. It's kind of inherent in the design. The trick as an engineer is to find something where you can keep decentralization fairly low, and the number of certificates will be tractable.

    It’s probably the bad boy of modern computing and that is also true from the efficiency and eco footprint point if view but I say it’s also one of the greatest achievements in the history of computer science.

    My dude... It's not even in the top 100. Can you seriously name any achievements in the history of computer science.

    The is no single top list for that. Such lists are always subjective. The same as the list of the greatest movies or whatever. If Satoshi‘s Bitcoin blockchain is not on your list then it’s your judgement. On my top list it is quite high.

    Show me only one single IT system that matches the achievement of Bitcoin.

    Oh I dunno, a computer that keeps a satellite working in space - a perfectly mundane use of technology that completely trumps anything Bitcoin has ever achieved. How about a supercomputer that can model the weather? Or, I dunno, a global network of computers with an open protocol that any computer system can easily attach to? How about some of the achievements of AI (an overhyped technology which at least has some serious achievements to its name).

    Not a good example. It is neither a public open application nor decentralized.

    A globally distributed decentralized system that is completely open, even allows access to the hardware of computers that are part of the system, stores assets worth billions of dollars and survived all attacks on it (carried out even by hackers that were backed with government resources) during its uninterrupted operation since more than ten years.

    Huh? People steal bitcoin all the time, and the US government has successfully seized huge number of bitcoin assets. And bitcoin doesn't allow access to the hardware of computers. I think you're referring to some of the smart contract things out there - but they don't allow hardware access. The whole point is they're using virtual machine technology - virtual machine technology that was developed by people unconnected to crypto.

    Stolen bitcoins were not a weakness of the Bitcoin software, it were always weaknesses in applications that stored Bitcoin keys, e.g. online wallets on marketplaces. The wallet keys were stolen and then used to steal the Bitcoins but the security of the Bitcoin blockchain itself had never been compromised.

    Dude, if you wonder about my top list, then I start to wonder about your blockchain knowledge.

    Never been compromised. Never been down. Please, I mean it. Show me just one other system on this planet that shares the same qualities.

    I mean if we use your criteria then I guess the internet.

    I wouldn‘t consider the internet as an application but rather networking infrastructure and protocols. Many if not most implementations of internet services had been hacked, sendmail, DNS - you name it.

    Again, name a single public decentralized application that had not been compromised although many years in operation. To be fair there aren’t many public decentralized applications. I could think of Folding@home or peer2peer applications like bittorrent - the latter is not really a good example as bittorrent is decentralized but it‘s main purpose is not centered around a common data structure. Because people run nodes in such decentralized applications they have access to the internals of it. Nothing can be really hidden and you can dump, analyze and reverse engineer everything you want.

    Anyway it will also be hard to name a publicly available online application that had never been compromised although in operation for many years.

  • krassmannkrassmann

    @dendy said:

    @cian
    Proof of work is an extreme example of not scaling

    i feel like parrot repeating same thig :lol:

    PoW has NOTHING to do with blockchain scalability. Number of processed transactions per second has ZERO to do with hashrate size, it is related ONLY to block size and number of blocks created per time interval.

    You DON'T NEED scale PoW (in terms of more hash power) to process more transactions per second.

    Otherwise, in agree with 99% things you wrote in this thread, i'm trying to explain same thing here.

    @richardyot
    usual technical hurdles that apply to any blockchain, when compared with regular centralised databases: speed, cost, scalability.

    You are true. That is price for decentralisation and lack of need having central authority. Which ismpretty much reason why Bitcoon was made - to have monetary network independent from banks and goverments.

    Good thigs, there is solution for this problem (for example LN) - so we can have both - trustless decentralized monetary nerwork which is more performant with smaller fees than traditional finance ;-)

    I don’t really like lightning. The transactions happen off the chain and therefore it isn’t as secure as normal transactions. AFAIK, there are many possible attack vectors. I have more hope in other consensus algorithms, although noone seamed to crack it so far.

  • CarnbotCarnbot

    @dendy said:
    Biggest irony with NFTs is, that most people think they are really physically stored in blockchain. Like that little jpeg of Cryptokittie, Cryptopunk, Bored Ape or any other NFT nonsense picture, is stored on blockchain or even inside your wallet.

    That is not true. That picture itself is NOT stored on blockchain. On Blockchain is stored only identifier (some hash, number) and infromation that your wallet address currently owns this hash.

    Image itself is stored on some central server, usually website - like Opensea.io, where in normal relational database is infomration "this image is has identifier XYZ".

    So in moment somebody attacks this server and wipes out those physically stored images there, you stay with worthless token in your wallet, which holds just identifier which now points to any real existing object. LOL.

