Goblintown NFT evolves into middle finger. Web3, Crypto fails

[@W2Report]

On the 7th day of Crypto, Brother Callum Gave to me... 7 Goblins trading 6 Pixelmon Reviving 5 loans forgotten! 4 hacked exchanges 3 seized apes 2 free NFTs and a contract bug in the code tree.

[@StarShineTheDragon]

Brilliant, please continue XD

[@CallumUpton]

if you manage to keep this up until day 11 im gonna get somebody to do my new intro to day 12 with a "12 days of crypto-mas" hymn. thats a prommise

[@christofferthorsson607]

honestly, this is the highlight of the videos at this point.

[@papapawpaw8877]

This is magical. I love it

[@sabothbrainiac5844]

Very good. We need some rewrites for singability though XD

[@sascha5681]

I just noticed that everyone who saved the NFT still has the image unlike the NFT owners.

[@CallumUpton]

LMAOOO i never thought of that

[@NaudVanDalen]

Right clicking is more powerful than buying NFTs.

[@glowing_clod969]

That is absolutely hilarious 😂

[@tjenadonn6158]

If you don't own it in some physical medium, be it on paper, on a disc, or on a drive or other data storage medium you have total control over, you don't own it period. The blockchain is just an inefficient streaming service where you pay thousands of dollars to stream a single picture.

[@neoqwerty]

@@tjenadonn6158 It's just really shitty ChickenSmoothies. At least my CS adoptables are cute puppers and I can dress them up in cute pupper costumes.

[@TimmehWatson]

The irony of those who've been saying "You don't understand NFTs" getting upset because they didn't understand what they bought.

[@t3rr411]

Looking at the goblin town nfts before, this is an improvement in terms of art and creativity.

[@alannahverschuren8405]

I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually bought one after the change, in order to be part of this "historic stand for artists rights". Not that they'd pay the now optional royalty fees though :P

[@Jokoko2828]

Yeah, the middle finger golem is way better than the goblinos.

[@Tim5corpion]

That's what I said myself.

[@aethertoast4320]

The fact that there are cryptobros angry at someone cause they thought that the other person was just doing it for the money is hilariously ironic in a mind-bending way.

[@diestormlie]

TO THE MOON! WAGMI! Have fun staying poor! Wait, what do you *mean* you're only in it for the *money?* How *dare* you?

[@thecheeze9001]

That middle finger ironically has more artistic value than the ugly goblins they sold originally

[@LocallyHosted]

For the people saying "You're only doing this for money", of course they are! Everyone remotely involved in NFTs is only in it for money!

[@KamiThulak]

Its ironic seeing someone standing up for crypto being lashed at by cryptobros because the dont understand what`s going on.

[@hopelessdecoy]

Ah decentralization, where one commanding source can modify all the nodes connected to it...... Wait what?

[@probablythedm1669]

When the NTF, web 3.0, people keep putting their foot in their mouth and you think "this is peak stupid!". Then they *eat their feet* and are suprised and angry they've run out of feet. 👀

[@MadScientist212]

"It's not very often I side with the NFT creator."- Callum There's a famous expression, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." That is 100% true and I agree with it, but I would also say it needs to balanced with something like "The worse the lesser of two evils is, the worse the greater evil is." No matter how repulsive or disgusting the lesser of two evils is, by definition that just means the other greater evil is even more disgusting and repulsive. And that definitely applies here. Unless I'm missing something huge, it very much seems like OpenSea is the greater evil. And while it's hard to have much sympathy for Goblintown as it looked like just another crappy computer generated art turd, they DO have a point, and this applies to more than just them. I'm a giant weeb and anime fan, and I follow a lot of artists on Twitter, including a lot of Japanese artists, probably not a surprise considering I just said I was a giant weeb and anime fan. And I noticed some time back that a distressingly large amount of Japanese artists I followed, artists that were clearly talented people who had been drawing for years while perfecting their craft, were at least dabbling in NFTs. These weren't cases of ugly monkeys, there were cases of like "Wow, that's some great 2B fanart I just saw retweeted, I love the detail and the sense of movement on this piece, this style looks familiar, do I follow this artist already? If I don't I should, oh I see I do follow them... wait... why does this tweet have an OpenSea link in it. Oh. OH... Crap. That's unfortunate. What about the artist who retweeted it? Do they know they just promoted an NFT sale- oh they have a link to their OpenSea page in their profile. Well shit." There is probably a much longer discussion to be had about predatory NFT propaganda being directed towards people in specific demographics, such as people who don't understand English at a time when most of what has been written, good or bad, about NFTs was in English so it's much harder for them to do independent research. But even putting that aside, it's easy to understand how ANY artist could find the NFT pitch appealing. You can sell your digital art in a new way, one that could earn you way more (look at these huge NFT sales numbers in the news!), and you can have it so people can resell the digital art and you earn royalties. And as much as I think that every artist that has even dabbled in NFTs has made a huge mistake, and should have done more research, even taking into account language barriers and predatory targeting it's still at least a "oh whoops I f-ed up" moment for them, those artists still, at the least, deserve to get what they were promised. Maybe no one will ever buy their meaningless tokens that aren't actually their art that they never would have gotten into if they had fully understood again, but if someone does, give them their fucking royalty.

