On 7/3/2022 3:32 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 01/07/2022 21:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:32:32 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2022 16:27, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>>> But I'm sorry; I just couldn't resist.
>>
>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/nfts-have-fallen-off-the-cliff-as-sales-sink-to-lowest-in-year?sref=oioIU9CW#xj4y7vzkg
>>
>>>> *titter*
>>
>>>> And cryptocurrencies aren't doing much better either. What a shame.
>>
>>> I'd like to laugh but I fear the crypto bros made money from NFT's and
>>> it's the people who were sucked in by the hype that got burnt.
>>
>> Certainly, but a) they were hoping to make even more, and odds have
>> slimmed on that happening, b) some of them certainly were left holding
>> the bag when the whole thing started tumbling down, so its likely
>> they've felt SOME of the burn, even if they weren't ruined by it, and
>> c) this hopefully helps put paid to the "ideals" behind the
>> crypto-currencies, which would have been quite horrible had they taken
>> off in the way the true believers wanted.
>>
>> Even big-name game publishers which once were raging about how NFTs
>> were going to be a prominent part of their business moving forward
>> have largely shut up about it.
>>
>> Its good news, and while some of the bad guys may have slipped the
>> net, others have not. I take joy from that. Allow me my pleased
>> titters ;-)
>>
>
> I suppose that's the positive. What really brought it home to me was
> seeing a video about Call of Cthulhu NFT's. The introduction was just
> about what they were but the bulk of it was showing how the price had
> changed over time and the decision making of when to get into the market
> and when to exit it. Basically get in before a games events and get out
> shortly afterwards before the price fell again. It became clear that
> this is nothing to do with digital collectibles but instead funnelling
> money from the majority, who don't know better, to a minority.
>
> Surely the idea of collectibles is to, well collect them not buy and
> sell them?
>
Even in traditional, physical object collectibles the majority were in
it to make a profit. Comic books are an example of this. In the 80s
buying comic books became (one of many) "The Thing" that was going to
make Joe Public wealthy. The prices that old comics were selling for in
auctions and such was high and getting higher. So lots of people
started buying comics in the expectation that in 10 to 20 years they'd
be able to resell them for BIG PROFITS!(tm) Didn't happen, largely
because so many people had comics they were now trying to sell that
there was a glut on the market and the prices offered were pitiful.

The same thing repeated in Collectible Card Games.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 03/07/2022 20:02, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 7/3/2022 3:32 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 01/07/2022 21:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:32:32 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2022 16:27, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But I'm sorry; I just couldn't resist.
>>>
>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/nfts-have-fallen-off-the-cliff-as-sales-sink-to-lowest-in-year?sref=oioIU9CW#xj4y7vzkg
>>>
>>>>> *titter*
>>>
>>>>> And cryptocurrencies aren't doing much better either. What a shame.
>>>
>>>> I'd like to laugh but I fear the crypto bros made money from NFT's and
>>>> it's the people who were sucked in by the hype that got burnt.
>>>
>>> Certainly, but a) they were hoping to make even more, and odds have
>>> slimmed on that happening, b) some of them certainly were left holding
>>> the bag when the whole thing started tumbling down, so its likely
>>> they've felt SOME of the burn, even if they weren't ruined by it, and
>>> c) this hopefully helps put paid to the "ideals" behind the
>>> crypto-currencies, which would have been quite horrible had they taken
>>> off in the way the true believers wanted.
>>>
>>> Even big-name game publishers which once were raging about how NFTs
>>> were going to be a prominent part of their business moving forward
>>> have largely shut up about it.
>>>
>>> Its good news, and while some of the bad guys may have slipped the
>>> net, others have not. I take joy from that. Allow me my pleased
>>> titters ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I suppose that's the positive. What really brought it home to me was
>> seeing a video about Call of Cthulhu NFT's. The introduction was just
>> about what they were but the bulk of it was showing how the price had
>> changed over time and the decision making of when to get into the
>> market and when to exit it. Basically get in before a games events and
>> get out shortly afterwards before the price fell again. It became
>> clear that this is nothing to do with digital collectibles but instead
>> funnelling money from the majority, who don't know better, to a minority.
>>
>> Surely the idea of collectibles is to, well collect them not buy and
>> sell them?
>>
> Even in traditional, physical object collectibles the majority were in
> it to make a profit.  Comic books are an example of this.  In the 80s
> buying comic books became (one of many) "The Thing" that was going to
> make Joe Public wealthy.  The prices that old comics were selling for in
> auctions and such was high and getting higher.  So lots of people
> started buying comics in the expectation that in 10 to 20 years they'd
> be able to resell them for BIG PROFITS!(tm)  Didn't happen, largely
> because so many people had comics they were now trying to sell that
> there was a glut on the market and the prices offered were pitiful.
>
> The same thing repeated in Collectible Card Games.
>

