NFT

bitusher

Don't associate most Christians with Luke . There is a world of difference between the two >the fact the didn't have his own NFT collection Luke has historically been a larger spammer than 99.9% of others

BrokenHefaistos

NFT, and use it as it was meant to be used.

Helpful_Move9546

Feels like most of them were just a token launch with a Unity asset flip glued on top. The few that had actual game loops worth a damn pivoted to infrastructure the second the NFT market cooled off. Easier to sell shovels than run a gold mine.

nullc

Because of toxic harassment by Luke-jr the policy limit on op_return wasn't relaxed when there was cause to do so (e.g. ZKP and payment channel info that needed a bit more than 83 bytes). This caused people to go directly to miners, and miners just removed the restriction entirely. This resulted in poor block propagation which increases large miner profits relative to smaller miners, and incentivized private submission mechanisms, both of which are centralizing. Because the restriction was dead, no longer effective, and actually creating harm and centeralization pressure, bitcoin core changed the setting to turn it off. No one told you an application for a "100,000 byte op_return" because there isn't one, and no one is creating such large op_returns. But unfortunately, luke's abusive and delusional refusal to adjust the rule as when there was a need and people were paying for it and the project's unwillingless to stand up or eject him for his abuse meant the development community lost the ability to influence that particular policy. Fortunately it wasn't particularly important-- if NFT crap did move from elsewhere into opreturn it would be good news not bad.

Objective-Macaroon22

BTC price has nothing to do with its success. It’s an exercise in human psychology and economics. Cryptocurrency has no value proposition. Why should I or anyone else not use FDIC insured banks? Why should any financial institution switch to cryptocurrency? Just like, why should I or anyone else switch from a DB to NFT for storing users’ digital items? You’re a smart person. Read what you just wrote 3 times out loud. It sounds ridiculous. No one cares about how you were configuring TCP/IP. Your comparing cryptocurrency to the Internet is outlandish. The Internet has value. It solves problems. There is unprecedented value in myself or others using it or moving existing systems to it. Same with cloud services. Cryptocurrency? Sounds like a cool thing for the sake of being a cool thing. It’s not the Internet. Get over yourself, and stop being an asshole to victims.

nullc

1. Bip-110 is unlike all softforks since the time of Satoshi: It doesn't require a supermajority hashrate to activate. It doesn't require any at all, and has almost none. The only way there won't be a chain split at this point is if the non-false-signaling BIP110 miner stops at the mandatory height. 2. " To create an invalid UTXO after BIP110, you'd have to be extremely technical and do it on purpose" -- no all you need to do is send to an address you've sent to previously, which is in your address book, which is no longer valid under 110. As just one example. Address reuse, intentional and accidental happens all the time-- and as a sender you have no way to tell which addresses you already know are not valid under 110. Last I checked even knots would also freely create new multisig addresses that were 110 invalid, though they did make a release *today* that might have just fixed that by taking away the ability to make multisig addresses. 3. "Damages bitcoin rep: according to who and why? There have been multiple soft forks in the past." no past softfork has ever intentionally removed functionality that was in use for finanical transactions, none since satoshi has reduced bitcoin's functionality. None have been predicated on an angry minority going after some other users they don't like. None have been predicated on "firing" the authors of nearly 100% of the node software. "It only really became possible with thr taproot bug" -- no there has been random data in bitcoin all along, including images. Fun fact Luke-jr was likely the first spammer himself. 4. Fees are directly paid to miners. Yes, competition reduces profitability over the long term on average but the marginal income is very real. But this isn't really all that relevant to bip110 because bip110 doesn't block any of the NFT crap anyways. 5. Back to point 1 BIP-110 doesn't activate based on hashpower. It activates based on a block height, which is why it will create a fork unless the miner mining it gives up before the manage a block. 6. there is plenty of cool stuff using taproot, what are you smoking? :P BIP 110 removes far more than OP_IF, -- especially damaging is the removal of all the OP_SUCCESS which guts further safe upgradability. But OP_IF is not at all redundant or unneeded in tapscript: it's often much more space/fee efficient to use it, if you have multiple conditions in a script the number of leaves you need to represent them is exponential. And then they also limit the tree to 7 levels so even a script that would otherwise be possible (with massive space overheads) split up, isn't because of that other limit. 7. Luke-jr expressly wants to censor transactions, especially any related to gambling as he believes them to be illegal and unethical and when he controlled the copy of Bitcoin Core distributed in gentoo he injected filters to do so. These NFT dumbass transactions are also themselves still financial transactions where people are spending their bitcoins on digital stupidity in order to launder money. But even if there was no interest in censoring transactions (which there is)-- 110 builds mechanism and precedent for doing so. 8. Bitcoin takes advantage of the nature of information being easy to spread and hard to stifle. It's structured so that censorship of any kind is very difficult, but bypassing censorship is easy. This means that even good intentioned censorship (oxymoron-ish given that all censors think they're good intentioned...) doesn't work well. It's a price we pay for freedom, and a good tradeoff. 9. " and they all need to be held in RAM to run a node. " Absolutely nonsense. The UTXO set has *never* been required to be in ram in any version of the software. The UTXO set is on disk, and it sets the minimum amount of storage to run a pruned node. Plenty of people are running nodes right now on systems with 8gb or less memory. The UTXO set size is important, since it sets the minimum disk space needed at least until/unless utxotree or other proposals is deployed. 10. "there is no taproot functionality lost" Okay make a 110-compatible 3 of 6 multisig where every key has a backup key. 11. "It doesn't stop it, but nobody claimed it would. It's called REDUCED data" The authors many times have said that it would only switching arguments when called out, but also it doesn't reduce it either. While it doesn't reduce the amount or ability to embed arbitary data it does reduce bitcoin's functionality for ordinary financial transactions.. it even blocks literally the first script type ever used (P2PK). "Saying it shouldn't be done and its a never-ending game is like saying there shouldn't be spam filters on email" part of the problem of calling the NFT traffic 'spam'-- it may be dumb and bad but spam results in the wrong reasoning. Email spam filters are a private, personal, blocking of unsolicited messages to you that you don't want and which the sender spend basically nothing to send. The transaction blocking here is a global, worldwide, block of transaction information being sent from one consenting party to another consenting party who pay a huge fee to a consenting miner for the privilege. It is an imposition by a third party against the whole world... and it's being attempted against a system designed from the ground up to resist third party transaction filtering, whose justification for existence and value is substantially predicated on its ability to do so. The similarities are not substantial.

nullc

110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It's supported by less than 1% hashrate and maybe 4% nodes per my sybil resistant measurement, Jason from Bitcoin Ocean gave his figure of 3-6% from his own methodology, though even if you go by the highest numbers from supporters you only get 20%. And it's been promoted with massive amounts of astroturfing, zombie accounts (like yours), and outright dishonesty. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

DueceVoyeur

A pet rock I can hold for comfort. Bitcoin is a NFT ape

DWHudson1970

Just as long as they don’t hack into my priceless NFT collection.

Particular_Yard_2460

> The question then is how the hacker would use the mixed BTC in the real world, without people asking too many questions. Pay and artist to create a bunch of apes in hats. Upload them to an NFT marketplace. Use multiple wallets to bid millions of dollars for some digital monkey art. Duh.

webauteur

Metamask is not a secure wallet. It is something I only use for transactions like buying a NFT. You should store your crypto stack in a cold wallet like Ledger Nano and then never use that for anything other than receiving crypto.

dosko1panda

Crypto is the new NFT

WagwanMoist

I mean yeah most of us are desensitized to a lot of stuff on the internet. But if I opened my wallet and saw an NFT of some heinous CP I'd be pretty fucked up too for a while. Wouldn't make a Reddit post about it though, true.

KrunchyKushKing

Damn now I want to know what the NFT looked like.

Antique_Prior_7803

Well that's a new layer of cursed I didn't need to know existed. The zero-transaction drop is what gets me, like a ghost slipped something under your digital door while you were sleeping Burning it was the move, but yeah a fresh wallet is probably your only real shield since there's no way to block unrequested NFT mints on most chains. Just don't go digging through the burn address again, curiosity already bit you twice on that one

pekame

I always thought the NFT tremd is going to die but still was able to cash in some easy money back then so I think it was great.

TripleDoubleFart

Not every NFT is just a picture. My profile pic is one of my NFTs. You can save it to your computer if you want. I can use it, though.

