[HN Gopher] The Worrisome Rise of NFTs
___________________________________________________________________
The Worrisome Rise of NFTs
Author : zwieback
Score : 61 points
Date : 2022-01-13 22:01 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
| rvz wrote:
| Here we go again. 'NFTs is a scam', 'web3 is a bubble', 'This is
| a going to crash', etc. They already know it is a scam, ponzi and
| a bubble which is why everyone is cashing in on the hype before
| it collapses.
|
| 90% - 98% of these NFTs will not survive and will be worthless,
| so let us ignore this common form of NFTs (images, videos, etc)
| and look at NFTs that have utility and value like blockchain
| domain names like ENS, which at least that is useful.
|
| The fact you cannot store the NFT image, video or audio on the
| blockchain tells you alone it is a scam anyway. Even if you could
| do that, how would you totally remove the image, video or audio
| if criminals and terrorists also use it for storing illegal
| content?
|
| So, if you think it is going to collapse, just ignore it.
| Otherwise we will all be back to complain about NFTs in another
| thread once again.
| runarberg wrote:
| > So, if you think it is going to collapse, just ignore it.
| Otherwise we will all be back to complain about NFTs in another
| thread once again.
|
| I don't think this is fair. Thousands of people will be scammed
| out of their savings. Peta joules of energy will be wasted.
| Hundreds of art pieces will be stolen. This is entirely
| preventable with legislation and enforcement, and while we wait
| for that, this damage can be minimized by informing the public.
| Just ignoring NFTs until the bubble bursts is allowing
| unnecessary harm to continue. That is not a very humane course
| of action.
| hnuser847 wrote:
| Professor of made up field writes an article bemoaning the
| existing of made up money. Oh, and how these made up tokens are
| going to literally end all human life.
| delabay wrote:
| diogenesjunior wrote:
| One of my favorite rappers, Nas, is selling royalty rights to his
| songs as NFTs[0]. I think selling NFTs as if they were trading
| cards is silly, but what Nas is doing? I think that's actually
| pretty cool. Thoughts?
|
| 0: https://www.nme.com/news/music/nas-to-sell-royalty-rights-
| to...
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I only have one thing to say here: "Smarten up Nas" Jay-Z, The
| Takeover, _The Blueprint_ (2001)
| candiddevmike wrote:
| What benefit does he have selling it via NFT vs something like
| ebay?
| julianz wrote:
| The NFT has nothing to do with the transaction here. You're
| giving something of value to Nas in return for a slice of a
| revenue stream. Nas could choose to do that with a regular old
| fashioned contract. The NFT is just an extremely expensive way
| to print the receipt, and introduces a third party to the
| process that doesn't need to be there. What happens when they
| go out of business or pivot to something else in a couple of
| years - are you still going to get your royalties then?
| kryogen1c wrote:
| i flagged this article. there is no new or intersting
| information. it is an opinion piece on a well-known subject both
| sides have thoroughly voiced their opinions on. regardless, the
| article itself is barely coherent and i dont even detect a
| running theme.
|
| im a crypto hater and id rather this not be here.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I have a bridge to sell you. It's an unbelievable deal for
| anyone, but I don't think you're ready for it.
| daenz wrote:
| To me, NFTs reek of crypto FOMO. It's like a manifestation of all
| of those who missed out on the Bitcoin wave, and all of those who
| want a second version of the Bitcoin wave. The concentrated
| desire of those two groups create a reality distortion field
| around NFTs being cool and valuable.
| golemotron wrote:
| > The much bigger question, though, has less to do with these
| emergent upstarts in our informational world and more to do with
| humanity's overall trajectory. Any species that endlessly grows,
| and continually invents energy-hungry processes, may not be
| destined for a happy ending.
|
| Unless energy consumptive processes lead you off-world for more
| resources. I'm surprised that the author, an astrobiologist,
| doesn't see a more open ended future.
| friendlydog wrote:
| Commercial aviation makes up 918 million metric tons of carbon.
|
| Bitcoin mining makes up 22 million metric tons.
|
| I'm less worried about NFTs than I am air travel.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| This is a bad argument.
|
| Just because something we currently do is worse than something
| we want to do, doesn't mean the new thing is good. Nor does it
| mean we should add to our current burden unnecessarily.