[@Wampa842]

Evil is evil, Stregobor...

[@XerrolAvengerII]

nft is just a receipt, doesn't mean you get what you paid for

[@Kawa-oneechan]

You know that. I know that. Callum knows that. But it seems a great many NFT owners don't.

[@Silburific]

@@Kawa-oneechan Then this is a wonderful learning oportunity for them~

[@vytah]

You get what you paid for, a receipt. NFT is simply a receipt for itself.

[@WalkerRileyMC]

I explained it to a coworker as one of those digital photo picture frames that someone else gets to control. Sure, you own the frame and you get to look at the image, but at any moment the person who controls it can change it at any time and there's nothing you can do about it save try and sell this frame to someone else.

[@ollllj]

LOVE, that rug-pulling is so common in NFTs, that their fans (fans despite common rug-pulling) fail to distinguish an apparently genuine demonstration/upset as a rug-pull. Of course this nft will rug-pull sooner or later despite anything else, because JUST LOOK AT THOSE LOW AFFORD "images", in a time, where we have Stable-diffusion.

[@ollllj]

nft is not even necessarily a url pointer, but it comes down to an index numerical value in one list. commonly that index points to a url, but it can just be anything, or just the same thing repeated in a long list.

[@tomlxyz]

That's a more technical correct answer but I think the explanation with URLs makes it easier to demonstrate that it's not the art itself that's the NFT. Because many people apparently still don't understand that so let's explain it in easier terms

[@Didi2552]

Ah, I get it now. It is like a Primary Key in a Database like Access or something?

[@Mikanoshi]

IPFS links are immutable, always point to original files

[@PropaneWP]

Don't forget: Ubisoft, Square Enix and quite a few other game publishers think NFTs has such a great future that they decided to invest a shitload of money. If they had hired me to slap their decision makers every time NFTs were mentioned, they'd walk away with a bigger profit.

[@paulmdevenney]

Nearly correct. "If someone changes your image *your NFT has not changed*. Because the thing that's actually an NFT is a single *instance of text* that represents a hyperlink. You don't own the image, you don't own the url location. Just the text on the blockchain.

[@tomlxyz]

Tru but I prefer that it's explained as an URL because more people will get that instead of all these indirections

[@paulmdevenney]

@@tomlxyz yup - either way you own sweet fa for the money

[@gazman2626]

Someone has an amazing way to explain it. An NFT is like being in a queue the image is what's next to your place in the queue but you don't own it.

[@froggyringu]

The only thing they own is the recipe of the purchase. That is what they purchased. They don't even own the URL.

[@paulmdevenney]

@@gazman2626 but that doesn't make any.....oh 🤣

[@alicia9290]

I heard about this a couple days ago, and core subject aside... I mean, I'm actually baffled that the true "core data" of an NFT apparently *isn't* required to be a cryptographic hash. Like, I would have thought that the people designing the "standards" for what an NFT is would have mandated a cryptographic hash of the referenced content as required, and that compliant implementations would then be required to check that hash before displaying the content. (It'd also mean you could still confirm 'ownership' if that original link died, as long as you saved it locally.) It's an absolutely baffling decision by the original designers of the whole 'standard'/'protocol'/whatever-they-want-to-call-it, and I legitimately don't understand how they did it in the first place. It's standard in literally *anything* that has a link to a specific piece of content (i.e., software repositories, torrents, etc.), and has been for like 20+ years.

