Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

tgwaste

macrumors 68000
Sep 18, 2013
1,727
3,432
People who bash NFTs don’t truly understand them. If you think apes and jpgs when you hear NFT, you are missing the intended use case for NFTs, which is proving ownership of something digital in your own wallet rather than a place like Apple’s database (or Google’s, or Valve’s, or Ticketmaster’s, etc).

So of course Apple doesn’t want to allow NFTs on their platform because of their walled garden approach. You want to be able to prove digital ownership of something? You’ll have to pay Apple to do so.
ALL CRYPTO oriented and related things are a scam. A complete and total scam. I'm surprised they lasted this long. Youre literally buying AIR.
 

RumorUser12

macrumors newbie
Apr 17, 2020
11
113
No, we understand them just fine. It's one reason why we bash them.

The use of Public/Private keypairs to Read/Write to a distributed public database has had 14 years to prove functional utility. At best it has replicated privately maintained database (aka United States Patent and Trademark Office) systems, with a tiny advantage of a trustless public one. Although the ability of individuals or groups to force "Forking" reduces that "trustless". The energy costs of Proof-of-Work blockchains destroys even that marginal value. While Proof-of-Stake has no grounding, and is more vulnerable to forking from "Bribe Attacks", and eventually takes us back to a state where you're "trusting" a select group of validators. The same way one "trusts" existing private (personal, company/bank, government) databases.

Everything that flows from there, like NFTs, suffers from the underlying flaws.

Again, at best, Blockchains are marginally more trustworthy databases at extreme energy cost.
or
Redundant to more energy/time efficient existing private systems.

The only current advantage over just using the United States Patent and Trademark Office is the ability to immediately do an ownership verification check. Which the USPTO could implemented with their own digital Public/Private key system. The same way digital "Trusted Certificate Authorities" already do. USPTO and other such government bodies could just become digital Trusted Certificate Authorities themselves.
Blockchain is already transforming fintech.
 

ttyRazor

macrumors regular
Sep 24, 2019
227
352
You think? I can't think of a more effective ban than taking 30% of the revenue. Nobody's going to touch that.
And unless Apple starts accepting cryptocurrencies it’d have to happen with real money, so there’s no buying an NFT directly with cryptocurrency you already have.
 

twiebnoyagad

Suspended
Oct 21, 2022
38
41
People who bash NFTs don’t truly understand them. If you think apes and jpgs when you hear NFT, you are missing the intended use case for NFTs, which is proving ownership of something digital in your own wallet rather than a place like Apple’s database (or Google’s, or Valve’s, or Ticketmaster’s, etc).

So of course Apple doesn’t want to allow NFTs on their platform because of their walled garden approach. You want to be able to prove digital ownership of something? You’ll have to pay Apple to do so.
No, it's you that don't understand that it's a scam.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 19, 2002
39,777
7,498
Los Angeles
The guidelines now ban any concepts that attempt to capitalize or profit from "recent or current events, such as violent conflicts, terrorist attacks, and epidemics."

I get that scam apps based on the latest news have been a problem, but...

Suppose terrorists are sending drones over your neighborhood and a free quickly-developed app gives you updates on locations, and information on how to protect yourself. That's banned?

Suppose there's a new pandemic, so Uber and Lyft create an app that helps you determine if your symptoms warrant a hospital visit and then lets you tap to get a ride to the nearest hospital for half the usual price. That's banned?
 

CarAnalogy

macrumors 601
Jun 9, 2021
4,127
7,575
I get that scam apps based on the latest news have been a problem, but...

Suppose terrorists are sending drones over your neighborhood and a free quickly-developed app gives you updates on locations, and information on how to protect yourself. That's banned?

Suppose there's a new pandemic, so Uber and Lyft create an app that helps you determine if your symptoms warrant a hospital visit and then lets you tap to get a ride to the nearest hospital for half the usual price. That's banned?

Call the FAA / DHS for scenario one. Also that can just be a website. Not everything has to be an app, I would hope that's one lesson people would learn from overbearing App Store rules, but it never seems to come up.

Scenario two is just too far fetched. I think the spirit of this is to help stop the pandemic of scams. Considering how much of a cesspool the App Store is, I don't think you have to worry about it.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G3
Jul 22, 2002
9,809
7,717
something digital in your own wallet rather than a place like Apple’s database (or Google’s, or Valve’s, or Ticketmaster’s, etc).
But, it’s not really “in your wallet” right? It’s in the wallet of a different organization, just not the ones named above.
 

Spaceboi Scaphandre

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2022
3,414
8,097
ALL CRYPTO oriented and related things are a scam. A complete and total scam. I'm surprised they lasted this long. Youre literally buying AIR.

"NOOOOOOO you just don't GET ITTTTTTT! IT'S THE FUTURE!!!!!"

Quoting this economist who's name I don't remember: "The day you can go to McDonalds and buy a Big Mac with Bitcoin (and with Bitcoin, not with a debit card that quicksells Bitcoin into local tenure) is the day it will be worth anything."
 

kmoreau48

macrumors regular
Nov 3, 2012
130
65
No, we understand them just fine. It's one reason why we bash them.