|
| It also ignores what we use the old thing for. Flight has
| enabled so much: fast response to disasters, faster shipping of
| goods, saving human lives. The entire planet can benefit from
| flight. Crypto is used by a small minority and seems pretty
| much fueled by speculation.
|
| The only legitimate use of crypto is as a currency in places
| where the economy is poor, or the state can too easily seize
| your assets etc.
| api wrote:
| Umm... commercial aviation is just a tad more useful...
| perrygeo wrote:
| But air travel has tangible social and cultural value: visiting
| clients, friends, colleagues, and family.
|
| NFTs do not provide social value. That's the central argument
| to the article. Did you read it?
| mandmandam wrote:
| 22 million metric tons is 22 million metric fucking tons.
|
| And there's no reason for it. None.
|
| There are better cryptocurrencies: ones with no mining, that
| use a fraction of the energy.
|
| Nano, for example, uses _six million_ times less energy per
| transaction, and is mining free. It 's fully operational,
| putting every Bitcoin maxi lie to shame.
| hnbad wrote:
| In other words: a single cryptocurrency is generating 1/42th
| the carbon as all commercial aviation. The carbon generated by
| the two things is only one order of magnitude apart.
|
| If you consider that one of the two is (prior to COVID) used by
| a significant number of citizens of Western countries for
| vacations, business trips or visiting family, whereas the other
| is primarily used for financial speculation, money laundering
| and grey/black market financial transactions, this should be
| even more appalling.
|
| I don't know what makes you think you can put these two numbers
| side by side and have Bitcoin's carbon emissions look like the
| reasonable one. Especially when aviation is an established
| industry and has been the target of ecological regulations for
| years.
| acdha wrote:
| Commercial aviation is at least useful: every year many
| millions of people travel for business, school, family, and
| pleasure needs which would be non-trivial to replace and
| aviation cargo is a key part of the global supply chain.
|
| If Bitcoin turned off tomorrow, some speculators would be very
| upset and nobody else would notice because 13 years in it still
| hasn't found something it can do competitively with
| alternatives which are significantly cheaper, easier to use,
| and less polluting.
| pphysch wrote:
| don't worry, "web3" nonsense will be among the first bubbles to
| pop as US monetary policy tightens over the next couple years
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| I'd replace the 'as' with 'if' above. I'm not convinced the Fed
| has the guts to significantly tighten monetary policy at this
| point. It's not just the NFT market that would crash, it's
| stocks and real estate as well - followed by a pretty
| significant recession.
| ourmandave wrote:
| NFTs are the blockchain version of the International Star
| Registry.
|
| At least those scammers send you a participation badge suitable
| for framing.
| echelon wrote:
| When the GAP is getting into NFTs, you know the bubble has
| already burst.
|
| Pogs3.
| randomdata wrote:
| People have been buying "high end" artwork as a tax shelter for
| a 100 years. Proving ownership through digital means instead of
| paperwork is insignificant to the practice.
| Hasu wrote:
| NFTs do not confer, imply, or prove ownership of artwork.
| legutierr wrote:
| > Blockchain technology is purposefully burdensome and
| computationally distributed, making it notoriously energy
| intensive. Estimates put the energy used to create and trade a
| cryptocurrency like Bitcoin on a par with the total consumption
| of a country like Sweden. And that's without accounting for the
| environmental footprint of the physical computer hardware.
|
| Another critic who is willing to criticize without updating their
| knowledge as to the current state of the technology. Blockchain
| is not the same as proof-of-work. Yes, Bitcoin is energy-
| intensive, but other consensus algorithms do not use energy at
| nearly the same scale.
| protoax wrote:
| What percentage of total cumulative cryptocurrency volume is
| exchanged using PoW rather than PoS?
|
| The PoW market share is and historically has been pretty
| massive so I don't think it's hugely disingenuous or through a
| complete lack of understanding that the two are conflated.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Blockchain is not the same as proof-of-stake.
|
| Will this is also true, I'm pretty sure this should have been
| proof-of-work. PoS is actually one of the less energy intensive
| alternatives.
| legutierr wrote:
| Of course, yes. Corrected.
| ghaff wrote:
| I think you probably mean proof-of-work which is the most
| energy intensive.
