Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#531

Post by andypants »

jjnoakes wrote: post #519
andypants wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like owning a celebrity's autograph. Some people do care, a lot.

Except it is different in a way. Owning a physical autograph is different from owning a picture of one; the physical autograph can't be reproduced and has value due to its uniqueness and to its physical existence. It would instead be like owning a unique piece of paper with a unique number on it, which somehow corresponded to a picture of the autograph. Now the autograph portion is identical between you and anyone el…

The NFT is cryptographically signed by the author. You can't forge it, and it's publicly, verifiably linked to the author. It's even better than a physical autograph.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#532

Post by tiku »

The whole thing has a large "bragging" part to it for now. Public auctions, showing how much you've paid (on the site I saw about NFT's) This is also true in the physical art-world, you display it on your wall, show it off to your friends etc, hang it in a gallery.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#533

Post by ThomPete »

dcow wrote: post #526
stolenmerch wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I'm sorry, but I simply don't. Not trying to be contrarian, but reproductions bring me a very different joy and appreciation than provable originals. I agree some things in crypto are scams, but NFTs, in my opinion, have a really important function in some domains.

NFTs aren't the original and digital reproductions are perfect.

NFTs are the orginal NFTs

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#535

Post by cnasc »

meowface wrote: post #458
cbovis wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can verify ownership by signing something with the wallet that the token is associated to (signing is free). They're only able to do so if they own the private keys of the wallet. It should be noted that private keys can be shared if the owner wishes. In the case of using NFTs as event entry the event organizer would still need to keep a record of which NFTs have been used already for a given event because the w…

Exactly. It'll have to be like a software license key: in theory you can share your key, but the service can just authorize and lock in the first device/entity that presented the license key. This kind of DRM is often annoying for regular customers since you may have to manually contact customer support in order to request a transfer of the license to another device you own, but it does help mitigate non-paid use to…

> This could be enforced for real-life events by handing out a wristband with a GUID QR code to the first person to demonstrate they possess the private key that owns a particular ticket token, then never handing anything out for that token again, and also triggering an alert if the same QR code is ever seen on more than one person

This is quite close to what unlock-protocol[1] did for several conferences pre-covid. Overall it worked, though there are some key difficulties: gas prices make interesting on-chain things too expensive for most people, and wallet ergonomics aren’t great for this sort of thing.

(I am a former unlock-protocol employee)

[1] https://unlock-protocol.com/blog/checking-key-in

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#536

Post by injidup »

elsurudo wrote: post #194
gbear605 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most contemporary art has a lot more effort put into it than you think. It’s perfectly okay to not value that effort, but things like those “black squares” or whatever actually aren’t just that. If you see them in person, you can see how the different brush strokes overlap and theoretically signify different things.

> If you see them in person, you can see how the different brush strokes overlap and theoretically signify different things. You had me until this bit

Son, see the weave on the emperor's gown and how it's delicate changes in weave and texture signify the greatness, taste and glory of our leader.

Mama! Yes but ....

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#537

Post by elif »

People looking at NFTs as beanie babies or mona lisas are severely missing the point.

The vast majority of high value art transactions are ALSO tax/asset management activities. The prices are only loosely coupled with the art, and are primarily derived from the scarcity AND the fact that someone else paid $x in the past.

The fact that you purchase these with cryptocurrency should highlight the use case.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#538

Post by dcow »

I agree with the author’s premise but find the crypto argument at the end weak at best and misleading at worst. I don’t see how NFTs will ever be responsible for any remotely significant slice of the raw energy usage of the blockchain they might be implemented atop. Or, if you implemented a blockchain solely for an NFT, how it would ever get to a scale of energy consumption that is prohibitive or wasteful.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#539

Post by rchaud »

I was disappointed to see many of the artists I follow on social media filling my timeline with talk of 'crypto art' and NFTs. I understand that art is hard to monetize, especially when original designs can be stolen and reproduced by some anonymous faker.

But digital-only art is already expensive, and adding this NFT stuff on top of it feels pointless. Who but the artist thinks this adds an element of unique-ness to the product? Nobody will be buying crypto kitties at Sotheby's to impress their friends at their abode in the Hamptons. And impressing others with your taste is half the point when it comes to collecting expensive stuff.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#540

Post by scsilver »

frobisher wrote: post #437
krsdcbl wrote: post #435

I don't quite get this post, it somehow seems to make a case FOR nfts and then try to make the point that these are not look likr stocks (which is rather obvious). The whole point of nfts is to create uniqueness among endlessly duplicatable media, and provide the possibility for digital art to be handled like physical art. Just like the Mona Lisa, you can look at endless photos of it without restriction, but only one…

The Mona Lisa is a physical "rivalrous" good, meaning if I own it, you cannot. Digital goods are "non-rivalrous", so although NFTs can give a psychological feeling of ownership, I wouldn't say they make digital goods rivalrous. I think digital NFTs only make sense in two ways: (1) psychological feelings of ownership, (2) perhaps a claim on something digital that _can_ be made rivalrous, for instance royalty streams.…

Do people own the mona lisa in their home or do they have a curator hold it for them and their ownership is backed by a contract in the current legal system?
Post reply on HN