[@saycheeseordie4458]

I mean, that's cryptobros for ya, they barely comprehend how real life works, not to mention anything else. I'm still struggling to find any NFT "fan" that could comprehensively explain to me why exactly is that the future and even what exactly it does that other tech can't do. That's pathetic.

[@estranhokonsta]

Even if there was some cryptographic hash, what would that change in any way? The nft is only a little text. The image is still not on the blockchain. It can be changed anytime. The blockchain is already a garbage dump wasting precious energy and endlessly polluting the web. How worse would it be if they put whole images in it? A hash is lossy by definition. It is never equivalent to any of the content that has been used to create it. Completely different contents can give the exact same hash. That is the whole point of a hash and why we use it.

[@williamdrum9899]

​@@estranhokonstaI assume this is what a "hash collision" is

[@NastierNate]

“How many times do we have to teach this lesson to you, young man?”

[@YawaruSan]

I think this is the first time NFTs have ever been art. People that only like NFTs as investment vehicles won’t get it, but I think this migration is the more “artistic” decision. Way to go NFTs, you finally did an “art”!

[@reidleblanc3140]

ha, right? it's like the shredded banksy. but with fedoras and cheeto dust.

[@connordarvall8482]

And all they had to do was have the corporate world send them broke. Just like real artists!

[@MasticinaAkicta]

Makes one wonder, in just how many project has the "item of value" behind a NFT changed.

[@tomlxyz]

Has happened a couple of times before, I'm not particularly sure why it blew up this time

[@bellissimo4520]

"value" 😅

[@aslandus]

I believe Coffeezilla interviewed someone a while back who said that it wasn't particularly uncommon, and the bait-and-switcher would often change the image to a picture of a rug just to add insult to injury...

[@HazelleFPS]

i am distracted by dickrate and edging trending on the sidebar... wtf happened to twitter

[@CallumUpton]

LMFAO i didnt even see that!

[@khandimahn9687]

It's not often an NFT creator actually makes a good point.

[@ultgamercw6759]

Even after all this time I've still no idea what use NFT's actually have outside of reselling them. Like isn't this just an even dodgier version of stock trading except with ugly art and even more risk?

[@estranhokonsta]

At least in stocks, they are strictly associated to "real" things with some "real" value in reality which is very different from nft. Maybe one could argue a little that Nft are a more like standard money than like stocks. That is. With money seen as a promise of value. The difference is that the one giving the promise (government) is supposedly more responsible for its debt (doubtful in extreme cases) and more importantly, the one giving the promise is supposed to be way bigger and much more stable than an individual or little company. In the end it is all about credibility and trust. As for what nft really were, who knows? The correct answers is only technical and has no "easy human answer". Many did argue that it was more like a new type of receipt of support to an artist. The whole idea wasn't bad until one began to resell those receipts. That is were the analogy failed completely. Why resell a receipt? Are we reselling our external signs of "good deeds"? How hypocrite is that and what does it say about the ones involved in it? In the end it gets more and more complex, mainly because the idea is still very young and always morphing each time a new system is created, but also mainly because we are trying to force analogies to old ideas that have little to nothing to do with it. But the main thing that remains is that it is a way to get money from people with empty words and propaganda. In that regard, the better analogy would be to the ones that are selling plots of terrain in mars or something similar? The world is changing and nobody knows were it will go. All those prophets out there are as clueless as anybody else.

[@rilmar2137]

Given the amount of rugpulls etc, I didn't know the royalty system was even there in the first place lol

[@ArmageddonEvil]

The Rugpulling Society of the Web3 Cryptobros. Royalties seem like a bit of a gaff like, "You can continue making money, but not really."

[@ComfyCherry]

I mean tbf to anyone who was upset at goblintown, the new image doesn't in anyway indicate that it's about opensea, so if you weren't aware of the opensea bs then it just looks like gobilntown has gone "fuck you, fuck the community, we are rugging you".