I'm not saying people don't do it but instead at it's core NFT's are
just about money nothing else. At least I can read a comic!

I've also seen it with model kits where people have bought two at the
same time with the expectation they will be worth a lot more later. They
were right, well up to the point that the company thought why should
they be making all the money when we can just re-release it.

Saying that I bought a bottle of single cask whiskey about fifteen years
ago for £200 and a few years ago out of curiosity I checked how much it
would cost now. The price, if you can find one, was £1000. That puts me
in the strange situation of I certainly wouldn't pay that much for it
but nor do I want to sell it.

On 7/4/2022 1:14 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 03/07/2022 20:02, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 7/3/2022 3:32 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2022 21:29, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 09:32:32 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2022 16:27, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm sorry; I just couldn't resist.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/nfts-have-fallen-off-the-cliff-as-sales-sink-to-lowest-in-year?sref=oioIU9CW#xj4y7vzkg
>>>>
>>>>>> *titter*
>>>>
>>>>>> And cryptocurrencies aren't doing much better either. What a shame.
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to laugh but I fear the crypto bros made money from NFT's and
>>>>> it's the people who were sucked in by the hype that got burnt.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly, but a) they were hoping to make even more, and odds have
>>>> slimmed on that happening, b) some of them certainly were left holding
>>>> the bag when the whole thing started tumbling down, so its likely
>>>> they've felt SOME of the burn, even if they weren't ruined by it, and
>>>> c) this hopefully helps put paid to the "ideals" behind the
>>>> crypto-currencies, which would have been quite horrible had they taken
>>>> off in the way the true believers wanted.
>>>>
>>>> Even big-name game publishers which once were raging about how NFTs
>>>> were going to be a prominent part of their business moving forward
>>>> have largely shut up about it.
>>>>
>>>> Its good news, and while some of the bad guys may have slipped the
>>>> net, others have not. I take joy from that. Allow me my pleased
>>>> titters ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose that's the positive. What really brought it home to me was
>>> seeing a video about Call of Cthulhu NFT's. The introduction was just
>>> about what they were but the bulk of it was showing how the price had
>>> changed over time and the decision making of when to get into the
>>> market and when to exit it. Basically get in before a games events
>>> and get out shortly afterwards before the price fell again. It became
>>> clear that this is nothing to do with digital collectibles but
>>> instead funnelling money from the majority, who don't know better, to
>>> a minority.
>>>
>>> Surely the idea of collectibles is to, well collect them not buy and
>>> sell them?
>>>
>> Even in traditional, physical object collectibles the majority were in
>> it to make a profit.  Comic books are an example of this.  In the 80s
>> buying comic books became (one of many) "The Thing" that was going to
>> make Joe Public wealthy.  The prices that old comics were selling for
>> in auctions and such was high and getting higher.  So lots of people
>> started buying comics in the expectation that in 10 to 20 years they'd
>> be able to resell them for BIG PROFITS!(tm)  Didn't happen, largely
>> because so many people had comics they were now trying to sell that
>> there was a glut on the market and the prices offered were pitiful.
>>
>> The same thing repeated in Collectible Card Games.
>>
>
> I'm not saying people don't do it but instead at it's core NFT's are
> just about money nothing else. At least I can read a comic!
>
> I've also seen it with model kits where people have bought two at the
> same time with the expectation they will be worth a lot more later. They
> were right, well up to the point that the company thought why should
> they be making all the money when we can just re-release it.
>
> Saying that I bought a bottle of single cask whiskey about fifteen years
> ago for £200 and a few years ago out of curiosity I checked how much it
> would cost now. The price, if you can find one, was £1000. That puts me
> in the strange situation of I certainly wouldn't pay that much for it
> but nor do I want to sell it.

Even if you did sell it _you_ wouldn't get 1,000 pound for it. ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

I hate myself for posting this. I mean, more crap about NFTs, really?
Does anyone really want to go over this stuff again? But here I go,
one more time. Anyway, this one is related to games, so that makes it
more acceptable, right? Right?!?

Regardless, I liked this news about NFTs for a change. Mojang -
developers of "Minecraft" - have put their foot down when it comes to
NFTs*. Not only have they stated they aren't putting NFTs in their
game, they also made it clear that NFTs aren't welcome in Minecraft if
anyone else puts them there too. More precisely, "integrations of NFTs
with Minecraft are generally not something we will support or allow".

They also go on to specify, "NFTs and other blockchain technologies
.... [do] not align with Minecraft values of creative inclusion and
playing together ... The speculative pricing and investment mentality
around NFTs takes the focus away from playing the game and encourages
profiteering..."

Plus, you know, it's all a scam and you basically have no guarantee
that what you pay for today will be there tomorrow ('cept they say it
more formal-like, instead sayin' "NFTs may not be reliable and may end
up costing players who buy them" ;-)

It's nice to see a company come down hard on NFTs like this; there are
still a few that are dabbling with the idea, and others have been
pretty wishy-washy about it. But Minecraft still remains immensely
popular (170 million players / month), especially amongst the younger
set, and it's nice to see a company not victimize their playerbase
with NFTs.

Well, that's all I got. I'll try to resist commenting on NFTs for the
next few weeks. ;-)

-----------------------
* https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-and-nfts

On 7/21/2022 8:31 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I hate myself for posting this. I mean, more crap about NFTs, really?
> Does anyone really want to go over this stuff again? But here I go,
> one more time. Anyway, this one is related to games, so that makes it
> more acceptable, right? Right?!?
>
> Regardless, I liked this news about NFTs for a change. Mojang -
> developers of "Minecraft" - have put their foot down when it comes to
> NFTs*. Not only have they stated they aren't putting NFTs in their
> game, they also made it clear that NFTs aren't welcome in Minecraft if
> anyone else puts them there too. More precisely, "integrations of NFTs
> with Minecraft are generally not something we will support or allow".
>
> They also go on to specify, "NFTs and other blockchain technologies
> ... [do] not align with Minecraft values of creative inclusion and
> playing together ... The speculative pricing and investment mentality
> around NFTs takes the focus away from playing the game and encourages
> profiteering..."
>
> Plus, you know, it's all a scam and you basically have no guarantee
> that what you pay for today will be there tomorrow ('cept they say it
> more formal-like, instead sayin' "NFTs may not be reliable and may end
> up costing players who buy them" ;-)
>
> It's nice to see a company come down hard on NFTs like this; there are
> still a few that are dabbling with the idea, and others have been
> pretty wishy-washy about it. But Minecraft still remains immensely
> popular (170 million players / month), especially amongst the younger
> set, and it's nice to see a company not victimize their playerbase
> with NFTs.
>
> Well, that's all I got. I'll try to resist commenting on NFTs for the
> next few weeks. ;-)
>
Shirley that last word was intended to be "minutes", wasn't it? :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 21/07/2022 16:31, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I hate myself for posting this. I mean, more crap about NFTs, really?
> Does anyone really want to go over this stuff again? But here I go,
> one more time. Anyway, this one is related to games, so that makes it
> more acceptable, right? Right?!?
>
> Regardless, I liked this news about NFTs for a change. Mojang -
> developers of "Minecraft" - have put their foot down when it comes to
> NFTs*. Not only have they stated they aren't putting NFTs in their
> game, they also made it clear that NFTs aren't welcome in Minecraft if
> anyone else puts them there too. More precisely, "integrations of NFTs
> with Minecraft are generally not something we will support or allow".
>
> They also go on to specify, "NFTs and other blockchain technologies
> ... [do] not align with Minecraft values of creative inclusion and
> playing together ... The speculative pricing and investment mentality
> around NFTs takes the focus away from playing the game and encourages
> profiteering..."
>
> Plus, you know, it's all a scam and you basically have no guarantee
> that what you pay for today will be there tomorrow ('cept they say it
> more formal-like, instead sayin' "NFTs may not be reliable and may end
> up costing players who buy them" ;-)
>
> It's nice to see a company come down hard on NFTs like this; there are
> still a few that are dabbling with the idea, and others have been
> pretty wishy-washy about it. But Minecraft still remains immensely
> popular (170 million players / month), especially amongst the younger
> set, and it's nice to see a company not victimize their playerbase
> with NFTs.
>
> Well, that's all I got. I'll try to resist commenting on NFTs for the
> next few weeks. ;-)
>

I think it's good that a big player like this makes this type of
statement. It's not just because it means they won't be in Minecraft but
it also raises the exposure of what NFT's are really about. They're not
digital collectibles and it's not because you're just too stupid to
understand why the so brilliant for gamers.

Well NFT Worlds is fighting back, well trying to anyway but the phrase
epic fail comes to mind.

Some highlights from what they said are:

- Microsoft are stifling creative yet they can't seem to explain how
NFT's would add creative or indeed improve player experience. Maybe it's
because people are just too stupid to understand.
- They are going to produce their own game which is Minecraft like. Well
good luck with trying that.
- The new game won't be shackled with such ridiculous notions that you
can't spend as much money on in-game content as you like.
- This is a web 2.0 vs web 3.0 battle for the future of a player owned
and operated economy. Somewhat giving the game away there as to what
NFT's are about.

So in summary Microsoft have made a decision to protect the player
experience and stop people profiteering off their IP yet they are the
bad guys. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.

A link to the story, it also has a link to the full announcement if you
want a giggle.

https://www.gamesradar.com/nft-company-will-make-its-own-minecraft-game-with-the-same-playstyle-look-and-feel-following-mojang-ban/

On 7/26/2022 2:39 AM, JAB wrote:
> Well NFT Worlds is fighting back, well trying to anyway but the phrase
> epic fail comes to mind.
>
> Some highlights from what they said are:
>
> - Microsoft are stifling creative yet they can't seem to explain how
> NFT's would add creative or indeed improve player experience. Maybe it's
> because people are just too stupid to understand.
> - They are going to produce their own game which is Minecraft like. Well
> good luck with trying that.
> - The new game won't be shackled with such ridiculous notions that you
> can't spend as much money on in-game content as you like.
> - This is a web 2.0 vs web 3.0 battle for the future of a player owned
> and operated economy. Somewhat giving the game away there as to what
> NFT's are about.
>
> So in summary Microsoft have made a decision to protect the player
> experience and stop people profiteering off their IP yet they are the
> bad guys. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.
>
> A link to the story, it also has a link to the full announcement if you
> want a giggle.
>
> https://www.gamesradar.com/nft-company-will-make-its-own-minecraft-game-with-the-same-playstyle-look-and-feel-following-mojang-ban/
>
That's ... a seriously schizophrenic press release.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 26/07/2022 11:07, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 7/26/2022 2:39 AM, JAB wrote:
>> Well NFT Worlds is fighting back, well trying to anyway but the phrase
>> epic fail comes to mind.
>>
>> Some highlights from what they said are:
>>
>> - Microsoft are stifling creative yet they can't seem to explain how
>> NFT's would add creative or indeed improve player experience. Maybe
>> it's because people are just too stupid to understand.
>> - They are going to produce their own game which is Minecraft like.
>> Well good luck with trying that.
>> - The new game won't be shackled with such ridiculous notions that you
>> can't spend as much money on in-game content as you like.
>> - This is a web 2.0 vs web 3.0 battle for the future of a player owned
>> and operated economy. Somewhat giving the game away there as to what
>> NFT's are about.
>>
>> So in summary Microsoft have made a decision to protect the player
>> experience and stop people profiteering off their IP yet they are the
>> bad guys. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.
>>
>> A link to the story, it also has a link to the full announcement if
>> you want a giggle.
>>
>> https://www.gamesradar.com/nft-company-will-make-its-own-minecraft-game-with-the-same-playstyle-look-and-feel-following-mojang-ban/
>>
> That's ... a seriously schizophrenic press release.
>

