974
None. Suffer. (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Honestly I don't know. I'm just pointing out the only thing that kind of sort of sounded like a good idea for it I've ever heard. For pictures it's stupid that's for sure

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    It’s not a picture though. It’s a link to a picture on a server somewhere. If the host goes down, you own nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Isn't it just a small amount of data? If the picture is small enough you could put it directly on the blockchain.

    Dunno why you would though. It's very limiting for no particular gain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But in NFTs the picture is not on the Blockchain. Only a link to the picture is on the Blockchain and the picture itself is still just on the web.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    No, they are right. What they are saying is that even though pretty much all NFTs contain a link to a picture on the blockchain, theoretically you could write a really, really small image in the space where you would normally write the URL. From a quick google, that’s 100 bytes. For a black and white image, that’s 100 pixels. For color, that’s around 30 pixels

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent