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

81–90 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#81

Post by zokier »

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…

If you think it more like as Patreon then it makes much more sense. The ownership of the artwork (or whatever) is irrelevant. Similarly that Patreon members might get their names in the credits of a youtube video, token owners get their name in the blockchain. The key here is that both are public displays of support to the artist and not much more.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#85

Post by a4isms »

dylan604 wrote: post #33
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.

(Cleese collects fifty million dollars, goes to the bank and takes the entire amount out in cash.)

"I won, I won, I finally came out ahead!"

Prunella Scales appears.

"Thank you, Basil!"

Yoink.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#86

Post by worik »

tomerico wrote: post #80
runeks wrote: post #37

Honest question: if I were to buy this, how would I prove to everyone I meet that I am the owner?

You could generate a signature that proves that you have the private key associated with the address

I.e., you cannot.

You can run a piece of mathematics that not one person in a thousand would understand, but there is no way to show it off, like in a book case or hang it on a wall.

But given that most valuable art is sitting in deep storage in free ports, I am not sure it is a problem.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#87

Post by PretzelPirate »

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…

The issue is that everyone equates NFTs with NFT art. NFT art can’t have a tie in as part of a virtual world where people want to show ownership of specific digital items, but NFTs in general are more useful, especially for all-digital items.

Something like cards in Gods Unchained is a better NFT example than a picture.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#88

Post by capableweb »

insert_coin wrote: post #83
worik wrote: post #82

Is this a scam?

Yes, NFTs are a scam.

Well, if NFTs are a scam, then anything you buy for money is a scam. Usually we reserve "scams" for "trickeries", fooling someone out of their money, when they don't really want to. In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs.

Maybe a better word is to use "hyped" or "mania" or something, because it's not really a "scam" as no one really own NFTs as a whole and are fooling others.

Disclaimer: I'm myself not into NFTs because it mostly seems like hype at this point, I own zero NFTs myself and have no interest in buying. But I also care about accuracy.

Post reply on HN