To me it just comes across as trying to bolster NFT's bro's belief that
they are doing the right thing and web 3.0 is the way forward. I can't
imagine your average gamer reading it and thinking, oh yeh they're
making some really valid points there.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:59:34 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

I'd just like to note that it's been two weeks and I haven't said word
one about NFTs in all that time. You're welcome.

But, seeing as it /has/ been two weeks, I'm sure you'll forgive me if
I talk about it just a little bit, right? Oh, where to start?!?

Well, it looks like Sony was trying to gauge player interest on
Playstation NFTs... and got an immediate (and frankly, completely
predictable) response. Sony as a 'loyalty program' for fans that
offers 'rewards' for various purchases made through its storefront. It
asked if players were interested in some of the rewards and items
being made for sale should be NFTs because apparently they've missed
the last six months of everybody saying "hell no!" to the idea every
time it's been brought up. And guess what happened? Everybody shouted
'hell no' again.* But I wouldn't bet an ugly ape GIF that Sony has
learned anything from all this, not when there's easy money to be made
fleecing the rubes. Stay classy, Sony.

Epic Games, on the other hand stuck to their guns when it comes to
NFTs.** "Sure players time and time again have indicated that this is
the last thing they'd ever want in games, but we wouldn't want to keep
our partners - or ourselves - from making a quick buck. Who cares if
it results in shitty games? We're talking money," Epic CEO Tim Sweeney
was probably paraphrased to say. Well, okay, what he actually said was
"stores shouldn't interfere by forcing their views onto others," even
though stores have been doing this since forever and Epic themselves
aren't exempt. Not when there's easy money to be made fleecing the
rubes. Stay classy, Epic.

Then, of course, there was that story about Gamestop getting into the
business of selling NFTs (because there's never been a scummy business
practice that company hasn't looked favorably upon), and accidentally
opening their platform to video game piracy as a variety of
copyrighted games were 'sold' through that program.** Or rather,
tokens that linked to the game's location on the distributed
file-serving IPFS system. Remember, NFTs are touted of an
incontrovertible proof of your legal ownership of an item... even if
its stolen goods and anybody can access it. Gamestop has since
suspended the account of the reseller, but the NFTs already sold are
still live on Gamestop's content servers, which are used to host
cached copies of the game. Why back down now when there's easy money
to be made fleecing the rubes? Stay classy, Gamestop.

And that's just the top three big game-related NFT failures of the
past couple of weeks. I could go on but - out of pity for the rest of
you - I'll stop. But it amuses me just how stupidly these companies
are with regards to NFTs; they're greed and lack of concern at
offering a product people actually want is immediately apparent to
anyone, yet they keep at it despite the potential harm to their brand.
At this point, any company that is showing interest in the damn things
is not only being blatantly scummy, but obviously stupid as well...
and yet, some companies keep promoting the things. So, like the topic
says - "NFTs: I laughed" because the only other alternative is to cry.

