[HN Gopher] NFT Canon
___________________________________________________________________
NFT Canon
Author : n3on_net
Score : 56 points
Date : 2021-04-02 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (a16z.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (a16z.com)
| CynicusRex wrote:
| "A man who is rich but ignorant he called a sheep with golden
| fleece." --Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes, with Other
| Popular Moralists by Robin Hard, SS326.
| [deleted]
| riskneutral wrote:
| This makes it clear to me that a16z are in the same league as
| penny stock pumping grifters. It does seem obvious in retrospect.
| choppaface wrote:
| Uhhh this isn't a canon so much as a cannon for a VC to inject
| their own financial incentives into your thinking. Even if
| they're wrong about what they cite, any conversation or
| discussion just draws more attention to them versus the
| competition. If you want to learn about NFTs, do you own
| research. Don't lend your critical thinking resources to an
| investor unless they're paying handsomely.
| dvt wrote:
| NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that
| a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one
| will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no
| one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no
| sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if
| actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-
| dump token, but rather with DRM-style certificates.
|
| But no one's _really_ trying to solve the problem of digital
| ownership, provenance, chain of custody, or original
| verifiability, they 're just trying to get rich.
|
| [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoKitties/
| _red wrote:
| Well, they are pushing them because in general traditional VC's
| completely missed out on the initial crypto boom.
|
| NFT's are their manufactured attempt to build a Crypto V2
| market they think they can control. 90% of the stories you read
| about in the press about NFT's are placed there by these same
| VC investors. They are desperately trying to viral market fomo
| response for their useless tokens....sorry their _authentic
| original JPG 's_....
|
| Its really quite sad.
| inthewoods wrote:
| VCs are geared to take big swings and bets. Makes total sense
| that they would buy into anything that has the potential to be
| a billion dollar idea, even if the likelihood of success is
| 1-5%.
|
| What's interesting about NFTs to me is that an org like the NBA
| is one of the most successful - but I guess that makes sense
| because, as others have posted, they generate all the NFTs and
| can validate them. So it seems to me that it can be successful
| in the case where you have a single, centralized owner. Where
| it breaks down for me is when that ownership is some random
| person on the interwebs.
|
| NBA Top Shot is also interesting because the number of
| buyers/sellers seems fair stable/flat - that would indicate to
| me that it is a relatively small number of people trading with
| each other because I think the number of buyers/sellers would
| increase if the overall market was growing - but I could be
| wrong about that.
|
| https://www.cryptoslam.io/nba-top-shot
| vallas wrote:
| > they're just trying to get rich.
|
| Aren't you too rich or too poor... Developing really something
| for getting rich is a reason worth enough. The real problem is
| long-term courage.
| miracle2k wrote:
| Whatever you think about NFTs, there are plenty of earnest
| people in the space; they have been trading, building and
| podcasting for years without any mainstream attention, or in
| fact, without making money. And yes, people are still trading
| Cryptokitties.
| echelon wrote:
| People are still working on Commodore 64, but that doesn't
| make it a logical next step for our industry or the internet.
| heterodoxxed wrote:
| | _there are plenty of earnest people in the space_
|
| Of course there are. Scams wouldn't work if everyone involved
| was in on it.
| [deleted]
| jcpham2 wrote:
| Absolutely delighted that cryptocurrency has spawned this larger
| conversation of digital ownership and proof of work, proof is
| stake, etc.
|
| This is great stuff to read other people discuss and curate on
| the internet now 10 or 11 years in.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| I don't think I would have ever have predicted that having
| control over a line of data in a shared database running on just
| 8,000 computers would be so valuable.
|
| "See this database entry? It's yours. In order to change it, you
| need this little JSON file and a password. Got it? Great. That
| will be $69 million please."
| nickysielicki wrote:
| "It's time to build" sitting prominently at the top of the page
| is just adding insult to injury, here.
| heckerhut wrote:
| Haters dropping the same tired BS on NFTs in 3 2 1
| ptudan wrote:
| HN is not the place to discuss crypto. As a whole, the comments
| are consistently bearish.
| moonbug wrote:
| NFTs are bullshit.
| king_magic wrote:
| Yes they are, and I cannot begin to understand the insane
| support for them.