GHBmihic

People just need to create NFTs with real world usage. For example, I will make NFTs for my store, customer buys NFT with 1 SOL, that SOL is stored on NFT, customer wants to use 20% discount for a purchase, 0.1 SOL is used for that perk/discount and is sent to my wallet. Later, when customer uses all SOL they can top up NFT with more SOL to have still have discount perks

th3tavv3ga

People also warned about NFT

Shotay3

They were. "In November 2023, Zhao agreed to resign from Binance and pay a $50 million fine as part of a guilty plea to U.S. federal charges. Binance also agreed to plead guilty, and to pay $4.3 billion in fines.[3][33] Zhao was replaced as CEO by Richard Teng.[34]" Source: [Wikipedia Changpeng Zhao (Ex-CEO Binance)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changpeng_Zhao) Pardoned by US President Donald J. Trump. It's just one of many cases in crypto. FTX? Terra? And all the other 99% scam coins, meme coins and NFT's? It's a dangerous place for investments.

Jupsto

I dont understand and feel like no one understands the price action on ethereum. Yes OK NFT bubble burst few years back, but ethereum still seems like its most used chain. All these other cryptos and token assets like stablecoins still based on Ethereum. Issuance is way decreased since PoS so I have no idea why than hasnt made it way more valuable like halfing does for bitcoin.

Ok-Luck-9936

A friend sent me this today and I had to share it because the economics behind it are honestly fascinating. Someone is selling a forged steel paperclip for $100. On the surface, it's completely useless. That's the point. The interesting part is that they built an algorithmic pricing model into the physical product itself. There are only 500 units in the "Genesis Edition," and the price automatically increases by $0.05 after every single sale. It's essentially a real-world bonding curve applied to a Veblen good. The earliest buyers lock in the lowest price, while later buyers pay more purely because of programmed scarcity. The creators are completely transparent that this isn't about utility—it's about artificial scarcity, collectibility, and status. Link: https://the-clip-antigravity-version.vercel.app It feels like an interesting evolution of NFT-style tokenomics, except instead of a digital collectible, it's a physical object. Is this where collectible culture is heading, or is it just the most self-aware cash grab of 2026? I'm genuinely curious what people think about the economics behind this experiment.

mlag000

I just explained why your arguments are shit. Banks are using mainly tokenized Systems, it's build on private Blockchain and not accessible to the public. It is made for transfert between BANKS. Because this is the only real use of crypto, instant transfert. But even like this it is still integrated in the traditional banking system, because it's a token, a representation of an account, notmoney by itself. Holy shit, crypto bro are so annoying always trying to shill their shitcoin and believing crypto is the future. No worries bro, it will soon be the masse adoption you talk to everyone's since the last 10 years very soon ! I'm sure even around you no one care or talk about crypto. The hype is gone, so now crypto is trying to attach itself to AI because crypto by itself has built nothing for now. Now web3, no NFT, no smart contrat, nothing.

mlag000

Unlike you I am using AI to develop my product absolutely every days and I have a good understanding of it. You're delusional if you believe somehow AI will help to pump your shitcoin. In 15 years we had no use case for crypto because it was useless from start. In barely 3/4 years almost everyone was using AI, because it was actually useful. That's the big difference between those 2. One has a real use case. The other one has none and is still desperate to find one. Chase your mirage as much as you want, you crypto will still be useless. You AI crypto coin will lend up like NFT.

BadNewsBrown

Real estate? Like virtually? Like an NFT?

Romanizer

Yes, the picture of the cow seems to be included as an NFT. I was thinking about tradeable tokens or something people here would gamble on.

Freudarian

I think its good to rotate and diversify. However, this is what I see: Oil & gas through the roof Stock market overpriced Gold at ATH levels, and other precious metals AI bubble about to burst Housing markets are ATH Credit market is on a stretch Am I missing something? Well, mix it with the fact that a lot of people still have jobs, markets are still performing, so I dont see a market crash happen very soon unless China and US go to war, and drag EU into it. Which at this point seems unlikely, since relationships are at a low, but China seems wise enough not to engage with an idiot. Soooo.. I think a rotation is more likely. In comparison to other markets Crypto has been underperforming so its a very attractive market. I think the biggest obstacle is the Unclarity Act, and a new narrative for novelty, ETF's, RWA, DigiGold, Memes and NFT's are getting old.

halflinho

"Keep in mind that this is not related to cryptocurrencies or tokens." The picture says it's an NFT

rankinrez

I’ve not played a game with a disc in years. I guarantee I get more value from my downloaded games than anyone ever did from an NFT.

XRPresso_io

I really like this question. Using crypto to pay for physical goods, Services, and other things like even digital arts like NFT’s, I think is the future of retail commerce. You’ll know why I’m saying that if you click on our page \[we’ve built a peer to peer crypto marketplace\].

Responsible_Screen84

Nobody gives a shit about Bitcoin. That's was last years bubble. Now it's the Ai bubble. Best of luck with your NFT

nullc

Hunter Beast-- I assume that's the same knots supporter from twitter that has been leaking apparent plans to perform a quadratic sighashing attack against Bitcoin on shortly after 110 forks off ever since cguida and luke-jr began their out of nowhere fud posting against BIP54 (the long overdue and slow progressing bip that address the quadratic sighashing bug and other vulnerabilities). Not sure that most people care about the governance opinions of arsonists. :P 110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

TripleDoubleFart

If they bought an NFT that was just a picture, that's definitely dumb lol

reddit4485

That's so funny! Some people spent millions of dollars to buy an NFT but anyone can download it and print it out to do anything they want with it! It's so stupid!

Tracy-Jaccs

yumy radiation 😋 for real though, it was just a weird feeling of like - god the NFT craze was stupid and god the NFT lifers were annoying, but there was still that pang of "those poor bastards" in response to this happening. There are a lot of strong feelings pulling in a bunch of different ways, and that came out in the post.

nullc

110 is a solidly bad proposal, which at best attempts to solve yesterdays problems unsuccessfully, and has been pushed forward with a bad process, and were it successful sets a terrible precedent. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about its benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (spaced text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in the past (e.g. segwit). The whole premise of 110 is that an intolerant minority of Bitcoin participants get a veto over transactions they don't like. I don't like NFT "spam" traffic either, nor do I think any of the regular developers of Bitcoin Core do. But Bitcoin's entire value proposition is money you can transact without the approval of third parties. A cost for this is that some people are always going to use it in ways we don't like. And 110 actually blocks people's use of money-- be it older script types like pay-to-pubkey (like Satoshi used!), or when you secure your coins with sufficiently fancy multisig policies. Moreover the *process* used by 110 and their proposed roadmap going forward with annual forks to adjust blocking rules, could be used to block literally anything or more precisely any person. Bad restrictions on freedom almost always start with moral cries that almost everyone could agree with ("Think of the children!")-- and then that power is deployed more widely. Bitcoin was intended from day one to take other people's power away from controlling your money, not the power of a state, not the power of a majority, and certainly not the power of an intolerant minority. Satoshi described bitcoin is a system free from third party control "no matter how good the excuse, no matter what". I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

nullc

110 is a solidly bad proposal, which attempts unsuccessfully to solve yesterdays problems, and has been pushed forward with a bad process. It radically handcaps bitcoin's programmability and upgradability (e.g. removing OP_IF and OP_SUCCESS, and capping taproot to a depth of 7), invalidating existing scripts people use today which will cause funds loss due to (re)using addresses that become undependable under it and invalidating presigned transactions. If I were trying to come up with a proposal that would handcap bitcoin against competing altcoins over the long run I don't know if I could come up with something better than this. Embedded data in bitcoin is usually a total non-issue, -- the last spam floods were about two years ago, and today they're just a memory. The controls that exist in Bitcoin work and confine fad data floods to brief inconvenience. The ability for people to run nodes is protected by the blockweight limits, data generally makes nodes *cheaper* to operate if has any impact at all. The NFT traffic that is most common today isn't even inhibited by 110. And the inhibited traffic like inscriptions has already got updates to avoid 110. Unfortunately the non "spam" traffic of actual transactions that 110 blocks can't simply change to avoid it-- that's an advantage that embedded data enjoys because it doesn't need any particular processing by bitcoin. The authors and proponents of 110 have continually provided conflicting statements about it's benefits justifying it on the basis of spam in one breath then literally calling people morons for thinking its about spam when it's pointed out that it doesn't stop or even inhibit spam. Rather than addressing serious problems about its safety and negative impacts, they've resorted to vile personal attacks against anyone opposed to 110-- wrongfully and baseless calling them spammers or even p e d o s (dumb text because of dumb automod) in a desperate attempt to suppress criticism. 110 was designed to activate with only 55% hashpower support, or once a deadline is reached (which we're a few weeks a away from) 0% hashpower-- essentially guaranteeing a chain split results. 110's primary creators clearly value getting their way over protecting the value of Bitcoin. The only node software supporting it is created by a single quarrelsome and somewhat odd developer and it has clearly not undergone rigorous testing. There is no 110 testnet. There have been repeated late discovered problems, including another one just today: https://x.com/DathonPwn/status/2078514978773192779 which shows that fairly basic testing has not been performed, as the same case of nodes upgrading after activation was handled fine in testnet. I think [this essay](https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/) casts a light on why there is a vocal minority that is extremely in favor of and confident in this absolute lemon of a proposal.

