Editor’s Note: previous titles for this article have been added here for posterity.

Silverlight, Pogressive Web Apps, Css in JS, Flash, ActiveX, Java applets

everyone trying to convince me that AI will replace all of the software jobs within the next few years has to get past the obstacle that they always seem to be the same people who were trying to convince me that I’d be going around spending crypto rather than fiat currency “within the next few years” quite a bit more than a few years ago now

Toutes les données relatives aux NFT sont conservées dans des serveurs propres au groupe La Poste.

lol encore une blague, avec une blockchain centralisée. On note qu'il y a aussi un certificat physique, donc qu'elle est l'intérêt de la blockchain.

On sait par exemple que l’on a acheté le N°999 de la série.

Ah oui c'est de l'innovation, on ne le savait pas avant...

L'intérêt de la chaîne de blocs est ailleurs : dans le fait qu'elle est pair-à-pair, que n'importe qui puisse y écrire, et qu'un consensus émerge entre des entités qui ne se font pas mutuellement confiance.

Dans le cas de l'université, seulement une autorité peut y écrire. Aucun autre détail est donné, donc

Une faiblesse courante avec les chaînes de blocs est que peu de gens vérifient directement sur la chaîne, pourtant la seule source fiable. Ils passent en général par un système centralisé.

Si on veut avoir un système en append-only, qu'on utilise la blockchain uniquement pour éviter des modifications, alors Append-only data structures are for you.

Le web 0/1 (hébergé par soi-même sur un serveur) a besoin de temps et de compétence
Le web 2 (plateformes de service) échange la vie privée
The web 3 allows to create content at the condition to insert it in a blockchain, so you have to pay for it first. So it has de facto a first barrier of creation or publication.

So the ones more able to publish will be the ones with money they can spend on it.

This “new internet” that has been proposed, much to the disdain of software engineers worldwide, is one where anytime you upload a photo, save something, post a tweet or put something on YouTube, it costs money. Every time you write something to a blockchain with crypto, you need to pay the miners.

As NFTs can be duplicated, do the buyer spend a million dollars for the monky or for the record on the blockchain?

Anyone can write anything on the blockchain if you’ve paid the miners.

And because the blockchain is append-only, how do you comply with law?

I take up all of sebsauvage's points and translate them:

1) An NFT being only a pointer, the owner of the domain used in the pointer can change afterwards the pointed data.
2) Worse, one can even return different data depending on who comes to retrieve the resource.
Yes, the URL of this NFT registered in the blockchain is unalterable, but the data pointed to by this URL can change.

But worse than that:
3) Almost all applications rely on APIs like OpenSea to display the contents of these pointers. But there are few such APIs, and they have in this case removed the Moxie NFT pointer.

The URL of the Moxie NFT still exists in the blockchain, but the APIs no longer return it. This is a form of censorship.
The decentralization of the blockchain is completely negated by the centralization of the APIs.

And finally to add to the ridiculousness of NFTs:
4) One can very well register this URL in other blockchains (there is no such thing as a single blockchain).
5) The inscription of a URL in a blockchain does not mean ownership. It's just data. The blockchain is a register (public and unalterable). The way this data is interpreted is not imposed.

[for the blockchain]

(shared by Bortzmeyer)

J'ai quand même l'impression que cela va mal tourner