| legutierr wrote:
| Of course. Thank you.
| fabian2k wrote:
| I think it is fair to criticize this technology on the current
| state, any future improvements first have to prove themselves.
| legutierr wrote:
| Among the most popular blockchain networks right now, only
| Bitcoin and Ethereum and their forks (including code forks
| like Dogecoin and Litecoin) are still using proof-of-work.
| And Ethereum is moving away from it.
|
| After Ethereum migrates to proof-of-stake, of the top 20
| cryptocurrencies by market cap, only Bitcoin, Dogecoin and
| Tether (which is a multi-chain stablecoin) will operate on
| proof-of-work networks.
|
| https://coinmarketcap.com/
|
| Alternatives to proof-of-work are no longer "future" tech.
| fabian2k wrote:
| So I don't claim to understand any of this in detail, I
| only have some superficial knowledge here. How much of the
| NFT space works without Ethereum? My understanding is zero.
|
| They're moving away from it is fine, but they haven't yet.
| I'll believe it when they actually do that. And then we'll
| see how that idea works in practice. And we'll see if there
| are any new, interesting problems with proof of stake.
| legutierr wrote:
| I am familiar with a not-insignificant NFT market
| facilitated Solana, and I imagine that people are trying
| to release NFTs on other blockchains as well. There is a
| significant incentive to move to these other chains,
| because Ethereum is so expensive to use. But yes, most
| NFTs are issued via Ethereum smart contracts.
|
| Ethereum is operating a proof-of-stake chain right now in
| production, and is scheduled to switch over this year. I
| would wager that they do complete the transition before
| the close of 2022.
| [deleted]
| EGreg wrote:
| _The company Ethereum (that supports cryptocurrency as well as
| NFTs) has indicated it aims to cut energy use by more than 99
| percent by changing its core methodology._
|
| Interesting, Ethereum is referred to as a company by these
| authors?
| delabay wrote:
| This typo/oversight/error/whatever shows the depth of
| misunderstanding the author has about the subject he or she
| writes. People of hacker news will still love the content, but
| nobody outside of this bubble will view this as an honest
| criticism.
|
| If you want a truly great critique from a person who REALLY
| understands, read Moxie Marlinspike:
| https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
| EGreg wrote:
| I liked it a lot!
|
| I wrote a very substantive rebuttal that I hope you like as
| well: https://community.intercoin.org/t/web3-moxie-signal-
| telegram...
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Possibly this meaning?
|
| 3. An assemblage or association of persons, either permanent or
| transient. [1913 Webster]
| abetusk wrote:
| I would like to see an actual measured critique or discussion of
| NFTs and adjacent cryptocurrencies.
|
| I'm absolutely willing to hear that NFTs (and related
| cryptocurrencies) are bad for the environment, bad for society,
| have no "intrinsic" value, but I'd really like to hear some
| counterpoints.
|
| For example.
|
| * Which is worse in terms of environmental costs: ordering 100
| T-shirts or minting an NFT [0]?
|
| * There will always be fads, regardless of NFTs. Beanie Babies
| were the fad in the 2000s that bootstrapped PayPal and EBay [1]
|
| * There is at least an argument, whether it's true or not, that
| cryptocurrency can/will bootstrap solar adoption [2]
|
| * Explorations of what it means to have "unique" art, especially
| as it pertains to the current ability to mass produce and copy
| maybe with real attempts at a critique against academic artists
| who believe in intrinsic value of fine art vs. digital art.
|
| Though I'm not sure if there's any concrete statistics, it's at
| least a well accepted hypothesis that fine art is used as a tax
| evasion and/or money laundering device. If anyone has references
| on this point, I would appreciate it.
|
| Again, maybe NFTs are an indication of societal decline, but I'd
| like to have a good faith discussion about it instead of
| incredulous dismissals.
|
| [0]
| https://web.archive.org/web/20211112062740/https://twitter.c...
|
| [1] https://morfene.com/021.pdf (pg 43-44)
|
| [2]
| https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlT...
| strict9 wrote:
| > _NFTs are comically bereft of anything we would associate with
| social or cultural value._
|
| This subjective opinion is frequently trotted out to describe
| digital items that people pay money for. The arguments used in
| this piece can just as easily apply to video games or anything
| else.
