The way I read the article, the “worth millions” is the sum of the ransom demand.

The funny part is that the exploit is in the “smart” contract, ya know the thing that the blockchain keeps secure by forbidding any updates or patches.

  • StupendousMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sounds like a great way to make an insurance claim on a bunch of NFTs worth “millions” that you could not convince anyone to buy.

        • stom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can in fact insure things that it is possible to steal. Cars, bikes, household posessions, you name it. It’s quite common.

          • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the insurance company thinks the nft can’t be stolen, it’s money for no risk. That’s why they would easily accept insuring an nft.

            I think you misunderstood my comment.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In a highly simplified way: total risk of insuring from theft is roughly other-risks * theft-risk, so if theft risk is 0, it means that other risks, such as insanelly high risks in asset valuation are irrelevant to the total risk which will always end up as 0.

            So it makes sense that being paid to insure that which cannot be stollen against theft is risk-free money quite independently of all else. (Of curse, if something has a non-zero probability - even if tiny - of being stolen none of that holds)

            I think that’s the whole humourous point the previous poster was making: that which NFT promoters kept on telling us guarantees unique ownership which cannot be taken by others (and hence cannot be stollen) turns out that it can.

    • Lanusensei87@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      You very much do own an NFT you purchase, what you don’t own is the asset the NFT represents (the shitty RNG generated monkey for example).

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You better quit yapping before I steal more of your bytes pal, it’ll be the biggest regret of your life

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Another interpretation is that it’s all an insurance scam were something worthless is “stolen by hackers” and then claimed to be worth millions for the insurance claim.

    But surely nobody in the “well known as impeccably honest” NFT world would ever do something like that!

  • crashoverride@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Think of it like this, when people make drug busts and they find huge amounts of cocaine or whatever and they say oh this is 300 something mod a million is worth of stuff. No it’s not. It’s maybe like not even half that not even a quarter of that, they just make it up just to make their bust even bigger

  • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Potential losses”. I get the feeling that NFT owners got bit by the same bug that bit RIAA executives.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the great thing about the AI revolution is that since generating infinite number of unique random (and commonly, bad) pictures of literally anything you can think of takes only seconds, the entire concept of NFT has become completely worthless as it completely destroyed the value-from-scarcity argument. Not that it ever was a good argument to begin with.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just because the suckers that bought them paid millions doesn’t mean that the NFTs are worth millions.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    People trying to discuss the topic have their posts pushed down while “lmao nfts” are voted up. How do you see someone saying, respectfully, “I think there’s a benefit to this.” and try to push down their contribution?

    Anyone who wants a good discussion about news in this community, must leave this community. If you want to add context or opposing perspectives, better go elsewhere. You build a community like this and you get people who know Hans had a vibrator, because jokes and legit opinions are treated as interchangable.

    • h3rm17@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the incorrect reddit downvoting, where people trest them like s like/dislike system (not the original downvoting, where you would only downvote if something did not contribute to the conversation) was imported to lemmy

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There were sufficiently stupid people to pay money for NFTs. They will sufficiently stupid people around to pay the ransom.