Project_Demosthenes_

That is Lumina, she is an AI agent and the Queen of spx6900. She is based on the Nendroid Glow Angel trait of the Project Aeon NFT collection (the official and only nft collection associated with spx6900).

nullc

> OP_IF is the cause of the exponential blowup when used by inscriptions. No. Quite the opposite, the use of OP_IF in inscriptions is because it saves them a couple bytes bytes per transaction. It absolutely doesn't cause any blowup or increase what they can store (beyond a couple bytes). > each condition can be expressed as separate leaf. No, it cannot because there are an exponential number of leafs from multiple conditions and even if you didn't mind your computer needing to hash terabytes of data to build your scriptpubkey, they cap the tree depth to 127, making things like a 3 of 6 multisig with backup keys not possible to represent. So it is not just making it less efficient, 110 severely limit whats it can do. Unfortunately the authors of 110 lack the technical competence to understand that IF is an intentional and important feature. > BIP110 removes it only from tapscript, not from sw multisig. Right so now you have your more complicated multisig always forced onto the chain when you could often sign with the root instead. Blowing up your privacy and bloating the chain. > this is only ppl who made a taproot timelock after the default for the size was changed "default for the size"??? sounds like you're thinking of op_return. Absolutely not. 110 bans scripts that are currently in use. No op_return involved. This means that if someone uses an address generated before (or reuses) or if you have timelocks that use these scripts the funds are then gone. And no, timelocks secure at least millions of dollars of bitcoin and are in production and have been for a very long time. It's not some "for testing" thing. > this is a logical fallacy - just because it is possible to put spam into a bip110 block doesn't mean it will not prevent it meaningfully. How trivial the change is doesn't matter, how expensive it is to spam does. Yes, it's not expensive at all. I believe the change inscriptions did to adapt to 110 increases the weigt of their transactions by less than half of one percent. Most NFT things don't have any weight increase at all as a result. > cool we are considering bloat of dozens of bytes of rare transactions while ever since Taproot activation the avg blocksize rose by 0.5MB average blocksize is 1.6 MB and has been that for a long time. Indeed it was elevated during the NFT mania, but OTOH those blocks are much faster to validate and for most people speed up synchronization.

CoffeeAlternative647

*"If you don't like cat photos, don't like wizards... whatever. That's like your choice, right ? But I don't think that's not a legitimate transaction or, you know, this is a waste of blocks, you know, because of NFT's are bad or whatever. I don't think that language as a play... Well, I don't think that should be considered when you are talking about writting policy code."*. I'm just gonna leave you with that. You will surely recognize who said this and if you need proof I can send you the link of the video. Cheers

TheGreatMuffin

> Core side is more liberal and like cat and monkeys jpegs carved into blocks to eternity. This is a wrong representation of that "side": nobody likes jpegs (at least if you are not mixing up the Core side with the actual spammers/NFT scammers etc) or is more liberal with spam. It's more that this side thinks that it's either not as harmful as the BIP110 proponents make it to be (we have a strict blocksize limit and fee market for exactly that reason: to prevent blockchain bloat and make nodes easy to run), or that the "solution" is worse than the problem itself for multiple reasons. > Their argument is that this exploit is an extra source for miners to gather more revenue. Not the main argument, at least not for me. Main reason for me is that spam is a nuisance but not a huge problem that needs to be approached with a risky soft fork without consensus. > The outcome of this subject is unknown. No one knows if miners will support either Knots or Core. This is a bit disingenuous. 99% of hashpower has neither signalled nor made any type of statements of supporting BIP110, and 80-90% of nodes haven't switched to BIP110, so the outcome is pretty much clear (BIP110 not having consensus from the broad community/the network, and being dead in the water).

quintavious_danilo

Matic died with the NFT hype, rightfully so.

mickalawl

It's 2026. I cannot believe a cent moved into NFT "collectabkes". Receipts that contain a link to where a file may or may not be for a sloppy computer generated image sequence that is unique because that hat is yellow on #583853 continues to not be a useful thing.

nullc

> While "it's not actually causing problems," might it become or cause problems in the future from bad actors (especially entrenched BigFin) who want to see Bitcoin fail? It's unclear how it would that would be distinct from anything else the same parties could do. > And what about question #3? weird, I dunno how I didn't see your 3. There hasn't been any particular increase in the utxo set size since v30-- there isn't an effect specific to v30. There was, however one that went with the surge in NFT popularity. What he's referring to it that there are now more tiny outputs because people have paid small amounts of bitcoin for NFTs. But I don't think it follows: lets imagine that instead the NFT images were all stored in some other system / blockchain/ etc. If people bought them on bitcoin we'd still have zillions of low value outputs created to pay for them. The images aren't in the outputs, so the output set bloat is a product of just paying for them. So basically "don't buy cheap stupid things with bitcoin". And although it grew a fair amount the UTXO set remains quite tiny and has been on the net growing much slower than typical storage devices. -- so not the kind of issue where one should be thinking about restricting how people spend their coins, which is where I think that concern goes since it would still apply for buying lots of cheap tokens with bitcoin even if their data weren't in the bitcoin chain.

nullc

Seriously? We're not talking about loans here. In my post monetary and financial are completely interchangeable. Feel free to read it as: "110 blocks transactions which are exclusively monetary. It is much better at blocking them than it is at blocking NFT stuff because NFT stuff can change their encodings freely to evade blocks but monetary transactions cannot, monetary transactions must be interpreted and acted on by the Bitcoin network." and "That said, if we are going to be pedantic every one of those NFT transactions is ALSO a monetary transaction because they're trading those NFTs for bitcoin WHICH IS A KIND OF MONEY, etc. (Again, I'm not defending them: just being pedantic)." Does that help?

nullc

That is absolutely bullshit response. Feel free to substitute the words in my post when you read it-- it's not ike we're suddenly taking about loans, in this case the terms are interchangeable. Did I need to allcaps it for your brainwashed 110 slop addled brain? I DO NOT LIKE OR ENDORSE NFT CRAP.

Todo_es

Continues: > Another thing that changed over time is that early on in Bitcoin there were a bunch of bad denial of service vulnerablities and we implemented a lot of capricious limits on transactions to protect nodes. These limits only effected relay, miners could still bypass them. Over time as the software was improved the restrictions were relaxed. This made it easier to put some kinds of junk in transactions, but all the big image stuff still violates these policy size limits (even today) and so anyone doing it takes their transactions directly to miners. > > Miners collectively earned about a quarter of a billion dollars mining NFT during the crazy two years ago. Of course, this same process had the virtuous effect of depleting the funds of the people doing it, which is presumably why they aren't so common now. :) > > In any case, entire images were embeddable before then and after, though the blocksize increase means that instead of a megabyte of data there can be up to four megabytes. > > The real thing that changed is that early cases of people dumping data in Bitcoin were doing it for "free storage"-- and the fee dynamics of the network have completely suppressed data stored with that motivation. But the events of two years ago were actually motivated by it being expensive to do (as that shows it's valuable and limits the supply) and were willing to pay handsomely to do it. (to all our benefit in the sense that it funded building a lot more hashpower to secure the network, a silver lining-- but also to our irritation because it drove up fees for a while) > > > isn't it worthwhile to prevent large non-monetary files of data from being stored on the blockchain as a raw, single-transaction file system? > > No-- after any the splitting or merging whatever is all done completely invisibly by software for free-- software that can be vibe coded by AI in minutes. The "inscriptions" jpeg stuff you're mostly referring to already normally splits images into multiple pushes. The encoding side decides what sizes it wants to use, I think small images are usually a single push but larger ones are usually split into 400kb pushes. The decoder software handles putting it back together. (also, I officially curse you for making me go read the code that implements this stuff!) > > But more critically: > > > If so, why claim BIP-110 doesn't 'meaningfully impede' them? > > [Because it doesn't](https://knotslies.com/). (this demonstrates that you can make BIP110 compatible transactions that are just images.) > > If BIP110 did what you hope it did then I think it would still not be worth the collateral damage. But if it didn't have the collateral damage, and even had part of the blocking effect then it would be fine with me. > > The nature of the problem though appears that effective isn't possible and even having a small effect will always come with huge collateral effects. > I don't know the exact details, but if bitcoin will be here for decades, centuries or even millenniums, then paying $0.10 today to store 100KB of data on the blockchain till the ends of times doesn't seem that expensive on the grand spectrum of things. > In a prior thread on this I posted an analysis that showed bitcoin's mininum transaction fees cost something like 100,000 times more than storing data in S3 for the rest of time under reasonable assumptions. (Basically cost of a bond that will pay S3's cost and then some). > > Storing data in bitcoin also doesn't achieve that-- today nodes can run pruned (so they store no history), and proposals like utxotree mean nodes never need to store anything at all. Zero knoweldge proofs are getting better all the time and in the not too distant future it will be possible to forget most of the chain history without losing any security. (And if it's not ... we've got other problems! but either way the NFT stuff doesn't make anything worse). > > We're also free to go look at what the people actually doing it do and say and this isn't whats motivating them. If it were they still have a choice of many popular blockchains that are cheaper, and including ones that are specifically designed and advertised for data storage and presumably will not implement techniques to eliminate the storage even once they're mature because for them the storage is the point. > > > I don't think that it's been deceitfully promoted > > In this very thread (even this very post) you're making the claim that people who oppose this profit off spam. This is absolutely untrue. There is no evidence to suggest that it's true, and the only reason you think it is true is because it is a lie that has been frequently told by the creators of 110 on absolutely no basis. They have also quite offensively and audaciously said anyone who opposes 110 is a pedophile (?!?). It is a dishonest and hypocritical attempt to silence opposition. I haven't gone deep on this point because I think it is not critical to the argument that 110 is a terrible idea -- but it is relevant to the difficulty some people are having understanding the counterarguments. Some of them are technical and can be hard to understand-- but it's impossible to understand if you're primed to think you're being lied to. > > The spammer/nft people don't care about this for their spammy purposes because it doesn't stop them. Though before someone gotchas me with a link to an NFT developer opposing 110: I expect that some are also big time ultralibertarian bitcoiners-- I mean who else is going to build a money laundering system based on monkey jpegs-- who independently oppose 110 for the same principled reasons I do. Fact is that although I don't like NFTs, the NFT people are as capable of loving *bitcoin* as much as anyone. > > > here's clearly no direct monetary gain for anyone moving to a node with stricter rules on how to use bitcoin > > There are many, this "filtering" opposition begain and remains a promotional stunt for Ocean mining pool, which is a relatively obscure mining pool. Ocean is the only pool of any significance supporting it, it was created by and is primarily promoted by Ocean employees. Ocean is earning on the order of 100 bitcoin per year on the back of this marketing. Calling on people to rise up and impose new rules on Bitcoin on their own is integral to their entire marketing story. (And to be clear: I agree that miners should control their own policy.. but it's hard to sell that to people when they are content with the well considered policies of the default node software. To sell them on it you need to convince them that the status quo is not okay). > > The incentives are even more clear when you consider that the net effect of this is intended to be "firing" the 100+ person volunteer open source community that develops Bitcoin and replace it with an implementation maintained by a single organization. > > [Start9](https://start9.com/news/#:~:text=Mechanic) has also profited tremendously from 110. They sell overpriced minicomputers to run nodes. The model is clear: how do you convince joe average that he needs to run a node? Not with Bitcoin Core: 70,000 other people are already running that. But if you convince him that Bitcoin is broken and that he can fix it by running niche software that most other people aren't running... > > > there's clear monetary benefits for many people, especially those that fund Core and want certain changes to be made. > > How is that? Which parties are these and how do they benefit? The argument against 110 is also an argument to *not* change the rules of bitcoin. I don't see how opposing 110 can benefit anyone financially except by virtual of not undermining Bitcoin's value by making it less functional and trustworthy. None of the regular bitcoin core devs or their funders are at all involved in those spam/nft businesses, nor do I think any of the nft businesses particular care because 110 doesn't actually block them. > > > I mean the trend is clearly skyrocketing upwards, even more aggressively so with the v30 release. > > The peak was achieved before and was somewhat lower in the months after. > > > but it's clearly trending towards a 100x+ bigger transaction space than it had before > > yes, there a tiny fraction of a percent of block space did increase, but that increase had nothing to do with Bitcoin Core. >

nullc

None of my arguments here support or argue for the protection or benefits of NFT crap, so that's an irrelevant observation: I am entirely talking about exclusively financial transactions. 110 blocks transactions which are exclusively financial and it is much better at blocking them than it is at blocking NFT stuff because NFT stuff can change their encodings freely to evade blocks but financial transactions cannot. That said, if we are going to be pedantic every one of those NFT transactions is ALSO a financial transaction because they're trading those NFTs for bitcoin, etc. (Again, I'm not defending them: just being pedantic).

nullc

> > [BIP-110] trashes smart contracting > > Why is that bad? If the Bitcoin blockchain is just a shared ledger, can we let smart contracting exist on Layer 2? Why do we need smart contracting on the base layer? Layer 2 (unless you're calling something with a trusted third party or only altcoin based, no bitcoin) can't have any functionality that isn't backed up by Bitcoin. The general concept is that the participants exchange unconfirmed bitcoin transactions but use smart contracting in bitcoin to set them up in such a way as if anyone tries to cheat the honest participants can "take their counterparty to court" by posting the data to the blockchain and the network will adjudicate it. But it has to understand what its adjudicating. This also means that there are disproportional gains from flexibility in Bitcoin: you could have thousands or millions of use of some expensive 'smart' feature that exists in the chain but few or none of them actually show up in transactions. Taproot generalized the idea to make it possible to have a huge script, even petabytes in size, but the network only sees a tiny portion that you've decided you need to use... and if the parties fully cooperate then the public never learns there was even a contract at all. > And does it really trash smart contracting, or only smart contracting for a specific purpose? It's pretty general in its breakage: It removes IF and all related flow control instructions if you know anything about programming you'll know that's pretty major. It also limits scripts to 127 options instead of 2^128. which means stuff with pretty normal size multisigs can get cut off. This kills bitvm and other zero knoweldge proof stuff that generate gigantic scripts but never post more than a tiny bit to the chain. > Why is this bad? Are there legitimate uses of timelock other than storing JPGs on the Bitcoin blockchain? Okay so I hope I really don't need to explain this: confiscating coins from people is a moral and legal wrong whatever the reason. Aside from that, timelocks aren't at all used for any jpeg anything-- I'm afraid you've been jpeg brained by the 110 proponents. :P Timelocks are used to setup L2 systems like lightning so that the parties have time to present their evidence in the case of a dispute. They're also used for wallet security and backups-- e.g. a wallet that can be recovered with 5 out of 7 keys, but after a timeout can be recovered with 2 of 2 backup keys, or after an even longer timeout just one key. Or for inheritance, ... get this coins only if I don't move them for a year, or only after you turn 21. > > it even trashes P2PK --- the address type originally used in Bitcoin by Satoshi. > Why is this bad? Well first-- why is it good! As far as I can tell the authors of 110 didn't even know they did it, and they've refused to justify it. They're the ones proposing changes to Bitcoin and you'd think that blocking a script used by something like a million coins demands some justification! To be clear, the existing coins won't be blocked for this there is a 'grandfathering'. But it means that transactions that pay to these scripts that haven't posted yet, but are later-- either timelocks or script reuse will cause funds loss. There isn't a lot of new P2PK use today, but there is use and none of it appears to be spam by anyone's definition. As far as changing before activation: why should they have to? Bitcoin's value prop includes that you don't lose your funds because you hid them in the back yard. Any time you move funds you take some risk of loss or losing your privacy. > > None of this has anything to do with jpegs. The claim that people arguing against 110 want jpegs is a baseless smear. > Aren't there active, profit-driven businesses whose entire business model relies on inscribing data directly onto the L1 blockchain for non-monetary I don't know currently quite possibly though it can be hard to tell what is a business vs someone's LOL project-- the primary use of NFT's is money laundering/tax evasion by allowing the creation of transferable artifacts that have whatever price you want to say them to have. The image based ones have significantly fallen out of fashion over the last two years. But critically-- these aren't the parties showing up arguing against 110. The NFT response (e.g. in inscriptions) was to just make the few-lines of code change to make their transactions 110 valid. It's people who aren't doing arbitrary data stuff that are hit by the restrictions and can't just twiddle an encoding to avoid it. > From what I understand, prior to the SegWit and Taproot updates, large files had to be split across multiple transactions or external data stores. You've been mislead at least somewhat. You can take a bitcoin node from 2009 (or easier, 2013 2009 needs a number of bug fixes) and run it an sync to the current tip. This shows that literally EVERY transaction in the chain now was consensus valid then. Now to be fair, one that old wouldn't download all the witness data, so you need segwit for that. But in the case of segwit the material effect was that it was a blocksize increase, so it indeed had some effect relevant to this but the effect is just that it increased the blocksize. Developers of bitcoin core fought incredibly hard to get the smallest reasonable compromise, and still it wasn't enough and a huge part of the community forked off onto their own chain. Another thing that changed over time is that early on in Bitcoin there were a bunch of bad denial of service vulnerablities and we implemented a lot of capricious limits on transactions to protect nodes. These limits only effected relay, miners could still bypass them. Over time as the software was improved the restrictions were relaxed. This made it easier to put some kinds of junk in transactions, but all the big image stuff still violates these policy size limits (even today) and so anyone doing it takes their transactions directly to miners. Miners collectively earned about a quarter of a billion dollars mining NFT during the crazy two years ago. Of course, this same process had the virtuous effect of depleting the funds of the people doing it, which is presumably why they aren't so common now. :) In any case, entire images were embeddable before then and after, though the blocksize increase means that instead of a megabyte of data there can be up to four megabytes. The real thing that changed is that early cases of people dumping data in Bitcoin were doing it for "free storage"-- and the fee dynamics of the network have completely suppressed data stored with that motivation. But the events of two years ago were actually motivated by it being expensive to do (as that shows it's valuable and limits the supply) and were willing to pay handsomely to do it. (to all our benefit in the sense that it funded building a lot more hashpower to secure the network, a silver lining-- but also to our irritation because it drove up fees for a while) > isn't it worthwhile to prevent large non-monetary files of data from being stored on the blockchain as a raw, single-transaction file system? No-- after any the splitting or merging whatever is all done completely invisibly by software for free-- software that can be vibe coded by AI in minutes. The "inscriptions" jpeg stuff you're mostly referring to already normally splits images into multiple pushes. The encoding side decides what sizes it wants to use, I think small images are usually a single push but larger ones are usually split into 400kb pushes. The decoder software handles putting it back together. (also, I officially curse you for making me go read the code that implements this stuff!) But more critically: > If so, why claim BIP-110 doesn't 'meaningfully impede' them? [Because it doesn't](https://knotslies.com/). (this demonstrates that you can make BIP110 compatible transactions that are just images.) If BIP110 did what you hope it did then I think it would still not be worth the collateral damage. But if it didn't have the collateral damage, and even had part of the blocking effect then it would be fine with me. The nature of the problem though appears that effective isn't possible and even having a small effect will always come with huge collateral effects.

