They weren’t putting the image’s base64 encode on the blockchain or something like that? Just a URL?
this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025
221 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13828 readers
867 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
yes. It's too expensive to put the actual image on the blockchain so they just put the urls
immutable ledger my ass
theres no way its too expensive when youre paying over $1m for it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yep people were clowning on it from day 1 for this exact reason
Well, among other reasons you could also put exactly the same image onto the chain as often as you wanted because there's no actual relationship between the NFT functionality and whatever it was linking to or defining.
You could also copy and paste it for free
Yeah we all know right click save, but I feel it's a deeper critique that the asset itself can be infinitely reduplicated on the same chain because there's no guardrails or security or relationship between token and asset.
Moxie Marlinespike had a good bit where he sold nfts that would change to the poop emoji
load more comments
(4 replies)
Are we back to laughing at people who believe in IP now?
We never should have stopped
What if I call it the people's democratic intellectual property, is it cool now?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I want them to sue and be ruled against because the URL to the dead jpg still exists.
Legally you only own an entry in a distributed ledger that contains the value "https://dumbassclub.scam/18e67ddf-8469-404c-9820-0eab4631c905.jpg".
It's not even really clear if you own that much. What rights would ownership of an entry in a ledger even confer?
You own the spot in the ledger, if nobody considers the ledger authoritative then 🤷🏼♂️
can you inject your own shit, if you seize domain 
Right click --> save enjoyers vindicated again
Now that they don't exist, the law of supply and demand demands that my NFTs are infinitely valuable
I was having a bad until I read this post
They got funged
Even if you did the good old "right-click, save" trick them as the owner and you still have your image on your hard-drive, if the link is dead then you can't prove that your specific image of a baboon's ass is linked into that nft that is supposed to be worth X amounts of fiat.
Oh, this person is genuinely sad about this and big into crypto and username is literally NFT “PicturesOnBlockchain”. The cognitive dissonance has not hit them that the whole thing is a grift and this isn’t a single solitary unfortunate incident.
he forgot about his slurp juice
this is what happens when you don't use multiple slurp juices on one ape
Should have used the slurp juice smh
most logical economic system
Such a simpler time. When a Paris Hilton could go on Jimmy Fallon and show him her ape. It aged like bejeweled Von Dutch trucker hats.
load more comments
(3 replies)
rare
wym "rare" you can literally reupload the same picture into a new NFT
hey its the thing that was extremely obviously going to happen happening
push me to the ETH
all my apes are dead
man spends a million dollars and cant be arsed to encode the image in the blockchain
NFTs made me dislike humanity more as a whole. A large percentage of influencers were using them to scam the public.
How can crypto broes not taking advices from the goldbugs that if the assets is worthless if you don't own it tangibly
Lmao get rekt
tfw what you purchased was not an ape, nor an image of an ape, but a claim to a link to an image of an ape
The silver legion strikes again.