| dboreham wrote:
| There has clearly been an orchestrated PR blitz in the past
| few weeks to make NFTs "a thing". So the "support" is
| Astroturf.
| bko wrote:
| It might be covered in one of the resources, but when people talk
| about NFTs, they just mean some token on Ethereum that the issuer
| of said coin say is "the" product. For instance, the NFT for "the
| first tweet" that sold is just someone created an Ethereum token
| and said "this one is the first tweet", presumably w/ some text
| in the token that states the tweet.
|
| In that regard, its kind of centralized. There can be multiple
| NFTs that claim to be tweets. There's no naturally definitive
| "twitter" token, unless it's managed by Twitter itself. But
| you're relying on the issuer of the coin to say "I am the NFT
| coin" and everyone to agree.
|
| Real world NFTs (e.g. art and collectibles) are unique in that
| there is no dispute about what the original is. The art was
| created by the artist or its a forgery. In that regard NFTs rely
| on some issuing entity that bestows upon itself an arbitrary form
| of ownership. I can make my own Twitter token and if I get
| someone to buy a coin for an absurd amount (insider dealing?),
| and convince reports to write about it, I can be "the twitter
| nft"
|
| Or am I thinking of this incorrectly?
| dls2016 wrote:
| > Real world NFTs (e.g. art and collectibles) are unique in
| that there is no dispute about what the original is. The art
| was created by the artist or its a forgery. In that regard NFTs
| rely on some issuing entity that bestows upon itself an
| arbitrary form of ownership. I can make my own Twitter token
| and if I get someone to buy a coin for an absurd amount
| (insider dealing?), and convince reports to write about it, I
| can be "the twitter nft"
|
| I think of NFTs as a fancy system of determining provenance: X
| bought hash Y from seller Z. Whether other people assign
| meaning/value to that transaction is subject to the usual whims
| of human nature.
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| The confusion comes from how NFTs that represent images have
| become so popular right now (I believe it's because it's the
| easiest use case of an NFT and people want to make a quick
| buck).
|
| NFTs themselves are just a cryptographic representation of
| something unique. It can be a token that says "you own this
| image", but it can also be an in-game virtual item, a software
| license, a digital trading card, etc...
|
| There is some level of centralization in many cases. For
| example, a trading card game will likely own the contract that
| can mint cards and own the art for the cards. Other services
| can read that contract to see what cards you own and use that
| data inside their own game logic (though probably not the
| images due to legal reasons).
|
| This would already be useful for something like Magic the
| Gathering where unofficial online services exist to play by
| whatever rules you want. The last time I used one, you just put
| your deck list in so everyone used the rarest cards. They may
| have evolved now to check your Magic Online account, but you
| can't do that as easily in Magic Arena.
|
| Assuming the creators don't limit your freedom in their smart
| contract, you can also buy, sell, or trade the NFT to whoever
| and for whatever you want unlike a centralized service which
| wouldn't enable access to an open market outside of the game's
| ecosystem.
| rusk wrote:
| Here's the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say
| "this is the genuine article" why do you even need a
| blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably "a
| cryptographic representation of something unique"
|
| EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a
| better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist
| in that only one owner can derive the value from it.
| asimpletune wrote:
| Because then it's not on the blockchain. Yes, I could sell
| you a txt record, saying you own this hash, which
| represents a jpg, but then it's not blockchain.
|
| Honestly, I don't know.
|
| Maybe it's because the blockchain is immutable? Like, I
| could change that txt record because I'm evil or something.
| That makes sense to me, in terms of technology.
| miracle2k wrote:
| Someone is trying it your way: https://signed.work/
|
| The problem is that these signatures cannot be traded
| anymore, since no one is tracking who owns which
| editions. I can sell my signature to you, and then sell
| it to someone else tomorrow. The artist intended to mint
| 100 "prints", but suddenly 1000 people claim to own one.
| rusk wrote:
| No but the point is, when you're talking about physical
| artefacts you can in theory issue as many tokens as you
| like ... it's still down to a central authority to
| certify.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| An NFT on the blockchain can be verifired crytographically
| that it is the "original", it can't be duplicated, and you
| can transfer it to anyone if you have the private key and
| the gas.