nullc

> Don't you think that the same argument you have used to demonstrate the supposed failures of knots filters would apply here? If a smart developer can quickly devise a method to bypass certain filter, the same can be said about the limitations on certain niche multisig setups. Sadly, no. For NFT stuff the bitcoin network is just carrying the data, with the meaning entirely defined in the NFT software and entirely flexible there-- they can represent their information in any way they want, in the digits of addresses in the lower digits of payment amounts. In locktimes. The only limit is that the result is a valid transaction. But actual users of Bitcoin can't encode their transaction information arbitrarily-- they need the network to understand it and enforce it. The issues I discuss arise out of the maximum limits imposed by 110. I didn't even get into all the examples of scripts that could still be done in 110 but have to be done differently then they are now, causing needless software churn and even funds loss when people send funds to an older saved address. > The fact that knots filters were affecting block propagation is the best proof of it effectiveness. If core would have implemented them, any miner bypassing the rules could be under serious risk of getting their blocks reorged. Oh god no. that is exactly the *opposite* of the effect on block propagation. Slow block propagation doesn't hurt the miner that produces it, it hurts the lower hashrate miner because propagation slowness turns mining from a lottery (win linearly proportionally to rate) to a race (most hashrate wins). The miner themselves is always has their own block immediately, so they get a head start on it. For large miners slow propagation freezes out smaller miners. For small miners it has the opposite effect. No miner mining that stuff had any fear of getting their blocks reorged. > All the work to make blockchain use more efficient with segwit was undone No way, that data embedding stuff is super efficient, and fast to verify. We'd be far worse off if it wasn't prunable.

Pickleahoy

Im sure the people who bought the rare NFT apes said the same thing

nullc

BIP 110 is a radical and disruptive change to the protocol takes away a lot of functionality. Everyone wants bitcoin to stay money, that's never been a serious question (out side of some loony self promotion by some NFT fans). It's like a politician screaming "I LOVE MOTHERHOOD AND APPLE PIE! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!" and using that to imply that their opponents don't also love these things.

nullc

Great question. 110 is really not about op_return or rather there is a consensus limit on them but its only one of a dozen limits. Had 110 been a proposal for op_return only and had it had a reasonable limit big enough for PQ signatures and various zkp proposals and big enough that it wouldn't have immediately caused a bunch of fake-pubkey use ... (probably 510 bytes or so), it probably would have not been very controversial. But I think a non-controversial proposal wouldn't have really met the 'meta-'goal of the proponents: to 'fire' the open source development community around Bitcoin. To achieve that 110 had to be constructed to be as controversial as possible while still getting adopted anyways. I think they've totally missed that mark, but we'll see! The issue with timelocks is that you author and sign transaction today that won't be valid for confirmation until the future and then you can't change the transaction. So you're screwed if the consensus rules tighten in unexpected ways. As a result incredible care has been taken with every softfork since the time of Satoshi to not confiscate anyone's coins by accident. Taproot even introduces a special mechanism for future softforks to make them even more confiscation safe called OP_SUCCESS ... though 110 takes that out too. :( [OP_SUCCESS works by making all the unused/invalid OP_CODES make the coins instantly spendable. So they can get assigned different meanings in the future without being concerned that any one might have authored a transaction that used them because if they did they'd just be giving their coins away.] 110's OP_RETURN change itself could burn a timelock user because e.g. your timelock release happens to have a OP_RETURN in it that isn't allowed later. But I don't think that's the bigger concern there (and it isn't for me). The reason is that there isn't much reason to have a large op_return in a timelock release and so (hopefully!!) no one has done that, though it's impossible to know. The bigger issue 110 also considerably caps the size of multisigs and restricts how they can be constructed: particularly no IF/NOTIF in them, which means that even moderately complex multisigs constructed using the descriptor wallet compiler are all invalid under it. It limits the size of taproot trees to depth 7, eliminates the possibility of encoding more complicated multisigs as individual leaves to avoid op_if. It also blocks many other address types including the original pay-to-pubkey that Satoshi used. So if your release transaction(s) use any of these, they won't be valid under 110. And since they're timelocked you can't hurry up and get them onto the chain now ahead of it. Maybe they'll still be useful to you after 110 expires, but the 110 authors have been completely clear that they intend it to be permanent on the installment plan, the timeout is to avoid a status quo bias and force people to upgrade to get new restrictions later, similar to the timbbomb in knots (it won't start if its too old to make you upgrade). 110 is just a radical different design direction for Bitcoin: it's prescriptive. You can use bitcoin in particular allowed ways and everything else is forbidden. This still isn't enough to actually block NFT/spam traffic, but it just reflects a different philosophy of governance which is more authoritarian and less anarchistic/libertarian.

nullc

Or even securing your house by bricking over the front door, since you can still get in through an open window. Of course, a thief probably even better at going through windows. :) The house analogy breaks down anyways, we lock our doors in part so that a thief has to commit a visible crime in public view to get in, and so a casual thief can't get in without tools or effort. But putting data into a transaction isn't a crime, and no one is going to arrest you for it. It was already in view without any changes. And any 'tools' are built into software, so they have no marginal cost. To the limited extent that any workaround would be needed at all for NFT users they'll never see it or experience any incontinence from it. Other users aren't so lucky-- if you're trying to make a 3 of 6 multisig with backup keys you don't have the freedom of using fake pubkeys or whatever to hide your data. The network needs to understand it, so the limits in 110 hit you full force. They're the visitor in a wheel chair at your bricked up front door giving a "WTF" look at the sign with the arrow pointed to the open window.

nullc

Yes there is a good argument that even the junk traffic helps Bitcoin by paying for security when there is insufficient other demand-- but I don't think it's really helpful to the case: With or without 110 there will still be junk traffic and in similar amounts! So it's really an argument against the premise of 110 rather than 110 itself. ... and since 110 promoters keep wrongfully saying that opponents are spam *supporters* I think it just risks confusing the issue. Someone doesn't have to like the NFT traffic to acknowledge that it still can do some good, but that's getting into a pretty nuanced point.

the-stratonites

Maybe some good advice for people in web3 such as crypto and NFT's if you in it...never EVER click on links....if you really need to....type the link over but not click the actual link OR click the link with a laptop or phone that is in NO WAY OR FORM attached to your NFTs or crypto wallets not the same IP adress not the same names or codes and dont tell people about it.... Alot of people are showing off with what they have...only thing you do is tell criminals what you have and what they could steel from you....this is basic stuff and will only getting worse when the technologia advance!!!

mrjune2040

The lead dev was Entriken (not a CL/Flow employee), the crypto kitties co-founder has co-author credit with a bunch of others because they were trying to develop crypto kitties at the time. And yes, that crypto kitties co-founder then co-founded Flow with Roham and created a blockchain to run their new products (importantly, to dump tokens on sucker retail investors). And yes, I was there because I was involved in Counterparty, which was the forebear of inscription and NFT’s and ultimately it’s a small industry.