|
| There isn't anything new presented here, just one person railing
| against something they do not like using familiar arguments. IMO
| not the type of thought provoking content that people come to HN
| for.
| jayd16 wrote:
| NFTs aren't the content and you should not conflate them.
| [deleted]
| OJFord wrote:
| I assume you mean in-game trinkets and costumes etc. rather
| than video games themselves?
|
| The latter seems like a massive stretch, and I don't know why
| it wouldn't include films too.
| [deleted]
| vultour wrote:
| This video game comparison is super incorrect. If you own an
| item in a game it's very often to show it off because others
| can't use it, it's only for you. The closed source nature of
| games enables this. Nobody would buy them if they were easily
| used by anyone but you had a super legit receipt saying "mhm
| this guy actually paid for it". NFTs of dumb copy pasted JPEGs
| are completely useless.
| strict9 wrote:
| You misunderstood my argument. I'm not comparing NFTs to
| video games for ownership purposes, but it's "contribution to
| society."
|
| The statement that NFTs "have no societal or cultural value"
| has been historically attributed to video games and other
| forms of leisurely/fun activity. It's a bad argument.
| SMAAART wrote:
| "Worrisome"?
|
| New tech will always bring out fear and anxiety, and fear and
| anxiety secures eyeballs and votes. Blockchain is here to stay,
| and Art will always leverage new tech.
|
| Simialar arguments were made at the dawn of the internet, and at
| the dawn of photography as far as Art is concerned.
|
| NFTs are Art, that's for sure. The concept of ownership that is
| challenged might as well be part of the Art itself.
| WriterGuy2021 wrote:
| "An astrobiologist says non-fungible tokens do not bode well for
| our species's future. " This is a historical subhead.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| And the article doesn't fail to live up to it --
|
| "...because of the potential [of blockchain] to outpace any
| efforts to transition to zero-carbon energy production."
|
| I think that even the most craven cryptocurrency and NFT buyers
| have yet to envision such exponential scenarios that
| 'blockchain' consumes resources at a clip that subsumes other
| greenhouse-gas activities like, flying, driving, HVAC, etc.
|
| "There is of course another solution: We stop reinventing
| things like currency or certification until we have a proper
| plan [...] until humanity has figured out a way to generate all
| our energy cleanly, from solar, nuclear, and so on, would make
| more sense."
|
| "There is of course another solution: We cease all human
| behaviors [...]".
| dexwiz wrote:
| Digital goods have proven to be viable goods that people will pay
| for, trade, and hold. Counter Strike Cosmetics, Fortnite Skins,
| and iTunes downloads are just a few examples of something that
| used to be a labeled as a gimmick, but are now big money makers.
| It's very easy to extends these to NFTs, a seemingly more generic
| digital good that is not tied to a specific company.
|
| But In Game Cosmetics have something that NFTs still seem to
| lack, a way to use them. Sure you can use an NFT in a Twitter
| Profile, but so can I with a simple copy/paste. Is anyone really
| going to surf a metamask wallet gallery to look at others' NFTs?
| Probably not. But that cool Counter Strike Knife skin can be used
| in an actual game that people actually play. Until NFTs can be
| used in a way that is not easily stolen, they will be relegated
| to speculation and money laundering vehicles like every other
| shitcoin out there. In theory games could plug into federated
| markets where an NFT could be used in multiple games, but where
| is the incentive to open a walled garden that prints money?
|
| The economic and energy arguments are just bikeshedding the real
| issue of finding an actual purpose for NFTs. 90% of people
| probably have never been to a museum to look existing art outside
| of school field trips, why will that change just because it's
| digital? Just because digital goods are viable, doesn't make NFTs
| viable by association.
| labrador wrote:
| I'm as concerned as the next person about energy use, but I did
| read some counterpoints in an article published yesterday [1]
|
| _The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and
| Investigations Subcommittee is reportedly going to investigate
| cryptocurrency's effect on the environment..._
|
| _But the meme that bitcoin or cryptocurrency uses as much power
| as one country or another, promoted by The New York Times last
| September, for example, deserves a bit of pushback on a couple of
| fronts._
|
| [1] https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/no-hearing-
| on-...
|
| Edit: and then someone pushes back on Nic Carter today:
|
| https://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-fallacy-of-bitcoin...