|
| A token off the blockchain controlled by a centralized
| group could transfer ownership without a key at all. They
| could issue the same one to more than one party and
| duplicate it. Someone else could claim to own the record
| and they could decide you don't anymore, they get to decide
| who it is sold to. Or prohibit you from transferring it at
| all.
| makeworld wrote:
| I don't like NFTs, but the point of putting it on the
| blockchain is that it's globally available, verifiable, and
| immutable. Many versions of a PGP-signed message could
| exist and be passed around.
| rusk wrote:
| My point isn't that the token itself is globally
| verifiable but that the asset it refers to actually is
| ...
| Igelau wrote:
| That's the other reason I hate NFT. The only plausible use
| case is as a terrible DRM key.
| Igelau wrote:
| > am I thinking of this incorrectly?
|
| You've got it, more or less. The "surely I must be missing
| something" reaction is actually indicative of the correct
| understanding: the emperor has no clothes.
|
| NFT: No Fscking Thing
| lukebuehler wrote:
| Yep, another way to put it is that any NFT is worthless unless
| it is tied to some network effect.
|
| This can be merely social convention, e.g. an artist announcing
| that this is his Ethereum address, or an auction house acting
| as an intermediary. But it could also be a network effect based
| on software, e.g., a game, or something in between like the
| original CryptoKitties.
| bko wrote:
| Yeah, that's what I figured. I get the idea of it being tied
| to a game, but you don't really get the benefit of block
| chain, except for making the token sellable without having to
| go through the proper market channels.
|
| Overall I'm very bullish on crypto as digital gold, less so
| on Ethereum style apps and even less so on NFTs. It's an
| interesting litmus test. I see a lot of crypto enthusiasts
| speak highly about NFTs which I find odd. They generally have
| very well thought out and reasoned arguments for Bitcoin as a
| digital store of wealth, but then they go into NFTs and talk
| about scarcity. But the scarcity of Bitcoin is only valuable
| because it is the defacto digital currency, due to it's
| survival up to this point. It has dealt with governance
| issues, was built of strong cryptographic principals and most
| importantly stood the test of time (lindy effect). Then they
| speak about NFTs in a vague way as though they're naturally
| authoritative without pointing out the obvious: you don't
| actually own the digital asset you're buying. If it actually
| had some real concept of ownership (e.g. owning a tweet
| allows me to delete the tweet), then it would be a different
| story. But as it stands now I don't see the value.
|
| The cheer leading from the crypto community is odd and makes
| me question their principals. I'd be happy to be proven wrong
| and have someone steelman the argument for NFTs without
| relying on "its a scarce asset and people want to own scarce
| assets". It's also very early days in NFTs, so ten years from
| now if the Twitter tokens are still selling for millions, I'd
| be more willing to agree as it would have Lindy effect by
| that point.
| xur17 wrote:
| > I see a lot of crypto enthusiasts speak highly about NFTs
| which I find odd. They generally have very well thought out
| and reasoned arguments for Bitcoin as a digital store of
| wealth, but then they go into NFTs and talk about scarcity.
|
| I've seen the opposite - most crypto enthusiasts I have
| spoken to don't seem to understand NFTs at all / why they
| are considered valuable by other people. I fit into that
| camp.
|
| > Overall I'm very bullish on crypto as digital gold, less
| so on Ethereum style apps and even less so on NFTs.
|
| I'm quite bullish on Ethereum style "defi" apps - once we
| finally have decent layer 2 options and software deployed
| on layer 2, I think interest rates on stablecoins will be a
| large incentive for folks to start onboarding. The big
| remaining piece then is convincing people to spend their
| stable coins at stores - I would expect some level of
| "rewards" paid by the store would be sufficient.
| Essentially, an app that you can deposit funds into, earn
| interest that is well above what your bank account pays,
| and earns rewards that are competitive (or ideally beat)
| with credit cards.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| > Essentially, an app that you can deposit funds into,
| earn interest that is well above what your bank account
| pays, and earns rewards that are competitive (or ideally
| beat) with credit cards.
|
| That would be fantastic! Give me 10% interest on my
| wallet, and 10% "cashback" for my purchases with crypto,
| and I'll switch my whole financial life to crypto.
| xur17 wrote:
| 10% cashback is probably pushing it unless the wallet is
| giving away "platform tokens" as a growth hack at the
| beginning. 2 to 3% is probably more realistic given what
| merchants pay credit card providers.
|
| Long term, if merchants were smart, they'd make their own
| reward systems on top of this to encourage usage.
| MrMan wrote:
| Why does defi imply higher interest rates?
| xur17 wrote:
| I'm not 100% sure of all of the reasons - I imagine some
| of it is defi being harder to access, some of it is the
| increased risk (uncertainty / it's reasonably new), some
| of it is removal of middlemen, and some of it is
| incentivized behavior as a growth hack (similar to Uber
| subsidizing rides). Curious for other peoples' thoughts
| on what drives the higher interest rates.
| bko wrote:
| You earn interest by "lending" your digital asset. People
| want to speculate against the asset (i.e. bet the price
| will go down). The only way to do that is borrow someone
| else's crypto (pay them an interest rate for the
| trouble), sell it, and eventually buy it back later at a
| lower price.
|
| The interest rate is determined by the market, and since
| its pretty early on in defi world, the owners of the
| crypto demand a higher interest rate to make it worth
| their while. Also, the more volatile the asset the more
| valuable it is in terms of derivatives.
| cma wrote:
| > there is no dispute about what the original is
|
| Still though, the value of collectible goes up if you have
| extensive documentation proving it is the original, vs it just
| merely being the original, or worse, it being the original and
| someone else having extensive documentation convincingly making
| the case that their counterfeit is actually the original.
| billytetrud wrote:
| NFTs can't prove originality, only ownership. Since digital
| things are easily copied exactly, that's all you can do
| kgwgk wrote:
| For a very sui generis definition of ownership.
| nostrademons wrote:
| It's a simulacrum, in the post-modern sense.
|
| For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, a simulacrum is
| a copy of something that has itself become hyper-real and
| usurped the reality of the original. The canonical example is
| Disney World, which is a copy of Disneyland, which is itself a
| copy of many elements of Americana (Louisiana Bayou, the
| frontier West, Main Street USA, etc.) Disney World has eclipsed
| Disneyland in visitors, which itself has eclipsed visits to
| various small town main streets or the Louisiana bayous. You
| plan a family vacation to Disney World, you don't plan a trip
| to Bumfuck, Wyoming. Even though it's a copy of a copy (and a
| poor one at that), its reality has eclipsed that of the
| original, just because the original is hard to get to and kind
| of boring.
|
| Similar with NFTs. Yes, you can make an NFT of the Mona Lisa
| and claim that you have the only one. Yes, you're a lying
| swindler and probably a bad person. But your copy is much
| easier to trade, move around, and store than the actual Mona
| Lisa. And just as there's only one original Mona Lisa, there's
| only one original NFT of the Mona Lisa, so your copy still has
| the same scarcity. As more capital comes onto the blockchain,
| your NFT is likely to acquire its own hyper-reality and become
| _the_ Mona Lisa, and the original painting will be hidden away
| in a museum somewhere and disappear from trading.
| notahacker wrote:
| "Sod going to an art gallery to look the actual paint
| committed to canvas by the legendary artist over 500 years
| ago, we can queue up to look at this PNG copy and admire the
| uniqueness of the cryptographic token some anonymous
| programmer attached to it recently" said literally nobody
| ever.
|
| Rollercoasters and Mickey Mouse make pastiches of common
| things more interesting; creating an inferior copy of a
| famous thing and trying to compensate for its inferiority and
| inauthenticity with a _cryptographic string_ has the opposite
| effect.
| okareaman wrote:
| What if you had a human model (or robot) who looked liked
| Mona Lisa, dressed like Mona Lisa and was certified as the
| only recognized copy of Mona Lisa and by purchasing the NFT
| you were the only one who could have s.e.x with her?
