• slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    3 days ago

    I would question how an Instagram account causes nft to be stolen… But we are on meme so let’s leave it at that.

    • vaguerant@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      115
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/26/bored-ape-yacht-club-nft-hack-theft-art-simian-oblivion

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • slazer2au@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Something that is fungible is not unique.

        An NFT is essentially a number tied to another number in a block chain that establishes ownership.

        It provides a history of who owns it to. It’s very useful when validating contracts and preventing fraud. Somehow it got turned into little graphics exchanged for money and I still don’t understand how that happened.

        So, for instance, since the owners of the NFTs know that the wallet is compromised, the recipients of the NFTs after this point in the block chain are recipients of stolen goods. So anyone tracing the validity of an NFT knows that these are now all worthless.

          • Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            What do you mean, I shook my magic 8-ball and it clearly said I was correct in valuing my stick figure at 50b USD. I was completely bankrupted when my kid ripped my paper in half

          • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Worthless on their own, yes. It’s very valuable as a technology in terms of trackability and transparency, and establishing ownership.

            Tied to a graphic? That’s just stupid and anyone who spent money on them deserved what they got.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              We had ways to do trackability, transparency, and establishing ownership before NFTs came along. They solve nothing.

              Please, for the love of fuck, don’t say Ticketmaster. That argument is the worst.

              • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yes, plenty of ways, but none that didn’t have flaws. The idea behind it is that it leveraged a publicly viewable history.

                Something like a Title Search for a home purchase would be done looking at the token’s history. It’s also not a database so there’s no way to edit it after the transaction has been performed.

                In the instance of equities exchange it can also be used to prove who has and historically had ownership. In the care of, say, a broker, no one actually owns the stocks, the broker does and gives you an IOU for the stock. This means they can do whatever they want with the stock while it shouldn’t be touched since it’s yours.

                I don’t know how Ticketmaster plays into this?

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  There’s nothing there that can’t be done with a standard, public database. What’s lacking is the political will to modernize these systems. NFTs don’t solve that.

                  I brought up Ticketmaster because it’s a common thing to bring up for NFT replacement. A dumb thing to bring up, because while everyone hates Ticketmaster, people don’t understand why venues are beholden to them and how NFTs won’t solve that.

            • Merva@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              It’s very valuable as a technology in terms of trackability and transparency, and establishing ownership.

              That has yet to be proven. Other technology already exists which does this, and that is currently being used as that by most of the world.

            • kautau@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              The best part is that for 99% of NFTs, that graphic isn’t stored on the blockchain. It’s just a standard internet URL. So you are relying on the TLD to be alive in ICANN, the TLD to be registered to the same party that originally sold the NFTs, the DNS servers the TLD uses to be registered and function as expected, and finally the servers that are privately owned by somebody else to be hosting the stupid graphic at the URL the NFT is registered to.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          It provides a history of who owns it to. It’s very useful when validating contracts and preventing fraud.

          So useful in fact that no company in existence that I know of uses it.

          Don’t know of a single bank, fortune 500 or any financial institution that uses it.

          Wonder why.

          So, for instance, since the owners of the NFTs know that the wallet is compromised, the recipients of the NFTs after this point in the block chain are recipients of stolen goods. So anyone tracing the validity of an NFT knows that these are now all worthless.

          Yeah, I dont think you can go from worthless to worthless.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Somehow it got turned into little graphics exchanged for money

          Step 1: Say blockchain to an investor

          Step 2: Tell them you will use it to sell a new thing.

          Step 3: Tell them that no one has ever done it before, and it’ll be the next hot thing.

          • kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            What if we took the art market, where prices can be whatever, so it’s really easy to launder money. Then we let people easily set up multiple accounts for wash trading. And we supported currencies held in stupidly large amounts by people who can’t legally use them for anything useful.

  • aubertlone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

    • Evotech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    My interpretation of the NFT/Crypto Future argument is “They’re perfect! It’s just that humans have to stop behaving like humans!”