| quickthrowman wrote:
| This piece argues that we should listen to a VC partner that is
| invested in cryptocurrency about the energy usage of
| cryptocurrency. This is like listening to an oil company giving
| advice about fighting climate change. You'll have to do better
| than this.
|
| I'm not sure why I expected any better from a partisan think
| tank.
|
| They pushed back on Nic Carter (I'm guessing here) because he
| has a financial incentive to make crypto look good. This is not
| hard to understand.
| skybrian wrote:
| This is reason for suspicion but not for blanket dismissal.
| If you dismiss every self-interested argument you miss a lot.
| Zamicol wrote:
| NTF's aren't on Bitcoin. They're on Ethereum which is switching
| over to PoS.
| dralley wrote:
| >They're on Ethereum which is switching over to PoS.
|
| It's been switching over to PoS for years. I distinctly
| remember articles in 2019 about how they'd switch by the end
| of 2020, articles in 2020 about how they'd switch by the end
| of 2021, and here we are in 2022.
|
| The point holds until they actually do make the switch.
| heckerhut wrote:
| Update your facts my friend this criticism is stale and has
| been superseded by a million major events by now. Read the
| news or hold back on your deprecated knowledge.
| Zamicol wrote:
| Ethereum is already running PoS for over a year.
|
| Just not all of Ethereum is running PoS. All of Ethereum
| will switch over and it's currently planned for July.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| The specifics of this pushback don't seem that strong to me.
| FTA:
|
| 1. "standard method of inferring miners' collective electricity
| use from the "hash rate" of networks relies on guessing what
| kind of mining equipment did the hashing."
|
| 2. "The energy-consumption profile of cryptocurrencies leans
| toward stranded energy and renewables"
|
| #2, in particular, is completely irrelevant to how much energy
| is used - it's just hand waving and saying that some of the
| energy is renewable. Pushback #1 is just saying there are
| assumptions about miner efficiency in the energy use estimates
| - valid point, but it's not really a pushback, just the
| explicit statement of an assumption the analysis makes.
|
| These do not strike me as particularly powerful arguments,
| especially since one of them (#2) is irrelevant to the question
| at hand: how much energy does crypto use?
| Uehreka wrote:
| What bothers me personally is that they use so much energy
| _now_, even though they're still pretty fringe. Sure, a lot of
| people have a little crypto floating around, but not most
| people, and almost no one is using it as a medium for exchange
| on a daily basis. And yet it's still using ~0.5% of the world's
| energy (aka as much as a mid-sized country).
|
| I feel like you have to pick one: Either argue that crypto is a
| niche hobby that won't get much more traction, and that 0.5% of
| humanity's total power usage is not that bad. Or express your
| ambition for crypto to run the world and become a fundamental
| part of everyone's life, and have an explanation for how to
| square this with a multiplication of humanity's total energy
| usage and the effects that will have on energy prices, silicon
| prices and the climate. But I'm tired of people arguing for
| tomorrow's revolution using today's energy usage numbers.
| e67f70028a46fba wrote:
| if, by "worrisome", you mean "hilarious"
| joeman1000 wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised that hysterics about NFTs have dragged on
| so long. People must be super bored to give a fuck about this or
| become upset. People just want to trade proof of ownership, as
| defined in their own sense. They aren't really bothering anyone
| or causing any havoc. Why are people so bloody crazy about it?
| Just ignore it for fucks sake.
| api wrote:
| I checked out OpenSea a few days ago to see what was selling. I
| went in with low expectations but I was still shocked. The
| hottest NFTs are all trash. It's a bunch of dumb ape doodles and
| piles of variations on the same few templates. Some of them are
| algorithmically generated.
|
| It's just shockingly dumb, yet I have smart people I follow on
| Twitter and elsewhere who are convinced this is all world
| changing. I keep asking for people to point me to the evidence
| and it's never there. I've been asking for years.
| nikanj wrote:
| Yet people keep putting their life savings into it - and coming
| out significantly richer.
|
| It's rather frustrating how well the market has been rewarding
| bad decisions
| api wrote:
| It's all built on historically low (or even effectively
| negative) interest rates. We've been in a crazy low rate
| environment since 2008 and COVID pushed the money printing
| into overdrive. When inflation eventually forces interest
| rates to be raised a lot of these crazy bubbles are going to
| pop almost instantly.