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > And just as there's only one original Mona Lisa, there's
| only one original NFT of the Mona Lisa
|
| I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, but can't you create as
| many NFTs of the Mona Lisa as you want? What's to stop
| someone from just creating a second one, even the original
| owner of the Mona Lisa? You can't copy the Mona Lisa (at
| least not in such a way as to call it the original), but you
| can make another NFT of the real Mona Lisa and...as far as I
| can tell it's just as good.
|
| I realize you can't copy the chain that's already descended
| from the first NFT, but why does that matter? You can still
| say this is a genuine NFT for the real Mona Lisa, and the
| problem is you can make as many of those as you want. Or at
| least that's how I understand it.
|
| Copying something digital is very different from copying
| something molecular. A digital copy is as good as the
| original. A molecular copy is almost certainly possible to
| distinguish, and if you can't you may as well not have an
| original.
| nostrademons wrote:
| My understanding is that the NFT also contains a hash of
| the work that it represents, so there really is only one of
| a given digital work. You can create another NFT of a
| different digitization, but there's still distinguishing
| factors between them that would make one "better" than the
| other (higher resolution, maybe, or more ubiquitous file
| format). Also over time a particular digitizations' status
| of being the first gives it its own legitimacy, unless the
| environment changes in a way that makes competing ones
| significantly more convenient.
|
| It's sort of like the forking problem for cryptocurrencies
| in general. Anyone can fork the Bitcoin code and say they
| made a new cryptocurrency, and many people have done
| exactly that (Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin ABC). In
| practice, the fork tends to die out, because much of a
| cryptocurrency's value is in who agrees that it's valuable,
| and there's a big first-mover advantage there.
| lordnacho wrote:
| An NFT is basically a number in a smart contract. Through
| the ERC721 (there are others) interface, you can ask the
| smart contract which address owns that particular number.
| So, "contract 0xdeadbeef... , who owns 123456 ? It's
| owned by 0xabcdef..."
|
| This is totally fine, but keep in mind someone could
| deploy an identical contract to a different address,
| which also has a 123456 in it, which is also owned by
| 0xabcdef. You'd have to be careful when you're checking
| the ownership that you're checking everything. I could
| imagine an unscrupulous person saying "Look, I sent you
| 123456, it's in your address, see?" and then absconding.
| bko wrote:
| > My understanding is that the NFT also contains a hash
| of the work that it represents, so there really is only
| one of a given digital work
|
| I've never heard that before. Can someone confirm this is
| true? Is it solving for a hash of the original
| digitization of the work or something?
| clpm4j wrote:
| My understanding is that John can take a picture/jpg of
| the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and sell his
| picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. Jane can also take a
| picture/jpg of the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and
| sell her picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. I think the
| difference shows up when Jack Dorsey mints a screenshot
| of his first tweet and sells it, it's worth $2m because
| it's sold by Jack. Whereas I could screenshot Jack's
| first tweet, mint it and sell it for $0.01 because it's
| sold by me.
|
| Very happy to be corrected if this is incorrect.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| This is also my understanding, and my point was (in this
| example) Jack Dorsey can just do it a second time, and a
| third time, and so on.
|
| And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because
| each painting is unique. This is an identical digital
| copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its
| longevity.
| aboodman wrote:
| Both of these statements are true:
|
| - An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work
|
| - Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash.
|
| However:
|
| > And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because
| each painting is unique.
|
| Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself
| has an address and its own history. They are
| distinguishable. They are orderable.
|
| > This is an identical digital copy from the same person,
| with no guarantee of its longevity.
|
| The _record_ has a guaranteed longevity - the longevity
| of the underlying blockchain. The object it points to
| obviously does not.
|
| However that's not really important. Building records in
| the city clerk office have a guaranteed longevity that is
| far greater than the buildings themselves.
|
| So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same
| tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first.
| Only the first one would presumably be considered
| valuable.
|
| If Jack attached IP rights to those NFTs, courts would
| presumably only consider the first valid.
|
| I personally find NFTs that lack actual legal property
| rights to be silly and valueless, but I wanted to address
| confusion about how they actually work.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the
| same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was
| first. Only the first one would presumably be considered
| valuable.
|
| That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown
| to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick
| buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated
| with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into
| the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here,
| and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason
| to value any of his original "work" highly.
|
| I am open to being wrong, but it still boggles my mind
| anybody could think NFTs are anything other than a scam.
| At least bitcoin had lots of legitimate theory to be used
| as an alternative to currency, even if it only ended up
| being an investment alternative for gold. An NFT is like
| trying to sell art without actually having to create art.
| miracle2k wrote:
| > An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually
| having to create art.
