Today’s #FreeLoveFriday is about a topic that has been seeing a lot of discussion recently. Namely, I want to talk about Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) in general, and to make it specific, I’ll focus on CryptoKitties.

First of all, there is the impression that NFTs were invented on Ethereum and that the Bitcoin community is just now getting in on the NFT game. This is not actually how it happened.
The very first NFTs were invented and issued on Bitcoin, by layering them on top of Bitcoin transactions. Among the most notable were NFTs centered around Pepe The Frog. I will leave dissecting the social aspect of Rare Pepes alone and focus on the technical side of NFTs.
These early blockchain collectible cards were issued in batches called “Series,” with each card featuring some artwork that crypto folks of the time found topical.
The first pepe series contains around 30 cards. Only a few of them are issued after real people. One of these is Satoshi Nakamoto, another is Luke-Jr, a Bitcoin developer, and I am (un)lucky enough to be memorialized as a Pepe myself.
My NFT in this series is especially rare: the PEPEGUN card is the only one of its kind to have been minted in floating point, so I’m the only divisible Pepe. Welcome to fractional Pepe ownership!
While Ethereum was not the first to create NFTs, the Ethereum community is responsible for their incredible growth since.
In October 2017, we got the @CryptoKitties phenomenon. @AxiomZenTeam released these cute creatures and they went viral overnight. A CryptoKitty is essentially a “kitty DNA sequence” for a cute cat that you own on the blockchain.
No one knew exactly how the kitty DNA mapped back to the cat phenotype, that is, how the cat looked. You could breed your kitty with someone else’s, and get a new cat that blended the DNA of its parents. That gave you clues about the kitty DNA.
So, like Gregor Johann Mendel and his peas, the internet set to task, trying to figure out the kitty DNA and to breed the best, worst, and quirkiest looking cats.
At the same time, people got to trading these weird creatures. They were so in demand that one of them reportedly sold one for $170,000. thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/…
I remember looking for a CryptoKitty in the early days. The cheapest decent-looking cat cost more than $60, and the very cheapest I could find, which looked ugly as sin, was $42.
I briefly considered which one to get, then decided that, for that price, I would get a real cat from the local rescue, which would at least warm me up on a cold day.
Cryptokitties are still in existence. They are still ticking along, and people have bred some really strange-looking specimens.
There is a lot of confusion about NFTs. One major one is that they can be used to protect real-world assets. This is true, but not in the obvious way. They cannot be used to make a picture on the Internet uncopyable. You can always screenshot what you see in your browser. Obvi.
But what they can do is embody some unique information in each card. That’s what makes these cards non-fungible. Each one is unique. Your dollars, bitcoins, ether, and AVAX are designed to be fungible.
Techies will object to the previous tweet and they are technically right -- dollars carry serials, $BTC and $AVAX UTXOs, $ETH has chain history and so on. But they are designed to be used interchangeably and, most importantly, hold the same value.
NFTs, on the other hand, are designed to carry unique information. And this opens up a world of possibilities.
An NFT can, for instance, carry unique information for a user that enables them to perform some task: act as a fan token for a team or celebrity, carry assets between online games, and even house kitty DNA.
We are seeing the most shallow uses of NFTs right now, as they are used mostly to show solidarity for a cause. But there’s much more to NFTs than simple collectibles and trading cards.
I’m very excited by NFT games in development, where people create Magic The Gathering-like decks on a blockchain. Can’t wait to see what @breitwoman and her stellar team are planning to release on Tezos.
I also have ideas for how NFTs can play a vital role in DeFi on @AvalancheAVAX, but I’ll have to keep those under wraps for now.
Overall, I’m super excited about these new assets. We have seen only the first incarnation, and even those have struck a chord.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Emin Gün Sirer

Emin Gün Sirer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @el33th4xor

13 Feb
The Avalanche network experienced a slowdown yesterday. I want to provide a short update on what happened, with a full analysis to be provided next week.
The Pangolin launch generated enormous activity, as I’m sure you’ve already heard. This activity triggered a nondeterministic bug in the network layer, related to caches, that led to a block validity check being skipped.
As a result, 57 X-chain to C-chain coin mint transactions were not subject to requisite checking in the client. This led to invalid minting of ~790.2 AVAX, corresponding to ~$40k USD, on the C-chain. It also caused the network to slow down. Nothing else was affected.
Read 10 tweets
29 Jan
Another #FreeLoveFriday. So far, I’ve covered Bitcoin, Mastercoin/Omni, and last week ChainLink and the importance of decentralized oracles. Today, let’s talk about one of the most fascinating projects in crypto - @MakerDAO
In my thread about Mastercoin, I briefly touched on the vital role fiat-backed stablecoins play in crypto markets, but there’s a catch with them:

The counterparty risk of a third-party holding fiat in reserves.
Enter MakerDAO, which set out to create a decentralized, collateral-backed cryptocurrency, DAI, that would be “soft-pegged” to the U.S. Dollar using the power of algorithms. In crypto tradition, its supporters said trust game theory, not operators.
Read 15 tweets
28 Jan
Important reminder about @RobinhoodApp's past track record.
Robinhood has a history of failing to provide "best execution" to their clients. In essence, they let hedge funds like Citadel and others front-run the orders from retail, costing millions to the retail investors.
Are DEXes better? Undoubtedly. But DEXes on slow PoW chains like ETH1 just don't cut it, because they allow miners to front-run the orderflow.
hackernoon.com/front-running-…
Read 4 tweets
22 Jan
Back with another #FreeLoveFriday. Last time, we covered how Mastercoin/@Omni_Layer pioneered digital asset issuance on blockchains. Today, let’s discuss @Chainlink and the vital role it plays in connecting blockchains to the real world.
I have said repeatedly that digital asset issuance is the killer application for blockchains. The next frontier is bringing real world assets to networks like @AvalancheAVAX, but we often face a significant problem:
Namely, how do you get data from the real world onto blockchains and into applications running on them? More critically, how do you achieve that securely and transparently in real-time? Smart contracts are tamper-proof, but they're only as reliable as their input data.
Read 10 tweets
22 Jan
In Bitcoin, a transaction isn't final until it's in a block that is k deep. k depends on exchanges and is 3 or more, with 6 being a typical choice. Since the initial block wasn't that deep, a "spend" didn't happen, and therefore there could not have been a double spend.
Now, the choice of k depends on a few factors. 6 isn't a magical number that's correct for all time. It depends on the amounts of hash power available to the attacker. If the attacker has access to 49% of hash power, k should tend towards infinity.
The tail of any PoW blockchain is kind of like a scratch/working area. Changes there are to be expected and perfectly normal.
Read 8 tweets
20 Jan
Sad to see another PoW coin come under 51% attack. The long term solution to attacks like this is to migrate to Avalanche.
Remember that PoW's safety depends solely on the amount of hardware that is available to launch a 51% attack. If an attacker has 51% hashpower, the number of confirmations required for safety is infinity -- the coin is not safe to use.
Changing the hash function is something that people try, but it typically doesn't work: once the coin is turned into a GPU-mined coin, the attacker has as much hardware to attack with as there are GPUs to rent.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!