I would question how an Instagram account causes nft to be stolen… But we are on meme so let’s leave it at that.
They compromised the official Instagram account then phished its followers for their NFTs.
The attacker seized control of the BAYC Instagram account and sent a phishing post that many followers were fooled into clicking on, connecting their crypto wallets to the hacker’s “smart contract” – a mechanism for implementing a crypto transaction. That enabled the attacker to steal the assets held in the wallets, seizing control of four Bored Apes, as well as a host of other NFTs with an estimated total value of $3m.
Ah, fair enough.
so nothing changed about the fungibility at all
One of the funniest ways that these people get hacked is that you can give someone an NFT. Like it’ll show up in the wallet, no way to get rid of it. So you make a fake BoredApe or whatever other stupid JPEG, with a “smart contract” that essentially boils down to “steal everything” if the person ever interacts with it. Iirc some of the bigger name people have a bunch of these fake, toxic NFTs that they can’t interact with in any way, just hanging out in their wallet.
I remember reading that because of KYC you can effectively lock people out of their crypto wallets by having your own wallet associated with something illegal and sending that person some money.
Now because the person receiving the funds doesn’t know who you are, they can’t prove the person sending them money is legit and therefore can’t unlock their accounts.
I’m not convinced the author of this meme knows what “fungible” means
Me neither. Please explain. Something with mushrooms, surely.
Being “fungible” means that something is functionally equivalent with something else.
For example even though every dollar bill is unique (they have unique serial numbers), they are all fungible. If you deposit $100 in the bank, then withdraw $100 later, you are not getting the same bills, maybe not even the same denominations, but you don’t care because it doesn’t matter.
In the digital world copies are cheap and perfect. There is literally no way to tell a copy of an image from “the original”. So in the digital world all copies of something are fungible, and originals don’t meaningfully exist.
NFTs try to introduce artificial scarcity to the digital space by creating a distinction between “the original” of something and the copies, by introducing a sort of chain of custody tracking system.
NFTs try to introduce artificial scarcity
Just want to add to that, NFTs aren’t inherently about artificial scarcity, they could also be used to track ownership of rights or real life items without a central authority that everybody needs to trust.
Of course, cryptobros immediately went to pushing them as an investment scheme, and the actual implementations are slow, inefficient, and downright expensive to use. I don’t think anybody has managed to make NFTs actually useful, but I imagine the original creators weren’t looking to create… Whatever this is.
If something is fungible, it is essentially swappable with anything that is identical to it. Let’s say you and I both have our own dollar bills. We trade bills. We both still have $1, because the value of the bill isn’t related to the individual note, but rather the fact that you have a note. I don’t care which bill I have, because it is fungible. Sure they have serial numbers, but I’m not tracking those in regular usage. Functionally, the cash is fungible; If I loaned you $50 for a week, I’m not expecting to get back the exact same $50 bill that I handed to you last week.
Cash is just one example of a fungible item, but it could really be anything that is traded in lots or bulk. Maybe you buy a 50 pound bag of sand. You’re not buying each individual grain of sand, and tracking them all individually. Those grains of sand are fungible, because you only care that you got 50 pounds of them total. Hell, even the bags of sand could be fungible, as long as they’re all identical enough that you don’t care which bag is yours. It could be pounds of rice, or gallons of water, cans of soda in a vending machine, etc… All that matters is that the quality is similar enough between two items that you wouldn’t notice a difference between two, and you don’t care which specific item is yours. That’s what makes them fungible.
A non-fungible item is something that you do care about individually. A deck of playing cards may be fungible to a casino that buys 5000 of them per year… They don’t care which specific deck is in use at a poker table, because they’re all functionally the same. But each individual card is non-fungible to the poker players who care a lot about which specific cards they were dealt. A car dealership may have 20 identical cars parked in a lot just like yours, but one of them specifically is yours.
In the digital world, basically everything is fungible. Copies are easy to make, and are functionally identical to each other. If I make a gif and someone else reposts it, their repost isn’t functionally different than mine. NFTs were an attempt to create a sort of ownership ledger for digital items. A way of saying “you can copy this, but this one specifically is mine.” Technically, an NFT could point to anything, because all it is doing is attaching a unique identifier to the digital item, then entering it into the blockchain (essentially a ledger) so it can be tracked. If it exchanges hands, the blockchain will reflect that. But importantly, making a copy won’t enter a new copy into the blockchain, because you can’t copy the unique identifier.
It has a few potential practical uses. For instance, maybe digital IDs could be secured, as it would allow people to verify that their digital ID is the original and not a copy. Essentially, they’d show that they own the NFT for their ID, the blockchain would confirm that, and their ID would be verified.
But instead, techbros immediately turned it into a pump-and-dump and/or pyramid scheme.
Probably, but the way it’s written does add to the funnys
Mushrooms. Is it mushrooms?
Duh, not non-fungible of course!
millions worth of NFTs
Not to be confused with millions worth of Dollar
So like a dollar
“You maniacs! You funged it up! Ah, funge you! God funge you all to hell!”
This isn’t remotely what fungible means…
Yeah, well, we can’t all be expert mycologists.
You’re thinking of fungal. Fungible is when something shatters easily, like fungible ammunition.
You’re thinking of fragile.
Fungible is a brand of prepacked lunches, typically containing crackers, bologna, and cheese.
No you’re thinking of luchables, fungible is when you catch a Gible and he’s loads of fun. Keep looking in the grassy areas.
You’re thinking of fragile. Fungible is when something is interchangeable or replaceable by something else.
/End thread
Well frangible. But fragile also works!
That’s because fragile and frangible both come from frangere, meaning to break.
Spoilsport
I just remember looking into NFTS when they were gaining hype. There are a few real world use cases for them.
However ultimately the NFT ended up leading back to a URL of the picture. I may be oversimplifying it a little bit but that’s basically how it worked.
So the web hoster could just revoke the URL or set it to something else. So you don’t really own anything. I will have to look at the specifics of this “hack”. But this was always gonna be an issue.
It didn’t have to a URL to an image. It could have been a serial number showing ownership of a thing, etc.
But block chain isn’t really necessary for a registry, and in the end the money was in scamming people by selling them urls to images.
You can make images small enough to be hosted within the blockchain and there’s a fair amount of nfts like that. But that’s limited to pixel art stuff
I feel like, with some work, NFTs could be used for decentralized ownership of digital content licenses? But, I sincerely doubt any such companies would care to set that up.
While I know most people would just prefer everything go DRM-free, I’ll admit I became interested in the practice when I learned town libraries can stock AAA console video games, but would have a hard time stocking indie/AA games that have only had digital releases - even if the game’s creator is a hipster that loves libraries, the only simple approach there is to give away infinite free copies of the game.
I bet the theft is actually about insurance fraud, since that’s probably the only way to get anyone to pay that amount for them.
I love both the Simpsons and mocking NFTs, however that’s not what fungible means
This guy funges
How in the world does the insta page cause them to lose the tokens?
Probably using the same password.
“Help me, Dr. Zaius!”
Oh wow, that’s still a thing?
No, this is from three years ago.
The stolen NFTs are now probably worth 35c.
Pretty funny story, but it is 3 years old at this point.
My interpretation of the NFT/Crypto Future argument is “They’re perfect! It’s just that humans have to stop behaving like humans!”
It’s petty funny to see them rediscover why we have all these financial regulations
Like any new techonology… It’s cool for 10 minutes until capitalism weaponizes it against humanity.
Oof ouch right in the token
