31–40 of 48 posts
Regardless of the premise, anything that so needlessly worsens the climate emergency by wantonly wasting energy isn’t future proof.
For NFT, I think the energy issue is close to irrelevant. The tokens live on ETH blockchain which exists anyway and is massively larger than these tokens. There are also plans to migrate ETH off of PoW soonish, so it may become irrelevant.
It's not mania. It's a vision for competition, control, restriction, & ownership. It's the value system of limited natural resources, imposed on a much more open place where bits are cheap, where copying is basically free, where vast amounts of computational capabilities are everywhere. It's not going to go away. This camp of control & authority & power will find enough adherents to make that which is without value h…
They're both legit and mania. Yes, you can cryptographically own a token that represents the first tweet. Is it worth $2.5M? Not really. Some rich kid is just showing off and wants to make news. You could say that the value comes from the stupidity of it. Art is not very easy to understand or value objectively. NFTs may have real applications in enabling markets for intellectual property like copyrights, patents, and…
But would a NFT hold up in court as proof of ownership? For example if I get ahold of your NFT for some digital good do I 'own' that good now? I'm guessing if we went to court over it and you have all the accompanying documentation proving you purchased it and all I have is the NFT, the court would rule in your favor. And if that's the case what benefit is a NFT over a standard purchase agreement?
A big problem is that ownership is proven by knowledge of a secret and you'd need to decide how would you want the court to decide if two people both present the ownership password/key? What would half-control over a cloud server be worth?
An NFT is great for a unique digital resource, where control over it and ownership are roughly the same. For instance, cryptokitties. You buy tokens which cannot be divided - you can't own half a cat - but can be transferred. Whoever controls the keys controls the cat. In this situation the token replaces a stored user credential, and a stored avatar.
In the real world though, I think they're a reasonable solution for short-lived, low to mid-value, non-fungible items, where users both want to swap their items and find doing so in a centralized way is too restrictive. Like concert tickets.
I’m personally at the stage where it seems like such obvious silliness that I feel like I must be missing something, and so I avoid expressing this opinion anywhere that I might be held accountable for it at some point in the future. But I still suspect that I’m right, naturally. Definitely interested to hear arguments to the contrary though.
Relieved to see others saying it seems like an inside joke that they just don't get. What I don't understand is how content is verified. If I sell you a digital clip and the rights to it, who's verifying I had the permission to transfer those rights: that I owned the image/video/etc at all?
Essentially what you do is just encode a trusted party (or multiple) and do what they say. This way you get "trusted" data in the blockchain for scripts to use. For instance, who owns a house, or the closing price of a commodity, or who won the super bowl (or an election). As you can imagine this just makes them a target for corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I get it. If the art is digital, then copies can be identical to the original (apart from the NFT), no? So why would this model succeed over, say, a Patreon-like model where many people get access to the product? Even in the traditional sales model, I would think the typical PED for digital goods means that selling multiple copies provides more revenue than selling one copy for a higher price. Most thing…
I think you can think of this as patreon in many cases. It's not really about the art itself though, it's more about this conceptual idea of "digital ownership".
A real world example is the idea of owning a copyright. What do you own there? The right to monetize it, yes. Bragging rights, yes. The right to resell it, yes. And others I can't think of. If someone decides to encroach on any of the rights then you can go to court and seek retribution.
So you are comparing it to Canal Mania in 1793?
I think yes, there will be NFT's sold far to high for investment purposes right now, but others that are profitable, it will be an on going business / art form.
I personally think $2.5m for the first tweet in a mature market would be embarrassing. Are you allowed to destroy the first tweet, if you are getting true control then yes I think it might be worth $2.5m. Else you are not actually buying the first tweet, unlike art created only as NFTs. So that has a embarrassing side, you're a rich person who doesn't even truly own it.
> NFTs legit or mania? So you are comparing it to Canal Mania in 1793? I think yes, there will be NFT's sold far to high for investment purposes right now, but others that are profitable, it will be an on going business / art form. I personally think $2.5m for the first tweet in a mature market would be embarrassing. Are you allowed to destroy the first tweet, if you are getting true control then yes I think it might…