Lefties_TheWorst7331

Umm.. 21m hard cap which most has been mined into circulation already. First coin to exist, no other ALTernative coins have surpassed or even gotten close to surpassing its market cap. Backed by true PoW. It doesn't need shit like NFT utility or utility to build a bunch of shit coins on its blockchain. Everyone acquires BTC at the price(s) they deserve. Few understand. There is no second best. They're called ALTcoins for a reason.

async9

One of the projects we did during the NFT era was using provable fairness on Solana [https://orao.network/solana-vrf](https://orao.network/solana-vrf) Basically your contract will lock the funds and lottery numbers or whatever your users are betting and then call the VRF to produce randomness. Then the contract chooses the winner based on the randomness and you provide the formula so that users can verify it. This was a one-off for an NFT project as mentioned but the provable fairness stayed on our mind for a long time. Later on we were using the same thing but the zk version for ethereum and researched a lot of casinos on how they're doing it. It seems that a lot, if not all, are actually providing fake on-chain results and fairness. There's either something that's missing from the formula and then customer support moves you in circles for months (literally months) or they send you a link to a page explaining how they're licensed and through which entity which again results in absolutely no provable fairness. Basically our research resulted in learning that all of those that we checked and who had provable on-chain fairness actually can't be proved. My favorite ones are legacy casinos which allow for crypto deposits and their "randomness" is provided by an RNG in the form of a USB stick that's connected a computer or a server somewhere and it's licensed and approved by an entity in Switzerland. There are 2-3 companies providing these RNG devices and they are all in Switzerland and you can't prove shit with it. Whatever happenes between the RNG and the users is anyone's guess... but hey... they're Swiss licensed. Not sure if users / players know about this. It's super easy to scam sheep.

Banker_dog

RIP all those NFT predictions

howmanyones

I thought that smart contracts were the NFT use case.

Varjek

In part, yes. The key distinction is that stock in a company represents the assessed value of the real estate, machinery, inventory, financial assets, and branding of that company. All of those can be sold off in the event of a failure of the company so the shareholders can recoup some/all losses. Bitcoin has no assets. There is no company. There is no land or machinery. So the only value Bitcoin has is what people imagine it to be worth. Bitcoin is therefore much more susceptible to volatility and carries increased risk. Bitcoin benefits from its position as an early cryptocurrency, from scarcity and from hype. Bitcoin has some use. But it is not unique and has no unique utility. It is not necessary. As institutions adopt Bitcoin, governments will exert their power and it actually drives many out of the market - which is part of what we’re seeing now. The Illinois tax on transactions won’t impact most current holders of Bitcoin when it goes into effect, but it represents government taking a slice of every transaction in a way that government cannot do with off-the-books cash transactions. So many who believed Bitcoin was going to take a new place in the financial markets and allow for increased freedom are now seeing that government is going to be much more in their business than they want and are stepping away. So I was an early proponent of Bitcoin and I really wanted it to be great. But it’s encountering a nightmare scenario and on the verge of being the next NFT.

Thecrookedpictures

And NFT's

mlag000

First of all, crypto after 15 years still has 0 real use case. AI doesn't need crypto, finance doesn't need crypto. And quantum security doesn't need crypto. It's time crypto bro understand that. All this bullshit is like when people where trying to convince e eryone that NFT would be the new way to own things in real life like a house. Funny and pathetic.

EquitiesForLife

No I mean anyone can just copy bitcoin. And I know you'll say but then not the OG bitcoin thats why it wont be worth anything. But that thinking is no different than the whole NFT thing where people were somehow convinced that an NFT of an infinitely replicable jpeg file was somehow worth something because it was the official jpeg and that any copy isnt worth anything. Well if the copy, which is identical, isnt worth anything, then the original isnt either.

Varjek

How does it work then? I’m curious on your view. Here is my take. Bitcoin doesn’t produce anything and has no assets or revenue. The only way the value goes up is when people/institutions buy into it. If no one buys Bitcoin, the price goes down. So in order for a parabolic run to happen, the hype has to go through the moon again and people have to want to invest a boat load of money. Bitcoin did have a massive parabolic run. It went viral and the hype got insane. But it’s not unlike the spread of a virus or the NFT craze or the Macarena dance for that matter. It went up based on hype and has since gone down when the craze ended. It’s not worthless, but it has no actual value unless/until somebody wants to hold the bag of hopes/dreams/promises. Someone has to pump cash into Bitcoin and hold the empty bag or no more parabolic runs. So the trillion dollar number seems plausible to me… and I admit I don’t care to do the math on it myself.

Pyroll2206

By being integrated and invisible to the retail. Exemple: NFT

Tim-Rocket

Sure, as a matter of fact NFT tech would be perfect for that. BUT, what happens when said company decides to stop offering downloads for said software? What happens when they decide to unplug the servers in case of games fully online or with online components? Blockchain fixes many things, but not this.

Outsider-Trading

Crypto builders have had an open goal since Trump got in. No more Wells notices, no more debunking, no more "Operation Choke Point 2.0". The fact the space is floundering has more to do with hype moving to AI and builders no longer trying to appeal to retail, than it does the president running a memecoin. Let's compare: **Biden/Gensler admin** The SEC initiated 125 cryptocurrency-related enforcement actions between April 2021 and December 2024, resolving 98 of them and collecting $6.05 billion in recoveries/penalties. Many actions were preceded by Wells Notices. High-profile examples include: Coinbase (March 2023) Uniswap Labs (April 2024) Consensys (April 2024, related to MetaMask) Robinhood Crypto (May 2024) Crypto.com (October 2024) OpenSea (August 2024) Others in 2024: Immutable, CyberKongz, Unicoin, etc. In 2024 alone, at least ~8 Wells Notices were publicly reported to crypto entities (NFT projects, exchanges, protocols, and platforms). Broader context: ~69 crypto-related federal court cases initiated (per NYT analysis). Many major platforms and DeFi projects faced scrutiny. **Trump 2 admin:** Dramatic reversal and de-escalation. The SEC has dropped or paused nearly 60% of inherited crypto cases. Of 23 crypto cases inherited (21 from Biden era + 2 from first Trump term), it withdrew from 14. Closed or dismissed numerous investigations where Wells Notices had already been issued, including Gemini, Uniswap Labs, OpenSea, Robinhood Crypto, Crypto.com, and the high-profile Coinbase lawsuit (dismissed with prejudice). Created a Crypto Task Force focused on regulatory clarity and innovation rather than new enforcement. New Wells Notices to crypto companies appear to be near zero or extremely rare. The agency restructured its crypto unit and shifted priorities away from targeting the industry. ___ I know this subreddit is astroturfed to all hell by anti-Trumpers, who will downvote this comment without replying purely because it's bad optics for them, but there is literally no comparison between trying to building in the Biden/Gensler and building under Trump 2.0.

No_Cook2983

Thank you, my friend! The answer was right in front of me the whole time! https://preview.redd.it/88m1pqjlimah1.jpeg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ec3745049ac29f6bd83f9be45b30630b51ecf37 I got a $130,000 margin with my Beanie Baby NFT! This one is **Bear-va Flav!** People are shocked when I tell them he was $200,000. Probably because they know what a great deal it was. This is only one of EIGHT Bear-va Flav NFTs from the Platinum Prestige Collection®️minted in October 2025!

liquid_at

not like ETH has performed much better since the NFT-craze is over. No current use-case for tokens imho.

MiNdAmaZing

Seems like some details are off. 1. if you hold 1 GNO you only get 2% cashback. Together with the NFT this brings you to 3% 2. The cashback cap is way, way lower than stated. If you hold 1 GNO, your spending cap (until you get 3%) is 375$. so max cashback you can get is 11,25$. afterwards you get 0% until the weekly reset. don't get me wrong. I recently signed up to gnosis as well and really like it, but i hate the weekly cap compared to the monthly cap on Ether fi and Coca

noviwu97

RIP to this top 5 most shilled coins in this sub. It was funny seeing the GME shills pivotted to saying how amazing the tech/dev is after the NFT marketplace shut down

SoftJeff

NFT’s and minting were actually so fun. Not sure why it had to completely die off.

MrMpeg

Did you also buy his bible? His NFT's, Go to his university or bought into all his other scams?