[@LordZordid]

Just because they make money from it doesn't mean they are not passionate about the project and as suggested only do it for the money. But we all have to make a living. And if you make a living doing what you love that is great. Like Callum I must (for once) side with the NTF creators.

[@TorIverWilhelmsen]

It does break the "first sale doctrine" though; If I buy a book and then sell it used, neither the book store nor the author get a cut of that sale. Not sure why NFTs should be different.

[@sebastianturner2458]

@@TorIverWilhelmsen Because NFTs themselves are usually worthless unless they keep being sold (Unlike a book that you can read,) and for them to keep being sold there need to be reasons to buy them. The video kinda mentioned this, but if the creator just releases some NFTs and then dips, those NFTs will pretty quickly become worthless - they need to keep releasing more, or adding things to use them in, etc, etc. Think the godawful Ape game a while back. In practice, NFTs function terribly as art, and more practically as memberships to a community, but rather than charging a subscription they just siphon a little whenever someone sells one. Either way, they get repeated income, and thus an incentive to continue support. Is it dumb? Yeah. But it does make some kind of sense once you accept the stupidity.

[@drayle71]

@@TorIverWilhelmsen everything sebastian said is right about it being the only way nft projects remain profitable, but there is also another element the idea of getting royalties as part of secondary sales of your art was a core piece of the marketing for why artist should sell their art via an nft instead of just someone paying them through say paypal. It was the only in theory benefit for the artist to even bother moving into the crypto market afterall crypto 'currencies' aren't real money that artist can buy food and pay their bills with so why sell your art through a 'crypto currency' and then have to move it into real money through what is likely a very volatile exchange rate when you could just be paid the exact amount you want in said currency. We have to remember the point of nft was to grow the crypto space by getting normal people to buy crypto by getting the artist in so if I wanted to buy art from an artist i had to buy a token to pay that artist and where would i get that token from those already in the crypto space who had said token that was in theory worth X amount but it was proving hard for them to actually cash out and use their fun money for actual real world things. Basically the idea was by bring in artist by having the royalty system they could bring liquidity into the system for themselves to cash out.

[@dimwarlock]

That artwork is actually deep, it really looks like a caricature that would be on the newspaper or a protest on a graffiti. It was used for rug pull, but it has real purpose unlike your regular NFT.

[@amafi_poe]

it sounds like they didn't actually implement any kind of code to make the royalties a thing but just left it up to the platform to enforce? very decentralized of them.

[@elindred]

It won't be long before they start using AI to make these worthless jpeg series anyway. For that matter, making AI that mints, promotes, distributes and then rugpulls these things all on their own seems inevitable and almost trivial at this point.

[@christopherleadholm6677]

"It seems like it should be obvious", except common sense is a luxury that few crypto-bro's can afford.

[@oorcinus]

The irony of people buying NFTs as an "investment" blaming their creators that they're doing ANYTHING "just for the money" is brilliant.

[@pixelpixiepal6847]

So, I have a question. Several questions. Does anyone know what an Adoptable is?? If not, it's basically a character or creature an artist made that fits into a world and you buy one and you are now allowed to basically interact with others in that world roleplaying as that creature. It's been around since I was in high school in the early 2000's. Now, someone tell me how these are any different. They are template lineart with some modifications and unique color. So how are NFT's different from an Adoptable I could buy off of Deviant art????? Or GaiaOnline??? Or wherever??? This has been killing me since this started.

[@doublinx2]

The difference here is that they've attached it to a convoluted system with toll fees at every juncture and that the creator of the adopt or the toll road owners have the ability to unilaterally change the contract of the transaction or contents of the transaction at any time, even long after the sale. Which can basically result in your nice Blorbo no longer having the Perks™ you bought it for, or completely overwritten as seen here. Yes, it's even fucking stupider than you think.