|
| The alternative, a deflationary depression, would probably
| have been a lot more painful and destructive. Instead of mass
| defaults and cascades of bankruptcies we get million dollar
| ape doodles.
| dvt wrote:
| At this point, articles on NFTs are the same as articles on
| vaccines or articles on Jan 6, or Trump, or anything
| controversial. It's purely done to drive clicks and serves no
| real dialectic purpose (there are, of course, _some_ thoughtful
| writers, but the vast majority is drivel).
| gringoDan wrote:
| This is a lazy argument that could apply to any art or leisure
| activity. Counterpoint (and shameless plug) - NFTs are one of the
| best bundles ever created. They combine:
|
| 1. A display of wealth.
|
| 2. An elite social network.
|
| 3. A signal of good taste.
|
| 4. A limited collectible.
|
| 5. The excitement of roulette.
|
| https://paranoidenough.com/2021/12/21/The-Value-of-the-NFT-B...
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > 3. A signal of good taste.
|
| Or, given the current crop of popular NFTs, the lack thereof.
| threeseed wrote:
| The worst thing is the constant and malicious lie being
| perpetuated.
|
| You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. The ownership
| is not recognised in any country, by any court or international
| body.
|
| All you have is an entry in a logical database that says you own
| it. But unless you have signed a contract with the seller
| transferring or licensing copyright then it as meaningless as you
| buying a certificate saying you've named a planet.
| password1 wrote:
| The irony is that most NFT do not include any copyright or
| commercial rights. Only the "respectable" ones do, others are
| just a link to an image and a pinky promise that it won't be on
| another marketplace.
| ugjka wrote:
| I remember one of my friends wanted to do an NFT of some sort
| and i jokingly remarked "I'll paypal you 10EUR and I'll pretend
| I own something"
| chollida1 wrote:
| And most NFT's are just links that aren't embedded on the
| blockchain that could go away tomorrow or be switched to
| something else without any warning.
| daenz wrote:
| Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If nobody can take it
| from you, you "own" it, and everything else follows from that.
| "It" being: your crypto identity bound to some metadata.
| threeseed wrote:
| No the artist owns it. They have the copyright.
|
| So the funny part is that if you buy an NFT not only can I
| legally copy it but I can approach the artist, buy the
| copyright and then sue you for copyright infringement.
| daenz wrote:
| I said you own metadata bound to your crypto identity, not
| the thing that the artist is making into an NFT.
| dvt wrote:
| While this is (in most cases) true, you still own, say, a
| poster you bought of some artwork. The NFT is a sort of
| "poster" you own. You still _own_ it, so I don 't
| understand your criticism.
| threeseed wrote:
| The difference is that people need your permission to
| make a copy of that poster.
|
| I can take your NFT image, duplicate it and use it
| however I want. And you have no legal or moral right to
| say no.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Owning and NFT is more like owning a sign that says
| there's a poster on the wall in the next room that's
| yours. For many NFTs the poster may be removed at any
| time by a third party you have no influence over. All you
| own is the sign.
| 0x500x79 wrote:
| Is this comment in support of NFTs or against NFTs? From what
| I have seen commonly the subject of the NFT is hosted
| somewhere not on the blockchain (possessed by someone else).
| daenz wrote:
| The comment is neutral. If the blockchain is decentralized,
| it's a lot harder to take the entries from people, but to
| your point, if it's hosted by a central entity, your
| ownership of anything is a lot weaker.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Yeah. NFTs are not a bad idea but the current implementation is
| basically a scam. Ownership of these tokens means nothing,
| people pay for them and still own nothing.
|
| They _could_ be good. Imagine if instead of the current
| licensing hell you could just buy an NFT that represents your
| ownership of a song, a film, a video game. Companies wouldn 't
| be able to take it away from you remotely, you'd be able to
| resell it at a later date. Such a thing could actually make
| copyright more tolerable. Unfortunately this would probably
| require an actual legal framework around it to guarantee these
| rights.
| acdha wrote:
| > Unfortunately this would probably require an actual legal
| framework around it to guarantee these rights.