GeoSystemsDeveloper

**Daily crypto TL;DR:** * ⚠️ Bitcoin holds near $60K; overall market sentiment remains "Extreme Fear" (index 15). * ⚠️ Bitcoin and gold are 2026's worst-performing assets due to the Fed's hawkish stance. * ⚠️ Binance's CZ attributes crypto sell-off to geopolitics, AI capital shift, and market cycles. * ℹ️ EU lawmakers urge assessment of DeFi, staking, and NFT regulations. *News summary from the* [*HODLings app*](https://www.geosystemsdev.com/products/hodlings/)*.*

WeggieUK

My wallets no longer get scam NFT's or tokens anymore. That's when you know it's bad.

mindtrapper

I don't think you researched the Gnosis system enough. Gnosis Pay is like you say but there are partner apps. I have one card which is connected to Rebind and Gnosis App. Rebind offers around 5.5% APY with card auto top up and free IBAN SEPA transfers. Gnosis App offers the cashback. If you have 1 GNO in your wallet you have 3% cashback and if you get their reward NFT (I think you need to invite 3 people that spend 50 Euros with their card) you get +1%. So I get 4% rewarded in their coin (CRC) which I can swap to EUR in my card immediately. Limit is 4000 CRC per week, so 1000 Euros per week. Without NFT it's 3000 CRC (still 1000 Euros). If you want to hold 10 GNO then it maxes out to 5% cash back. Limit remains 4000 CRC (800 Euros per week). Sounds better than your 2 card setup.

ginga_balls

I’m not making fun of anyone. I’m telling you all that you’re retards for buying bitcoin. It has as much value as an NFT…which is none. I hope you’re all holding the bag when this shit crashes to $0…retards

mikegoblin

I have some first edition tops NFT baseball cards from 2020

Charitzo

> it's a Story of value which we create to sell to the next person ata higher price. This sounds awful similar to Butters / Vic Chaos explaining NFT's to the old people.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Sudden_Big_9410 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1uf8ofn/the_real_crypto_use_case_wasnt_defi_or_nfts_it/ Hear me out. Every crypto cycle needed an external villain to justify its existence. 2017: \*"Banks are corrupt"\* → DeFi your money 2021: \*"Artists deserve royalties"\* → NFT everything 2025: \*"You can't tell what's real anymore"\* → \*\*and this one actually sticks\*\* Here's the thing nobody wants to admit: most blockchain use cases were \*\*looking for a problem to solve\*\*. The tech was real, the problem was manufactured. AI flipped this. When any 14-year-old can generate a fake invoice, a fake identity, a fake news article, a fake scientific paper — in 30 seconds — you suddenly have a genuine demand for infrastructure that can prove something is real. That's not a whitepaper promise. That's a Tuesday morning problem. And blockchain is weirdly, accidentally, perfectly positioned for it: \- Immutable record of \*when\* something was created \- Proof of \*who\* signed it \- Verifiable chain of custody for data Not because crypto people are smart. But because they spent 10 years building solutions to problems nobody had yet. The irony is beautiful. AI creates infinite noise → blockchain becomes the signal layer. Will there still be scams and garbage projects? Obviously yes. But for the first time, there's a \*\*pull\*\* instead of just a \*\*push\*\*. Real demand dragging the tech forward instead of hype pushing it. Anyway. Probably nothing. \--- \*\*TL;DR:\*\* AI makes it impossible to trust anything → suddenly everyone needs what blockchain was always trying to sell. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

admin_default

If you’re gullible enough to think crypto would ever work as a day-to-day currency for humans, I have an NFT to sell you. Governments, especially super powers, will always protect their control of local currency. Your investment thesis shouldn’t hinge on the world’s super powers collapsing. Crypto is still useful. But the anarchocapitalist vision of replacing all fiat everywhere is a fantasy.

ImpressiveButton4037

Yeah lol I get the vibe its like a NFT but what's a cool catchy name

longview4nearsighted

I'm hoping it will be a come-back-kid. I was really on board with the real world NFT application for things like car titles, mortgages, and other documents that are user specific and could utilize encryption.

hamson2024

I stopped running the program since December 2025. If it was a dependency thing, why didn’t it happen when I was running the NFT trading program? Why it happened half a year later? I just tell my story. You can choose what you want to believe. The problem is that, I can only suspect. There is no way for me to get any evidence.

greenpeppers100

Then you have malware on your computer, used a dependency in your code that’s been compromised, or had some mechanism in your bot that exposed your keys to the open internet. AWS secures more money then the combine market cap of every NFT project your bot was trading, banks use and trust it for infrastructure. They aren’t stealing your keys. And if you can prove that they did, I’d encourage you to sue the hell outta them.

greenpeppers100

Then you have malware on your computer, used a dependency in your code that’s been compromised, or had some mechanism in your bot that exposed your keys to the open internet. AWS secures more money then the combine market cap of every NFT project your bot was trading, banks use and trust it for infrastructure. They aren’t stealing your keys. And if you can prove that they did, I’d encourage you to sue the hell outta them.

sgtslaughterTV

https://www.npr.org/2026/05/27/g-s1-124463/trump-supporting-prediction-market-companies-in-fights-with-state-gambling-regulators >Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., is an advisor to Kalshi and Polymarket, and his venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, is a major Polymarket investor. I'm the fool? wut? Should I screenshot this and turn it into an NFT?

csfrayer

I'm pessimistic on purely financial assets moving entirely to blockchain - but it's technologically and legally feasible. Representations on blockchains of real world assets will not and cannot ever be immutable. Paper ownership of art is not ownership if someone else has the physical art. Land is not meaningfully "transferred" on the blockchain. You can't NFT physical assets. It's essentially the same reason that blockchain for supply chain management failed - it doesn't matter what the blockchain says if the people responsible for putting the info into the blockchain are putting in bad info.

whatwilly0ubuild

The lily pad analogy is fine for intuition but the technical claims need some pushback. On Solana's "state contention" framing. The characterization of Solana forcing transactions to declare state access upfront is accurate, but "localized traffic jam can lag or desynchronize the global network validator queues" overstates the problem. Solana's local fee markets (implemented post-SIMD-0096) specifically address this by isolating congestion to hot accounts rather than letting it propagate globally. A popular NFT mint can spike fees for that program's state without affecting unrelated transactions. The architecture has evolved beyond the original scheduler limitations. On Monad's "optimistic execution" description. The rollback-and-reorder framing is roughly correct for optimistic parallelism, but the claim that MonadDB allows "multiple processing cores to read the hard drive at the exact same millisecond without locking each other out" conflates several things. Async I/O is about not blocking threads while waiting for storage operations, not about simultaneous disk access. The actual innovation is scheduling compute while I/O is in flight, not magic parallel disk reads. On Hyperliquid being "specialized monoculture." This is accurate. Purpose-built order matching with stripped-down execution paths will always outperform general-purpose compute for that specific workload. The 200k orders/second claim is plausible for a system that only does one thing. The Apple/Linux/Microsoft comparison is narrative framing, not technical analysis. These analogies are more about storytelling than architecture.