The use of Public/Private keypairs to Read/Write to a distributed public database has had 14 years to prove functional utility. At best it has replicated privately maintained database (aka United States Patent and Trademark Office) systems, with a tiny advantage of a trustless public one. Although the ability of individuals or groups to force "Forking" reduces that "trustless". The energy costs of Proof-of-Work blockchains destroys even that marginal value. While Proof-of-Stake has no grounding, and is more vulnerable to forking from "Bribe Attacks", and eventually takes us back to a state where you're "trusting" a select group of validators. The same way one "trusts" existing private (personal, company/bank, government) databases.

Everything that flows from there, like NFTs, suffers from the underlying flaws.

Again, at best, Blockchains are marginally more trustworthy databases at extreme energy cost.
or
Redundant to more energy/time efficient existing private systems.

The only current advantage over just using the United States Patent and Trademark Office is the ability to immediately do an ownership verification check. Which the USPTO could implemented with their own digital Public/Private key system. The same way digital "Trusted Certificate Authorities" already do. USPTO and other such government bodies could just become digital Trusted Certificate Authorities themselves.

I feel like NFTs are currently on a turnaround. I agree that most if not all NFT use cases in the past were some sort of scams. The future of NFT is very promising if done properly. Have you heard of the Ethereum merge? it reduces the energy consumption of the old proof of work method by 99.95%.
How much do you think it cost in energy to have the current debit / credit system?

I mean, we've had Apple Wallet since 2012 and we still don't have an option to use our driving's license on it after 10 years.

It reminds me of the early internet era where people were scared of going online, thinking that it wasn't safe. Look where we are now. All it takes is a vision and a goal to achieve great things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: techpr

kmoreau48

macrumors regular
Nov 3, 2012
130
65
No, it's you that don't understand that it's a scam.
Your point is valid, so emails and phone calls are scams as well?
It's not because there is fraud in a system that it is 100% scam. How many emails and phones calls are made every day to scam people? Does that prevent you from using the service in a good way? connecting with your friends or running a business?

You know what a scam is? human beings are scams. Behind every scam, there is a human being running it. Are you still talking to other people?

NFTs are the exact same thing. Yes, there's a lot of scams, but there's a lot of potential and good that can come out of it.
 

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,544
6,042
Apple’s decision to support web notifications seems like a pretty big deal to me.

At this point, there’s no reason that almost every app in the App Store couldn’t just be a web app. Performance might be theoretically inferior, but virtually no app is using more than 5% of what Apple provides for hardware.
 

Dorje Sylas

macrumors 6502a
Jun 8, 2011
524
370
Have you heard of the Ethereum merge?
we understand them just fine
You didn't read my post, or failed to comprehend it.

How much do you think it cost in energy to have the current debit / credit system?
Still less than Proof-of-Stake (Pos) ETH.

0.0014863 kWH per transaction, Visa
0.03 kWH per transaction, ETH(PoS)


Better, but still an order of magnitude off. And ETH is trading some Trust for that.

I stand by what I said about Proof-of-Stake. It is not some magical method that fixes Blockchains, and introduces a whole new set of problem with Trust. There seems to be continuum between Trust(less) and Cost. Proof-of-Work is mostly Trustless (although examples can be found of broken trust) but a massive energy cost. Proof-of-Stake is less Trusty (because large Stake Holds have greater opportunity to become Validators and manipulate), still has high energy cost. Current Banking/Payment and other Private record systems are the most energy/cost effective, but if you don't trust the Single Validator (system owner/operator)... then you don't trust it.

NFTs being an extension of Blockchains are still worse than existing private validators. Not only because of issues with PoS Blockchains, but because of Data storage. Blockchains aren't tooled for that, and increasing On-Chain storage would increase cost/energy and transaction time. Even projects like BitTorrent that try to pair Blockchain pointers with distributed file storage aren't a functional solution. Off-Chain dead or hijacked pointers will remain a thing.

And to the point of Apple's ban on NFTs granting exclusives application perks, since NFT data has to interpreted by the endpoint App, I'd argue you can't feasibly build anything that reads, interprets, and renders NFT data (on or off chain). No exclusive [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker] or Metaverse Island.

Should just be a blanket ban, and save confusion. But Apple wants to eat their cake (cut of transactions) and have it too (not be associated NFT scam app/games).

reminds me of the early internet era
When greedy Investment Capitol was chasing every company with a Dot Com in their name, like a flock of headless chickens.

By the way, can I interest you in a nice rug? I promise I won't pull it, honest.
 

twiebnoyagad

Suspended
Oct 21, 2022
38
41
Your point is valid, so emails and phone calls are scams as well?
It's not because there is fraud in a system that it is 100% scam. How many emails and phones calls are made every day to scam people? Does that prevent you from using the service in a good way? connecting with your friends or running a business?

You know what a scam is? human beings are scams. Behind every scam, there is a human being running it. Are you still talking to other people?

NFTs are the exact same thing. Yes, there's a lot of scams, but there's a lot of potential and good that can come out of it.
I'm sorry but what you're spewing is pathetic.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.