But enough of all that for now. I'll try to resist temptation for
another couple of weeks. No promises though; not when these companies
offer so much juicy dirt. ;-)

-------
* https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/08/immediate-backlash-as-sony-asks-players-about-purchasing-nfts

**
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/epic-wont-ban-nft-games-in-response-to-minecrafts-stance-tim-sweeney-says/

***
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamestop-nft-marketplace-sold-indie-games-without-permission-devs-say/1100-6506208/

On 08/08/2022 22:24, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> And that's just the top three big game-related NFT failures of the
> past couple of weeks. I could go on but - out of pity for the rest of
> you - I'll stop. But it amuses me just how stupidly these companies
> are with regards to NFTs; they're greed and lack of concern at
> offering a product people actually want is immediately apparent to
> anyone, yet they keep at it despite the potential harm to their brand.
> At this point, any company that is showing interest in the damn things
> is not only being blatantly scummy, but obviously stupid as well...
> and yet, some companies keep promoting the things. So, like the topic
> says - "NFTs: I laughed" because the only other alternative is to cry.
>

For me NFT's in a game would be an immediate no buy and I'd probably be
willing to boycott a publisher for it also. With a digital games store
it's definitely a mark down as if you're more than happy to take a cut
out of games that have NFT's what does that say about how you view your
customers.

On 13/09/2022 02:01, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> (It's a good thing we can't see through your sly stratagem, Ubisoft.)
>
> But out of all the interview, I think I personally enjoyed this quote
> the most:
>
> "We should have said we were working on it, and when we have something
> that gives you a real benefit, we'll bring it to you. "
>
> In other words, even Ubisoft now admits their Quartz platform didn't
> offer players 'a real benefit'. Good to know, thanks Ubisoft.

Well quite, I've yet to hear a good explanation of how gamers get to
benefit from NFT's besides you now have a second job that doesn't get
close to minimum wage.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 10:01:56 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 13/09/2022 02:01, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>> In other words, even Ubisoft now admits their Quartz platform didn't
>> offer players 'a real benefit'. Good to know, thanks Ubisoft.

>Well quite, I've yet to hear a good explanation of how gamers get to
>benefit from NFT's besides you now have a second job that doesn't get
>close to minimum wage.

Oh, there are so many benefits!

You can buy a digital hat that's unique to you... if by unique you
mean it's exactly the same as all the other hats except it has a
slightly different serial number.

And you OWN the hat... except you don't own the copyright, and can't
actually change what the hat looks like, and are reliant on Ubisoft's
good graces to host it and if they don't like your attitude (or if
they just don't feel like supporting the platform anymore) they can
yank your ability to use the hat on their services.

But that hat; why, you could use it on a digital avatar in multiple
games! Assuming Ubisoft builds support for that hat into all its other
games. Which it generally hasn't.

Technically, non-Ubisoft games could support that hat too! Except,
since YOU don't own the copyright to the hat and THEY don't own the
copyright to the hat, adding that hat to a non-Ubisoft game would be a
legal minefield (although I'm sure that Ubisoft might allow it if they
get a cut of the profits).

Did I mention you can resell the hat for oodles of cash? That's
assuming you can find anyone to pay you anything for it, especially
after the initial rush of enthusiasm for NFTs has died away and
everyone realizes they're just a fad and have no intrinsic worth. But
if you spend lots of money and keep working at it, you can maybe find
someone stupider than you and make a bundle. Doesn't that sound like
fun?

Plus, you can show your absolute disdain for the environment with that
hat. Because even though the blockchain Ubisoft uses isn't quite as
computationally heavy as others, it's still far more energy-intensive
than flipping a bit or three in a database.

But of course, that's all for the good because there's no other way to
allow digital hats that you can resell or transfer between games
except to use a blockchain... except of course there is and (IIRC)
it's actually been done before. But nevermind that, Web3 is the
future! You don't wanna be an old codger mired in the past, do you?

I don't know why people are so down on the concept when there are so
many exciting features! I'm a big fan, can't ya tell?

(this is a reply to somebody else's post, so it doesn't count as
breaking my once-per-month rule on NFT posts. ;-)

On 9/13/2022 8:10 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> But nevermind that, Web3 is the
> future! You don't wanna be an old codger mired in the past, do you?
>
Yes, actually, I do. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.