TheresNoSecondBest

Same position here, mate. The vast majority of people running core30 don't want the garbage like NFTs neither, but jumping on the 110 bandwagon would create even more problems. Now the 110 gang (I don't like calling them knotzi) is creating unnecessary drama, instead of concentrating on the bigger issues we have. A fine example. One single member of the 110 group posted yesterday 5 posts with zero context. Just a click bite title and a link to a random tweed. Or course the post will get taken down, nobody has time to click on your link titled "Bitcoin under attack" just to see a random X profile with 5 followers announcing a video, another X profile will release the next day. Once the post is removed, he runs to X and complaints about censorship of his spam. Just more drama instead of looking for a solution. So far, I haven't seen a "coreunist" that would fight keeping inscriptions/NFTs on, but perhaps these NFT scammers are concentrating outside of this sub.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Sea_Coconut_4706 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1u6lfvk/new_to_crypto_tired_of_hearing_terms_like_defi/ Why Most People Struggle With Crypto (And Why It Has Nothing to Do With Intelligence) I've been involved in the crypto space long enough to notice a common pattern. Most people don't struggle with crypto because they're not smart enough. They struggle because crypto has its own language. Think about it. If someone walked into a conversation and heard terms like "staking," "yield farming," "liquidity pools," "gas fees," "smart contracts," "tokenomics," and "layer 2 scaling," they'd probably feel completely lost. The funny thing is that many people assume everyone else understands these terms. In reality, a huge percentage of crypto investors are quietly Googling definitions while pretending they know exactly what's going on. I know because I've done it myself. One minute you're reading about Bitcoin. The next minute, you're trying to understand blockchain technology. Then someone mentions DeFi. Before you've figured that out, another person is talking about governance tokens, market caps, stablecoins, and decentralized autonomous organizations. It can feel overwhelming. Yet despite the complexity, crypto continues to grow. Every year, more people enter the market. Some are investors looking for opportunities. Some are developers building the future of finance. Others are simply curious about what all the excitement is about. The problem isn't access to information. The problem is access to understandable information. Most crypto resources are written by experts for experts. They assume readers already understand the basics. They use technical language and industry jargon that can make beginners feel excluded. Imagine trying to learn a new language by reading a university textbook. That's how many people experience crypto. That's what inspired the idea behind The Crypto Dictionary. The goal isn't to tell people what coins to buy. It's not financial advice. It's not a trading strategy. It's not a prediction service. The goal is much simpler. To create a place where people can quickly understand the words and concepts they encounter every day in the crypto world. When someone sees the term "staking," they should be able to understand it without reading ten different articles. When someone hears about a "smart contract," they should know what it means. When someone reads about "market capitalization," they should understand why it matters. Knowledge creates confidence. Confidence creates better decisions. Better decisions often start with understanding the language. One of the most fascinating things about crypto is that it sits at the intersection of multiple industries. Technology. Finance. Economics. Computer science. Game theory. Cybersecurity. Psychology. Each of these fields contributes its own terminology. When combined, they create an entirely new vocabulary that newcomers must learn. That's a major barrier to adoption. Imagine if every new internet user had to learn hundreds of technical networking terms before sending their first email. The internet would never have grown as quickly as it did. The same principle applies to crypto. The easier we make learning, the faster understanding spreads. Whether you're a Bitcoin maximalist, an Ethereum supporter, a DeFi enthusiast, an NFT collector, or simply someone curious about blockchain technology, understanding the language gives you a stronger foundation. Even experienced crypto users regularly encounter unfamiliar terms. The industry evolves quickly. New concepts emerge every year. What was cutting-edge five years ago may be common knowledge today. What sounds confusing today may become standard terminology tomorrow. That's part of what makes crypto exciting. It's constantly evolving. We're witnessing the development of entirely new financial systems, technologies, and communities in real time. For newcomers, my advice is simple: Don't be intimidated. Nobody starts as an expert. Every experienced investor, developer, trader, and entrepreneur in crypto was once a beginner who didn't know the difference between a wallet and an exchange. Learning happens one concept at a time. One definition at a time. One question at a time. If you're currently learning about crypto, what's the most confusing term you've encountered recently? I'd genuinely like to know. Maybe it's something that deserves a clearer explanation than what's currently available. After all, the future of crypto isn't just about technology. It's about making knowledge accessible enough for everyone to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

SnooSeagulls4360

NFT-s v2 😃. Hard pass.

AutoModerator

Post is by: willofscott and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/Monad/comments/1u5bkay/a_reply_worthy_of_postingmonad_question_asked/ Dude, Mr OnusunO, how many times do you have to be clued in and prompted with some valid data which should prompt you to do some real indepth research. The research is the way to establish a belief in the thesis of an asset, without the research you have no real reason to be owning it, and that’s full of angst and worry, give yourself a break and create a knowledge based commitment you can set the asset aside after buying it and let it do its thing, you have decided based in data, that will take place in time as far as you can actually know for sure. Plant a stake and go on to other life things occasionally updating your research to see if your thesis is still accurate. This is how institutions select assets, retail guesses or convinces them selves they aren’t guessing when many times they actually are. I have done extensive research and have found that there is a high probability Monad will be a core infrastructural play on the overall implementation of trad fi on to crypto rails, which is in my research 100% going to happen, the rialing of finance. There is no other option, no other superior technology, everything is going blockchain, it will take 1-20yeras for the transition, and monad once mature and established will be a fixed component of this crypto ecosystem. Parallel execution as it has been hard coded with monad, is an advanced proprietary parallel execution variant. It has been developed by Jump Trading experts in parallel computing, why? Because in high frequency trading you cannot run the risk of your trade order or thousands of micro second trade orders to get bottlenecked behind a task like minting an NFT, that could cost millions in losses at that scale. This dilemma has caused HFT firms to become the premier firms to develop the computer science technology called parallel execution or computing. They have millions riding on the line to develop system which have zero lag time to execute millions of trade orders with absolutely zero failure rate. So you apply this same science to crypto and you can run or process transactions the same way, for instant finality with very little expense per transactions. This is a major reason why Mastercard is working with their engineers as they mature and develop the working incubated system to Mastercards needs as they incubate them. They recognized the use of this HFT skill set and applied it to crypto, a new frontier for this tech, hence monad was formed. Parallel execution in layman’s terms… Let’s say you are cruising along and you come to pond, and there is a line waiting to cross over via the single row of lily pads (you are a bug so weight has no relevance), the line is due to every bug has a different crossing time and ability, so the line grows and you wait for your turn and this wait is never the same depending on who needs to cross, along comes a little bug ambulance tries to cross without the lily pads and sinks in the pond lost forever, there is no crossing without these lily pads. Then one day someone adds a grid of lily pads as a solution, but the bugs do not understand why and simply still use the same row of lily pads. And the solution is a no go, the next day they learn to use two rows and there is some improvement…along comes monad and write a sign (code) that explains based on the person in front of you and their speed please select another adjacent lily pad to pass and you are approved to evaluate any lily pad which supports the expeditious crossing. So the bugs quickly learn to use every lily pad in the pond and everyone crosses at their own speed as fast as they can and the line is forever eliminated. The end, or the beginning! That’s parallel execution, the tech other chains established do not have as monad has, other versions but not the monad superior built version which is known to be the shit! ….and it naturally should be, because it incorporates the knowledge of very skilled experienced parallel technicians and engineers tasked with protecting clients money by the billions, that pressure to deliver, that’s precision under fire, that’s who is building monad. Unparalleled engineering, applied to parallel execution. The lack of coin price heavy parabolic moves is the dilution aspects of coming unlocks and an adoption grind expected to take awhile, and whether the dynamics will nullify or accelerate the risk at the point of dilution. There is a case to be made to be invested now, and plan for demand to outweigh supply, and a case to be made for the opposite hence no dedicated price surges as of yet. Also the public opinion of VC dump as if they will simply drop this project as job done we got the one time pump, get a pay day and drop the whole project as a scam. Are you fucking kidding me? That’s the most immature perspective of financial industry, I’ve ever heard, finance will extract ever single value based ounce there is to be harvested, and if the long game hold true substantial gains and/or possibly be a acquisition target of massive value, they will not simply stop the project and let it rot, and not extract this long term value. That will,never happen this way a lot of public seem to think is the game. Stupid gossip ridiculous thinking of the masses, hence why retail lose money and spray liquidity all over the institutions bank accounts. After the unlocks and after things settle down, monad will continue on with working on the system, adoption, onboarding services, and they have enough cash runway to exist along time without running out of funds such that they are almost guaranteed to weather the storm until adoption meets needed demand and survive to be a major blockchain. This is the real payoff time, and I believe a payday large enough even VC and there time lines will want a piece of this action and either buy back in or hold a portion of their bags, the unlock will not be the real payday and pros know this, it’s in 5-7 years from now, and that fits their chartered timelines of these investment firms. This is why this coin is investable, and why in the long term will be generational wealth ticket, question is now or after dilution, both have risks and both have advantages possibly. If your in it for the long haul you buy now and hold and stake your position to gain yield and benefit from the dilution period and extended wait time, and if being your a long term investor you don’t fear drawdown one bit, which long term holders could careless, if they are dcaing constantly and consistently, the yield earned keeps the time invested not dead money, hence why the yield is there at all. Dead money is bad, yield bearing while waiting for a highly probable successful technological advanced blockchain to mature and be revenue generating from the genesis moment is awe inspiring and will make many rich people with giant smiles on their faces. That’s why monad is a good coin. Go read and research to see why I said these things and bring back some things I didnt said, good or bad, help us stay informed, and find peace in your commitments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

St0uty

So what you're saying is, there was a near-perfect decentralised currency, but after some grifters divided the space with NFT & memecoin pumps, everyone just gave up and went back to using dollars (but now on the blockchain!) Kinda sad how easy it was for the banks to still come out on top with this technology lol

LargeSnorlax

The crux of the argument is exposed in that before you would be able to more effectively launder sales, and this is closing a loophole. For some reason people want more legitimacy to crypto as an asset, but also want to be able to sell an NFT to themselves on December 31st for $1 or blatantly wash trade and claim that on their taxes as a loss.

spxflipper6900

The pdf should be sold to you as an NFT, that way you make sure you receive what you paid for.

belavv

> As an NFT collector I find a lot of value in it. Hahahaha

LetzGetz

Anyone with an NFT profile picture deserves to be poor.