    Good example why NFTs on blockchain are giga nonsense. You have decentralized information about owning some object which itself is placed completely outside of blockchain and fully controlled by some centralized authority.

    It's all bad joke.

    Yes but this is the basic concept which if you're either a buyer or seller of an NFT you would know by that stage, it's only the general public who remain confused or uninterested.

    It works because it's an authenification issued by the artist of the fact that the buyer owns the NFT of that work so it's as legitimate as anything physical that the artist publishes as well. You could argue it's more valuable than a physical object because it could portentially last a lot longer.
    If the linked artwork does disappear from the server then it would make the artist re-establish the link asap or the artwork value and his/her brand value would also drop. It's really not much different from any other part of an art practice, it's just expanding into the digital world. The art world gets it because it's only an extension of the speculation which goes on with physical artworks but it's helpful in expanding it away from all the physical galleries which historically have an advantage.

    You could say it's a joke but then you may as well say the whole of the art world is a joke too which it could be, depending on how you look at it ;)

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2021

    @Gavinski said:

    Well, things like $Flux are running decentralised cloud infrastructure similar to Amazon Web Services, but free (you just have to stake 200 flux which get returned when you stop using the service) and more reliable than AWS, which had a meltdown today that took Disney and other service providers down for hours.

    I'd call that a real use case, wouldn't you? And that's just one example. The metaverse(s) will also become as much a part of everyday life as the Internet is now, for better or for worse.

    @Gavinski, look into Filecoin (FIL) and STORJ. Both are decentralized alternatives to AWS. And they are not the only two alternatives, but they are several of the biggest.

  • NeuMNeuM

    @cian said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cian said:

    That article doesn't really address the legal problems. Which is something blockchain types usually try to dodge, presumably because they don't have a good answer.

    The consensus mechanism provides the proof. If someone “steals” a GIF, they have only stolen an image (or an audio file, or what have you). The value of the piece is connected to the public record. People have been paying millions for the collectible aspect of NFTs and I’m sure the novelty of it all plays a part, but NFTs are also going to be things like concert tickets, movie tickets, limited editions issued by artists and celebrities. This is all just getting started and the public record is what gives a digital good its value.

    The consensus mechanism has no legal standing. And there's not mechanism for proving provenance when you buy/sell an NFT. Do I own the thing that I sold to you with an NFT? Who can say.

    Also NFTs won't be used for things like concert tickets because they're far too expensive a solution to something that already has a perfectly reasonable solution.

    “Blockchain and NFT Ticketing: The 2021 Guide”
    https://www.eventmanagerblog.com/blockchain-ticketing

    “Mark Cuban: The Dallas Mavericks are thinking about ‘turning our tickets into NFTs’”
    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-may-use-nfts-for-ticketing.html

  • NeuMNeuM

    @krassmann said:

    @dendy said:

    @cian
    Proof of work is an extreme example of not scaling

    i feel like parrot repeating same thig :lol:

    PoW has NOTHING to do with blockchain scalability. Number of processed transactions per second has ZERO to do with hashrate size, it is related ONLY to block size and number of blocks created per time interval.

    You DON'T NEED scale PoW (in terms of more hash power) to process more transactions per second.

    Otherwise, in agree with 99% things you wrote in this thread, i'm trying to explain same thing here.

    @richardyot
    usual technical hurdles that apply to any blockchain, when compared with regular centralised databases: speed, cost, scalability.

    You are true. That is price for decentralisation and lack of need having central authority. Which ismpretty much reason why Bitcoon was made - to have monetary network independent from banks and goverments.

    Good thigs, there is solution for this problem (for example LN) - so we can have both - trustless decentralized monetary nerwork which is more performant with smaller fees than traditional finance ;-)

    I don’t really like lightning. The transactions happen off the chain and therefore it isn’t as secure as normal transactions. AFAIK, there are many possible attack vectors. I have more hope in other consensus algorithms, although noone seamed to crack it so far.

    Have you looked at Hashgraph (Hedera)?

  • GavinskiGavinski

    @cian said:

    @Gavinski said:

    @cian said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cian said:

    That article doesn't really address the legal problems. Which is something blockchain types usually try to dodge, presumably because they don't have a good answer.

    The consensus mechanism provides the proof. If someone “steals” a GIF, they have only stolen an image (or an audio file, or what have you). The value of the piece is connected to the public record. People have been paying millions for the collectible aspect of NFTs and I’m sure the novelty of it all plays a part, but NFTs are also going to be things like concert tickets, movie tickets, limited editions issued by artists and celebrities. This is all just getting started and the public record is what gives a digital good its value.