[@awkwardllama0509]

Its a shame to see potentially good ideas wasted, like royalties for future art sales or verifying purchases on said art :/

[@mikeherald3572]

There were never any royalties coded into the ERC721 NFT contract everyone copy pastes. Code is law doesn't apply to that argument. In fact before OpenSea itself started every project had its own marketplace that took fees/royalties and OpenSea made it possible to trade without those marketplace fees on a secondary market. After it became so dominant they went and added optional fees and later royalties. But if they start to lose market share to another platform in my mind it makes sense to remove them or same thing will happen to OpenSea as what they did to other marketplaces. There will always come another fee-less marketplace project until those royalties get hard coded into the nft contracts themselves.

[@t20kdc]

It's even better, too: the nature of Ethereum means that you actually can't allow freely gifting an NFT. Why? Well, if you allow freely gifting an NFT, a smart contract can freely gift an NFT on your behalf in response to payment. Which is basically a trade, but the NFT contract isn't allowed to look into that.

[@mikeherald3572]

@@t20kdc I know that's why I said there will always be fee-less trading with ERC721 however, I tried to look into more detail about goblintown, but I am missing something. They deployed their new contract on Ethereum now that is supposedly "enforcing" royalties and the transfer functions are still there. I don't get how their new contract changed anything, but I just skimmed the code.

[@t20kdc]

​@@mikeherald3572 So the answer gets complicated. It seems like 0xbce3781ae7ca1a5e050bd9c4c77369867ebc307e is the old contract and 0x8c6def540b83471664edc6d5cf75883986932674 is the new contract. The biggest difference is the addition of the `onlyAllowedOperator(from)` modifier to all the delegation and transfer functions, but it's complicated, because the way it's done still allows access to the functions if the request is submitted by the current owner of the NFT. ERC-721 has mechanisms that allow someone to still directly be the owner of an NFT while delegating the ability to move it around to someone else. It appears (it's difficult to tell, the Solidity code looks just a tad overcomplicated) that this capability has been put on a blacklist. The best evidence of this I can find is that querying filteredOperators(0x8c6def540b83471664edc6d5cf75883986932674) for the registry, 0x000000000000AAeB6D7670E522A718067333cd4E, results in: 0x0fc584529a2AEfA997697FAfAcbA5831faC0c22d,0xFED24eC7E22f573c2e08AEF55aA6797Ca2b3A051,0xf42aa99F011A1fA7CDA90E5E98b277E306BcA83e,0xb16c1342E617A5B6E4b631EB114483FDB289c0A4,0xD42638863462d2F21bb7D4275d7637eE5d5541eB,0x08CE97807A81896E85841d74FB7E7B065ab3ef05,0x92de3a1511EF22AbCf3526c302159882a4755B22,0xCd80C916B1194beB48aBF007D0b79a7238436D56 Notably, isOperatorAllowed (called by the new contract whenever basically anything involving delegation is involved) seems to return true for various addresses, but not the ones in the above list. Without setting up the whole thing in a vat and copying the state as best I can, I couldn't say for sure, but it does look like a banlist for NFT marketplaces.

[@mikeherald3572]

@@t20kdc Ahhh, so it wasn't about OpenSea not paying out royalties, it was about competing marketplaces abusing the ERC721 transfer function to evade the royalties specified by the ERC-2981: NFT Royalty Standard. So they banned the transfer function for those marketplaces that did not implement ERC-2981. I guess that makes sense for them and doesn't completely break the standard and everything else relying on it.

[@t20kdc]

@@mikeherald3572 "abusing" is such a strong word... code is law, after all

[@Steve-YT383]

Social commentary in their NFTs 😊

[@megasoma]

Love this content! Keep it going. I’m convinced the North Korean Gov main income stream is from crypto hacks.

[@transcendantviewer]

Cryptsmas is the best mid-spring holiday.

[@lefterismplanas4977]

I am enjoying this crypto calendar very much. And thank you for it. Είσαι απίθανος, και μπράβο σου που λες και την αλήθεια, ακόμα και αν αυτή είναι με τον μέρος τον Crypto bros xD. Ps, I have no idea why I wrote that in Greek. Don't ask me

[@Sevetamryn]

I see four middle fingers! - And this is golden!

[@JohnTheodore]

Loving this. Thanks for exposing the grifters

[@reid3031]

"How dare you do this for the money," said the NFT owner

[@valthonispaladine7999]

This is the purest essence of Crypto, brava to Goblinshits.

