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

111–120 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#111

Post by koonsolo »

schoen wrote: post #104

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. Almo…

This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT". Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? I certainly do, but not for $50k, which it already has.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#112

Post by andybak »

insert_coin wrote: post #102
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 i…

I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints.

A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#113

Post by dehrmann »

insert_coin wrote: post #102
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 i…

> assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset

So far, "ownership" has meant "vague association." If people really wanted to own IP, you'd think there'd be a boom in song rights, but there isn't.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#114

Post by andybak »

dehrmann wrote: post #108
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.

I can look at the Mona Lisa - either the original or a reproduction. Does that mean "owning the Mona Lisa" is meaningless? How about "owning the copyright on a painting that is on the internet"? Worthless or worth paying for?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#115

Post by lisper »

koonsolo wrote: post #111
schoen wrote: post #104

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. Almo…

This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT". Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? I certainly do, but not for $50k, which it already has.

c.f.: http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#116

Post by insert_coin »

andybak wrote: post #112
insert_coin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints. A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.

Prints are, ahem, "prints", they are not the original. First editions of books are not the manuscript.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#117

Post by andybak »

miguelmurca wrote: post #100
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…

I've never really seen anyone heavily take issue with the concept of NFTs. Everybody's just taking issue with the PoW.

You obviously follow different people on Twitter to me. The entire topic has become very polarized - well beyond the discussions around C02

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#119

Post by andybak »

insert_coin wrote: post #116
andybak wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints. A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.

Prints are, ahem, "prints", they are not the original. First editions of books are not the manuscript.

That's the point I'm making. I'm not sure I understand what counter-argument you're making?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#120

Post by dehrmann »

worik wrote: post #86
tomerico wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see NFT ownership quickly devolving to "cool story, bro."
Post reply on HN