    The consensus mechanism has no legal standing. And there's not mechanism for proving provenance when you buy/sell an NFT. Do I own the thing that I sold to you with an NFT? Who can say.

    Also NFTs won't be used for things like concert tickets because they're far too expensive a solution to something that already has a perfectly reasonable solution.

    Again - NFTs don't have to be expensive. NFTS minted on Eth are expensive but there are lots of cheap options.

    Yes but are they going to be cheaper than simply setting up a ticket server on AWS? The cost here is tiny. And why would someone like ticketmaster want to give up control over verifying tickets even it was cheaper (which it won't be).

    Well - and this is also a comment on the idea that proof of work is not scalable - currently the transaction cost in Kadena's exchange (called Kaddex, and it has not been fully launched yet so only a few things are tradeable there) is (from memory) something like 0.000001 kda, which is fractions of a cent. An nft exchange called Marmalade is launching on kda and from what i gather, the fees will be free: https://marmalade.art/

  • GavinskiGavinski
    edited December 2021

    @Gavinski said:

    @cian said:

    @Gavinski said:

    @cian said:

    @NeuM said:

    @cian said:

    That article doesn't really address the legal problems. Which is something blockchain types usually try to dodge, presumably because they don't have a good answer.

    The consensus mechanism provides the proof. If someone “steals” a GIF, they have only stolen an image (or an audio file, or what have you). The value of the piece is connected to the public record. People have been paying millions for the collectible aspect of NFTs and I’m sure the novelty of it all plays a part, but NFTs are also going to be things like concert tickets, movie tickets, limited editions issued by artists and celebrities. This is all just getting started and the public record is what gives a digital good its value.

    The consensus mechanism has no legal standing. And there's not mechanism for proving provenance when you buy/sell an NFT. Do I own the thing that I sold to you with an NFT? Who can say.

    Also NFTs won't be used for things like concert tickets because they're far too expensive a solution to something that already has a perfectly reasonable solution.

    Again - NFTs don't have to be expensive. NFTS minted on Eth are expensive but there are lots of cheap options.

    Yes but are they going to be cheaper than simply setting up a ticket server on AWS? The cost here is tiny. And why would someone like ticketmaster want to give up control over verifying tickets even it was cheaper (which it won't be).

    Well - and this is also a comment on the idea that proof of work is not scalable - currently the transaction cost in Kadena's exchange (called Kaddex, and it has not been fully launched yet so only a few things are tradeable there) is (from memory) something like 0.000001 kda, which is fractions of a cent. An nft exchange called Marmalade is launching on kda and from what i gather, the fees will be free: https://marmalade.art/

    So yeah, this kind of thing is a viable threat to all kinds of existing systems. Also, in terms of music nfts, you guys should take a look at $moda. https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/moda-dao

  • GavinskiGavinski

    @NeuM said:

    @Gavinski said:

    Well, things like $Flux are running decentralised cloud infrastructure similar to Amazon Web Services, but free (you just have to stake 200 flux which get returned when you stop using the service) and more reliable than AWS, which had a meltdown today that took Disney and other service providers down for hours.

    I'd call that a real use case, wouldn't you? And that's just one example. The metaverse(s) will also become as much a part of everyday life as the Internet is now, for better or for worse.

    @Gavinski, look into Filecoin (FIL) and STORJ. Both are decentralized alternatives to AWS. And they are not the only two alternatives, but they are several of the biggest.

    I'm into $flux as the future of web3. It's my biggest bag, in fact.

  • echooperaechoopera
    edited December 2021

    Lots of shilling going on here...where's my wallet :)

  • NeuMNeuM
    edited December 2021

    @Gavinski said:

    @NeuM said:

    @Gavinski said:

    Well, things like $Flux are running decentralised cloud infrastructure similar to Amazon Web Services, but free (you just have to stake 200 flux which get returned when you stop using the service) and more reliable than AWS, which had a meltdown today that took Disney and other service providers down for hours.

    I'd call that a real use case, wouldn't you? And that's just one example. The metaverse(s) will also become as much a part of everyday life as the Internet is now, for better or for worse.

    @Gavinski, look into Filecoin (FIL) and STORJ. Both are decentralized alternatives to AWS. And they are not the only two alternatives, but they are several of the biggest.

    I'm into $flux as the future of web3. It's my biggest bag, in fact.

    Just because I put my own money into a crypto does not mean I have any expectations for it. All investments are a risk and everything could potentially disappear. I personally hold more than 30 different cryptos.

    And on which exchange are you buying/selling FLUX? It is not listed on CoinMarketCap.com.

    Correction: Found it. It’s still a small crypto, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything either negative or positive. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zel/

    It is, however built on top of ETH.

Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2024