[@dakat5131]

I thought implementing royalties into the token was the default, rather than relying on a third party. Do they exclude it to try to keep the size/gas price down?

[@t20kdc]

It's basically impossible to do with certainty while complying with ERC721. You can just give a smart contract the NFT (as if it was an account-to-account transfer), and that contract can be written to either give the NFT back to you and self-destruct or receive your price and give the NFT to the payer, *then* self-destruct. That cryptobros haven't been using this since ERC721 was a thing implies they don't understand the tech they use, and the sad thing is I can believe that. EDIT: I got ERC20 confused with ERC721.

[@zac8286]

I seem to remember NFT's starting with the idea to help pay royalties to artists

[@mr.incredibilis4549]

Congratulations, cryptobros, you just eliminated the only reason an independent artist would be interested in making ntf artworks. Hope you enjoy your mass produced garbage made by already powerful groups for the rest of your lives.

[@t20kdc]

Fun fact: It's actually impossible to comply with ERC20 or ERC721 and force royalties. You can always perform the transaction securely using a separate smart contract that simply transfers control of the NFT. Forcing royalties never made sense on Web3 because it's always possible to transfer control via some level of indirection -- that's the nature of cryptocurrencies. That this wasn't already a thing being done says to me that cryptobros don't actually pay attention to the tech they champion.

[@reidleblanc3140]

I can't fucking believe cryptobros don't know their nfts can change.

[@Techigai]

It's really nice to have some daily content.

[@Soapy-chan_old]

This whole thing still shows me that there is no real use-case for NFTs and Web3 other than to make money. Where's the utilities that people promised us 3 years ago?

[@antondovydaitis2261]

Theft IS the utility.

[@ArDeeMee]

„They changed all their artwork to this:“ Me: FINALLY!

[@Darkfyyre]

ok, i haven't seen anyone talking about this in a brief scroll of the comments, but - "holders will be given an IDENTICAL NFT after migrating" (not verbatim quote) i'm sorry, but i swear i heard cryptobros banging on about how NFTs are special because they are 100% one-of-a-kind, impossible to replicate, unique in all the world...? do you mean to tell me that people DON'T actually care about the number on the blockchain, but the image itself?! so that's all it really is, then. bragging rights and thousands of dollars spent on garbage art. a desperate desire for community. greed, lots and lots of greed. color me SHOCKED! i never saw THIS coming! i guess that explains why they get so pissed off by those people who save their monkey jpegs to their own computers lol. the image is more important than the blockchain, but the image is only given importance by the blockchain. if you remove one, the whole thing is worthless crap.

[@williamdrum9899]

Kind of like how I could technically right click save every bored ape and upload each as a new NFT. No, they're not "real" but the blockchain itself doesn't care

[@shocknawe]

It’s incredibly confusing. That’s what it is. Imagine you wear a shirt, right now, with that message and character on it: what do you think it looks like you are saying? It would look like you are saying “fuck the creatives” etc etc etc.

[@rand5106]

The royalties thing was like the only potentially positive trait of NFTs...

[@StarShineTheDragon]

Ahh yes the good old NFT’s what did they do this time and what order of magnitude of losses are we talking about today XD

[@Queldonus]

I have to agree that I am siding with the Goblintown creator as well. In fact, there are so many flaws in the system that simply migrating a Blockchain is not enough. We need to shut the system down. All of it. All NFT‘s everywhere. It needs to stay shut down until the crypto community can come up with a single unified standard that all Blockchains can use. Like USB or HDMI. I’m certain that they won’t take that long to come up with a standard that every single block chain agrees upon.

[@tuskedwings7453]

we love crypto L’s

[@ollllj]

dumb people learn VERY slowly.

[@atraxian5881]

I wonder, would nft "owners" be culpable of owning illegal material if the link to the artwork gets changed to something illegal like child exploitation?

[@silentdrew7636]

I doubt it. Though that might be the thing that gets them to admit what NFTs actually are.