|
| An NFT of a tweet maybe. But actually artists do create
| art and sell it as NFTs.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates
| of that work later. Unless the author has a legal
| contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that
| work again, there's no reason to believe in its
| authenticity.
|
| And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs
| don't strike me as trustworthy.
| miracle2k wrote:
| But in the non-NFT world, artists are selling prints of
| their work, and have been doing so for decades - hardly a
| fad! Those can be fairly expensive for the top tier, and
| they work the same way: You trust the artist will not
| inflate the supply of the same work with additional
| prints later on.
| deckard1 wrote:
| yes, but you can't just recreate a print at high quality
| unless there happens to be a digital image of it floating
| around.
|
| Here's Beeple's $69 million artwork in full resolution
| (warning: 300 megs!):
|
| https://ipfsgateway.makersplace.com/ipfs/QmXkxpwAHCtDXbbZ
| HUw...
|
| The metadata for the IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmPAg1mjx
| cEQPPtqsLoEcauVedaeMH81WXDPvPx...
|
| Because a token is public we can all see the contents.
| Now, you could theoretically just put the hash in there
| without the content existing on the IPFS (or elsewhere),
| and then give the owner the content after the sale via a
| separate channel. But now you've got the problem of how
| to verify what you're buying is the real deal.
| Furthermore, it complicates resale (not that IPFS will
| save you there, IIRC if you're the one storing content on
| IPFS and the _only_ one, then it 's possible you just
| stop hosting it and the data vanishes).
| [deleted]
| aboodman wrote:
| > Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell
| himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately
| devalue everything associated with him, including the
| original NFT. You're buying into the
| quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and
| once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to
| value any of his original "work" highly.
|
| To be clear I don't personally see any value at all in an
| NFT that doesn't have legal IP rights attached. I think
| we agree that far.
|
| However:
|
| > it will immediately devalue everything associated with
| him, including the original NFT
|
| It might. Kind of hard to theorize as to what the result
| would be. The reason I'm hesitant to jump to that
| conclusion is because of the timestampy nature of
| blockchains. It's not as if the market is suddenly
| flooded with forgeries and nobody can tell what's real.
| It's baked into the blockchain which one was first. In
| fact you might argue it would not be possible
| (economically) for Jack to do this in the first place
| since nobody would buy the second instance.
| aboodman wrote:
| Another comparison here to make is like signed copies /
| limited editions. People buy signed copies of albums,
| artworks, etc., even though forgeries are rampant. Are
| NFTs like signed copies?
|
| If the value of a signed copy is mostly performative,
| then NFTs alone maybe should not have value (because
| nobody can really see that you own one). If the value of
| a signed copy is personal, then maybe it does.
|
| I don't personally see any value in owning an NFT, but
| it's not cut and dry to me that nobody else will or
| should.
| rideontime wrote:
| It's not.
| makomk wrote:
| In reality, I think a lot of art these days _isn 't_ created by
| the artist, at least not mostly - it's created by their
| technicians or students or other people they employ and then
| just given their blessing, maybe with a few last finishing
| touches. The thing that makes it not a forgery is literally the
| artist's blessing; in principle you could even have a "forgery"
| that was created by the same person as the genuine article.
| This isn't widely advertised for obvious reasons but it isn't
| exactly a _secret_ either, and it 's not really a new thing -
| the actual creation of some of the classic, famous fine art
| paintings was a lot like this too and it makes verifying
| authenticity very interesting.
| malthaus wrote:
| NFT are null pointers with a random price tag
| echelon wrote:
| They're more like barcodes.
|
| I wouldn't pay 60 million for a barcode.
| jakemauer wrote:
| The only way that NFTs make sense to me is in some sort of
| impossible to implement DRM-like system where ONLY the current
| owners of the media can display it or utilize it. If buying an
| NFT of a piece of art meant that I could digitally display the
| file in full resolution, or if it otherwise afforded me some
| tangible benefit during the period of ownership, I could see it
| making sense.
|
| As of right now NFTs are basically donations to the artist with
| more steps and about 1000x the carbon footprint.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| The utility of art or collectibles is a very small portion of
| the value. A game worn Michael Jordan jersey you paid $100k for
| has essentially the same utility as a <$100 jersey. It is
| valuable because it is scarce, and the provenance
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-02 23:01 UTC)