John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT • Hacker News Board

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#101

Post by rvz » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

pazimzadeh wrote: post #77

*a Drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge

They don't call it 'contemporary art' for no reason. We all know that the drawing itself is worthless but the signature is what is 'valued'.

NFTs are just giving life to 'contemporary art' again which can be shortened to 'con-art'. Allowing celebrities a get rich quick route with their signatures. Heck, even an AI can paint something and auction it at Christie's and then re-auction it as an NFT.

As for this NFT and the rest of them, No thanks and no deal.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#102

Post by insert_coin » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #98

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wine…

The critic, which you do not address, is that (most) NFTs pretend to give assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset.

The problem with NFTs is a conceptual one not a technological or psychological or societal one. The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality.

Art might be stupid, but you can actually make the claim of having an original insert_coin drawing, despite its value.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#103

Post by craz8 » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:56 PM UTC

ASalazarMX wrote: post #73

Given the logical progression, I think I'll wait until someone sells a NFT of a NFT before being surprised.

NFT derivatives will be the next big thing for the ‘20s - perhaps a NFT ETF I can put in my IRA?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#104

Post by schoen » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:57 PM UTC

The original conceptual framework for NFT-like instruments is Nick Szabo's "Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority":

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/

At the very end he says:

> Largely unaddressed above is the problem of divergence between actual conditions and directory rights. [...] When divergence becomes too great, a solution to address the unreality of the title registry is needed.

Almost nobody selling NFTs today has even bothered to address Szabo's final "correspondence to ground" point, i.e., why anyone should think that the ownership of a particular NFT means anything!

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#105

Post by koonsolo » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

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!

This is already a famous NFT.

"Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge? Look, I have that NFT that he sold!".

Heck, I would even pay money for that. First of all for the bragging rights, and second of all because I'm sure plenty of people would pay for it.

But $50k is a bit over my budget ;). But in no way am I surprised that there is somebody out there that wants to pay this amount.

If anyone is surprised by this, you probably also don't understand any other collectibles.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#106

Post by vvanders » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #98

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wine…

> (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake)

I don't know how you get to defend something when you're sidestepping the biggest problem with NFTs.

I'm fine with stupid and pointless things as long as your stupid and pointless things don't wreck the environment. If someone decides to poison the local water supply because it's an "art project" they still poisoned the fucking water supply.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#107

Post by numpad0 » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

insert_coin wrote: post #83

worik wrote: post #82

Is this a scam?

Yes, NFTs are a scam.

But what it is is very clearly communicated

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#108

Post by dehrmann » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 8:00 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #98

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wine…

At least I can look at art. That, alone is more utility than an NFT.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#109

Post by andybak » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

vvanders wrote: post #106

andybak wrote: post #98

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wine…

> (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) I don't know how you get to defend something when you're sidestepping the biggest problem with NFTs. I'm fine with stupid and pointless things as long as your stupid and pointless things don't wreck the environment. If someone decides to poison the local water supply because it's an "art project" they still poisoned the…

Well - Proof of Stake NFTs are already here: https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/

So all I'm doing is hoping everyone uses these instead.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#110

Post by coconut08 » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

vvanders wrote: post #106

andybak wrote: post #98

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wine…

> (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) I don't know how you get to defend something when you're sidestepping the biggest problem with NFTs. I'm fine with stupid and pointless things as long as your stupid and pointless things don't wreck the environment. If someone decides to poison the local water supply because it's an "art project" they still poisoned the…

nft's don't poison the environment in and of themselves. First of all they don't NEED to exist on a proof of work blockchain, and second whether or not you make or trade nft's people are still going to be mining bitcoin and ethereum. your criticism here is of proof of work, not nft's. please don't conflate the 2. there are plenty of reasons that nft's are silly, but proof of work isn't one of them.