[@tomlxyz]

I think there's been cases of someone dropping something like that in someone's wallet (given that you don't need to give consent to receive)

[@tomlxyz]

​@@silentdrew7636 I'd assume technically no but people probably make assumptions

[@pelinoregeryon6593]

They were saying *they* (the NFT creators) were the victims of a rug pull when the royalties were effectively cancelled on them .. not that they were rug pulling .. I think that's what you were trying to say, and yeah that's probably right.

[@rbdm]

please someone tell me im not the only one laughing at the trending hashtags at the beginning

[@fluidwolf]

"You're just doing it for the money!" Are....are they new to the crypto and NFT space? Literally EVERYTHING in it is done for the money.

[@oppenz3723]

It's like nothing is more permanent than temporary fix, but in reverse.

[@GeorgHaeder]

One NFT to rule them all, One NFT to find them, One NFT to bring them all and in the rug pull bind them.

[@modelmajorpita]

It is tempting to take the Goblin Town's people's side on this, until you realize that the royalty "promise" in old NFTs was always terrible and designed to be exploited and they could have had more solid contracts from the start. Goblin Town took a risk with a weak royalty contract because they thought they would make more money using a blockchain with weak royalty arrangements.

[@DavBotsArcade]

People can barely grasp the concept of disk use and file size due to big tech obfuscating everything people need to know about using the technology they pay for, so of course people don't understand what swapping a file does.

[@williamdrum9899]

That and an entire generation of programmers who never used assembly

[@PiccoTerra]

I dont understand what is expected to happen after the creators sold the innitial nfts. like what kind of support is wished for?

[@CabbageYe]

They funged the tokens 😮

[@hoshi314]

don't you just love it when Crypto bros taking the L AND ALSO the easies content to search for...... as in you don't have to overexert yourself to show them their L

[@TooLateForIeago]

It's amazing what you can do when you're selling literally nothing.

[@lyinarbaeldeth2456]

"You're just in it for the money!" cried out the people who were just in it for the money.

[@aarondiehl301]

This is the nail in the coffin of NFTs

[@antondovydaitis2261]

Sadly, no. There are still Flat Earthers, maybe more than ever before.

[@My1xT]

Doesn't have to be a new chain, just a new nft contract that has the important things explicitly written in might be enough

[@takecareofyrshoes]

i’ve actually been just waiting for someone to pull this shit too.

[@jasonbarkey6352]

If only those crypto-investors used the "Right-Click > Save" like the rest of us!

[@htomerif]

I'm not 100 percent sure how the ETH blockchain works but why can't the royalties be encoded in the contracts the same way gas fees are? i.e. none of the nodes will validate transactions that don't include them. It all seems built into the whole concept of smart contracts. This shouldn't have anything to do with OpenSea. I'm guessing I'm missing something but I don't know what.

[@sircrittalotTV]

Why would you pay for the webhosting of the image if you don't get paid?

[@SnowyRains]

And a partridge as an Nft

[@NaudVanDalen]

Could they point the NFT to an permanent image if they wanted to? To a decentralized image platform or something?

[@S1D94]

I'm no crypto expert, but if I understand correctly the only real way would be to store the "valuable" i.e. the monkey jpeg or whatever on the blockchain itself. So instead of your NFT being a string of characters representing a URL of the image it'd represent a string of bytes representing the actual image. This would then be as immutable as the blockchain it is hosted on. The reason this isn't done seems like it has to do with "gas price" / "gas limit" of blockchains which makes storing images expensive as opposed to just using some centralized hosting provider. The problem with storing URLs instead of the actual "valuable" is that the centralized server hosting your image is beyond your control so it is up to whoever owns the space your image is hosted on to keep providing the image.

[@t20kdc]

​@@S1D94 IPFS hashes are immutable in terms of the content they refer to, but there's no guarantee that said content remains hosted. Can't be changed, but you need to pin it to make sure it doesn't disappear.

[@S1D94]

​@@t20kdc Ah yeah, there are indeed distributed systems like IPFS. To be honest I definitely did not do enough research on such distributed systems to vouch/comment on them with confidence about reliability. They do definitely beat centralized systems due to the hash of any file being unique though but I'm not sure how effective "pinning" would be because this would have to be done for every "valuable" which isn't directly stored on the blockchain then right?