|
| I'd go stronger to "would definitely require". If companies
| wanted to offer this, there's no reason they couldn't right
| now so the question really needs to be how you'd get them to
| offer more consumer-friendly terms. One option is a legal
| requirement but that would be non-trivial to implement to
| avoid various scams (e.g. if I license a movie and sell it to
| you, how comfortable are they with the idea that I didn't
| save the decryption key when I legally had it?).
|
| The most interesting example I've seen of what this could
| look like is Movies Anywhere. My understanding is that
| Disney's motivation was preventing a single tech company like
| Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc. from having a large enough share
| of the market that they'd be able to dictate terms to the
| movie studies the way Apple was able to use iTunes to push
| the music industry to be less exploitative. That only works
| with a list of trusted parties and seems to be about as much
| as I'd expect to see in the current climate.
| rr808 wrote:
| Even worse is that a bunch of NFTs are sold by people that
| didn't even own the art in the first place.
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-a...
| robotresearcher wrote:
| I have a bridge to sell you, 2020s style.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
| legutierr wrote:
| "NFT" means "Non-fungible token". It means that one token of a
| type is not interchangeable with another token of the same
| type. It does not mean "a link to a JPEG that is hosted on
| OpenSea."
|
| > You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense.
|
| Often this is the case, but it doesn't need to be the case, it
| shouldn't be the case, and it was never intended to be the
| case.
|
| Yes, it is stupid that people are buying NFTs that are not
| linked to a legal or contractual grant of intellectual
| property. However, it is also the case that there _are_ in fact
| NFTs being sold that do in fact attempt to convey an ownership
| right via contract.
| acdha wrote:
| The problem is that the salespeople _frequently_ misrepresent
| NFTs as having legal meaning as a key part of the explanation
| for why you should pay so much for one and they _never_
| mention that the same basis you'd need to convey the legal
| contract also means that you have a system you can use
| instead of a blockchain at much lower cost.
| deergomoo wrote:
| Even aside from the baloney idea of ownership they offer, the
| thing that continues to baffle me about NFTs is that the very
| nature of them assumes that ownership is inherently valuable.
|
| Buying a painting allows me to hang it on the wall and admire
| it, where is where I derive the value of owning that painting.
| Buying a digital videogame allows me play it, even though there
| is no physical good (and is also a questionable definition of
| ownership due to DRM).
|
| Buying an NFT allows me to...show off I guess? It entirely
| separates the ownership from the ability the experience the
| owned thing, which I find bewildering. To me, 100% of the value
| of owning something is the ability to experience it. If I can
| freely experience something, then the concept of "owning" it is
| worthless. It would be different if it endowed some semblance
| of _actual_ ownership, e.g. copyright, but that has been
| functioning perfectly well without blockchains for hundreds of
| years.
| gruez wrote:
| >Buying a painting allows me to hang it on the wall and
| admire it, where is where I derive the value of owning that
| painting.
|
| That's true, but why do people spend millions on an original
| [famous artist] painting? If all they want to do is admire
| the painting, surely a high quality replica (ie. the type
| that can fool the naked eye) would be more than sufficient?
| jtxt wrote:
| Yeah I think the art/jpeg part of it is somewhat meaningless.
| The creator can probably still can claim copyright, and of
| course anyone can copy it. At one level it's lust a link to URL
| that can be bought and traded.
|
| But also: proof of ownership of a NFT can be access to
| something else, that can be the "utility" defined by the NFT
| creator. Like the Board Ape Yacht Club gives access to parties.
| Others give other value add like YouTube revenue license
| rewards if the NFT shows up in an animation for example.
| (Quarter Machine) I think "utility" is where more of the
| potential is. It can be valuable with the people/company
| backing it and keeping their word.
| golemotron wrote:
| > It's possible to see a purpose for cryptocurrencies, but NFTs
| are (for now) almost comically bereft of anything most of us
| would associate with social or cultural value.
|
| They incentivize energy production and research into better
| energy production. That isn't trivial.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Unless you believe that NFTs are useful in and of themselves,
| this is a classic example of the Broken Window Fallacy[1]. For
| example, we could "incentivize energy production" just as well
| by phasing out LED light bulbs and replacing them with
| incandescent ones. So why don't we?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-13 23:02 UTC)