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

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#31

Post by dylan604 »

blueline wrote: post #21
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

at least a louis vuitton bag can actually hold things in it, and you can't get an identical free one by right clicking an existing one and clicking "Save image"

or you can go to that part of town where you can get much cheaper knock offs of the LV bag. actually, there's several apps that are filled with these sellers that make it practically as easy as right clicking

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#32

Post by sago »

eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

I don't disagree with your conclusions. But I think it is easy to oversimplify this. Until it is obviously just... obvious. I think reality is more interestingly complicated.

> ownership of digital goods which can't be owned?

One interesting fact it is what the ownership means legally. If there was a successful image that an expensive NFT owner had, it wouldn't surprise me to see some legal shenanigans. This has not been tested yet. Capability does not give you the rights to make copies of digital art. "Can't be owed" is a rather brave claim I think.

> You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies

Interestingly it is not dissimilar to a lot of physical art. To the extent that some 'restorations' of damaged art contain a lot of paint of the restorer rather than the original artist. I believe there are many professionals who are capable of creating something visually indistinguishable from the Mona Lisa, say.

Without specialised equipment you would have a very hard time telling reality from a good copy. So I am forced to conclude (what dealers will say quite explicitly) that most of the value is in the provenance not the physicality. "NFT is rubbish" becomes less obvious, to me.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#33

Post by dylan604 »

wrs wrote: post #27

Given there’s a $50k bid for this, I can’t decide if the joke backfired, or succeeded brilliantly. It’s a no-lose proposition for Cleese, I guess!

Normally, when these kind of things happen, the receipient of that money tends to do something cool with it like dontating it to causes. However, I think it would be very apropos for Cleese to just keep any earnings.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#34

Post by mdoms »

lukifer wrote: post #19
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

Accelerating inequality has led to a conundrum for the rich in addition to the obvious consequences for the poor: what do you actually do with that obscene wealth? [0] You can only consume so much luxury, and sitting on dollars results in tax liability and/or gradual depreciation. Gambling it on speculative assets and bragging-rights positional goods (whynotboth.gif) is pretty much the only game in town, especially w…

If I knew anything about Roman history I'm almost certain I could draw a parallel to the fall of Rome here.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#36

Post by masklinn »

eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

> Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it?

In my understanding the NFT doesn't even cover the ownership of anything except the NFT itself. It's like owning a sheet of paper you write "certificate of authenticity" at the top on in sharpie, then sign yourself. You should probably write the bits in the middle in crayon.

> I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights.

Merch is at least an actual thing you can own and use, or get pleasure from by looking at (for works of arts e.g. prints & posters, limited run or not), sometimes tied to life events or memories (e.g. band, museum, or tourism spot merch).

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#38

Post by jb1991 »

lukifer wrote: post #19
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

Accelerating inequality has led to a conundrum for the rich in addition to the obvious consequences for the poor: what do you actually do with that obscene wealth? [0] You can only consume so much luxury, and sitting on dollars results in tax liability and/or gradual depreciation. Gambling it on speculative assets and bragging-rights positional goods (whynotboth.gif) is pretty much the only game in town, especially w…

I find this quite a beautiful analysis.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#39

Post by basch »

eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts.

You can buy a replica of a piece of art to look at it. You buy the original to store value. You hope it may appreciate as well. It could end up worthless. But until someone says otherwise, it has the value stored in it.

It's just like baseball cards. You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies, but you don't. The date they are printed matters for some reason. Who owned it previously, its last sale price at auction is part of its history and thus its value.

Sorare/ubisoft also has a much better value proposition. Theyve combined draftkings and pokemon into a live betting market with collectable cards that you can use to play a game, to win more. The early generation may be simple digital art, mostly worthless, but there will be more innovation to come. Part of the reason I think NFTs are the real deal is because I think the value of art is often stupid, and yet it still has value. Even if 99% of NFTs turn into nothing, there will be some early art from people that arent famous yet, that is someday found. I have no doubt there is an immense amount of mystery being planted, waiting to be uncovered. Whatever stupidity and hype and storytelling and history around artwork, that I dont understand, will translate to this realm as well. The lack of decay, fire damage, traditional theft, and loss will be an interesting wrinkle.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#40

Post by lalaland1125 »

basch wrote: post #39
eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

All of the replies to you didnt really touch on what they are, a store of value. It's fair to think of them more like savings accounts. You can buy a replica of a piece of art to look at it. You buy the original to store value. You hope it may appreciate as well. It could end up worthless. But until someone says otherwise, it has the value stored in it. It's just like baseball cards. You can make unlimited indistingu…

Why would you store value in something as unstable as an NFT? NFTs are 100% speculation so the price is basically arbitrary.
Post reply on HN