[@t20kdc]

@@S1D94 Yup. And it turns out that the goblintown NFT did use IPFS... but then made the *URL* mutable. In fact, the URL was mutable on-blockchain, via the "makegobblinhaveparts" function.

[@S1D94]

@@t20kdc Interesting, how does that work? I thought blockchains were supposed to be immutable? I might be confused about how the data is stored though, I'm assuming an IPFS hash was stored with the transaction but this isn't the case then?

[@Thanatos2996]

Leaving aside that NFTs are categorically a scam, the creators here aren’t screwing the holders. They’re essentially pushing out a software update on their “smart contracts” in response to a platform change and leaving the crypto bros with the same hyperlink to the same impressively ugly arrangement of pixels that can be sold on to a greater fool in the same way. The issue is that crypto bros don’t have the requisite 3 brain cells to recognize who that middle finger was aimed at.

[@chinchilla6547]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[@slygamer01]

I believe it is a new contract on the same blockchain it is being migrated to, not a new ecosystem or blockchain. The new contract will enforce royalties, not allow them to be optional.

[@erkkimustajarvi7391]

What are you planning after crypto stuff? I personally would love some more gameplayloop episodes.

[@CallumUpton]

i actually had one fully recorded and ready for editing, i never bothered as they tend to do really badly on this channel for the amount of time they take to make. but if enough pople want it i'll upload it

[@BetaJackMaxis]

​@Callum Upton Well since the absolute death of crypto and NFT's is inevitable you gotta keep something else under the belt.

[@erkkimustajarvi7391]

@@CallumUpton ill be looking forward to it then!

[@MetalMallard334]

it's true, but not for all NFT for example YOKAI and ONiiChain are not url and the nft cannot be updated in any way

[@justinwhite2725]

0:35 oh... you meant middle finger quite literally.

[@TheBalthassar]

The snake is eating itself.

[@edmundmondo1682]

The web3 community sure is special! Back in the day you would simply call them: mentally impaired people.

[@boozypixels]

All those NFT hodlers should've right-clicked their jpegs if they wanted to keep them

[@Sakky_wakky]

I thought the picture or what ever it was, was supposed to me married to what ever money it was minted to? thats how a lot of websites said it worked. I have never bought ot wanted to buy nft's but have tried to understand it better but so much doesnt make snese.

[@williamdrum9899]

Nope, it's just a URL than can get Error 404'd at any time

[@Ronin11111111]

7:04 "What the heck? Is changing metadata OK and normal for offchain projects?" Bro. My brother. That's not a thing that can happen on off-chain projects. My dude. You need to wake up from this crypto stupor.

[@mortalLP]

...but... how did giving "the finger" to *ALL* of their customers, and then placing the clarifying text in a *smaller* font size at the *bottom* of the gif become the "good" plan? I assume "the plan" is weaponized, viral outrage, but I suspect they've inadequately indicated the intended target of that outrage.

[@SaoJun]

Get rich quick suckers vs other get rich quick suckers. They get what they deserve. Altering the image was tame, but it proved the point. Could have been so much worse.

[@NaudVanDalen]

Looks better honestly.

[@OldManInternet]

"You're only in it for the money." It's crypto... The whole point of web 3 is to try and jam a value proposition where it doesn't need to be.

[@Pravculear]

...*sigh* yet another reason to avoid non-fungible fungible tokens.

[@tomlxyz]

Is there a reason to not avoid them?

[@Pravculear]

@@tomlxyz not one that i can think off the top of my head.

[@Orchestructive]

My opinion on all parties involved: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[@nullbubble791]

Where the heck are these techbros getting all this f*** you money?

[@ArtistSH]

nice video and info

[@RobTheSquire]

I'm not a fan of crypto or nft's, however with Opensea stopping compulsory royalty fees really shafts the community and market. So alot of people will then think what's the point of putting any time into making the so called art work for the market. It doesn't seem the right way to do business.

[@dranziken]

Even if they're shit NFT artists, I still stand by "Pay Artists"

[@kirara2516]

Further proving the scam that is all NFT's. I think the whole thing is stupid and a massive waste of money.

[@corentink3887]

na even if the way to it is bad if soomething makes nft project obsolete the goal is good