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

121–130 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#121

Post by Tenoke »

toss1 wrote: post #25

Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade. All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly. If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent…

>the electricity and carbon footprint.

That's no longer a concern for an increasing number of NFTs minted today[0].

0. https://svilentodorov.xyz/blog/nft-electricity/

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#123

Post by vvanders »

coconut08 wrote: post #110
vvanders wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

Until NFTs move away from proof of work I'll continue to criticize them.

It's like expecting good intentions and then being surprised when a few bad actors ruin things for the larger group. Tragedy of the commons is exactly why stuff like this should be called out, each and every single time.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#124

Post by dmitryminkovsky »

andybak wrote: post #109
vvanders wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

Thanks I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production. Will check this out. Do you know any others?

I really enjoy NFTs conceptually, much more than crypto in general actually, and I really don't get a lot of the hate. If you remove the emissions aspect (which is the non-starter for me), I think it's so cool that there is a way to create scarcity in the digital world, even if that scarcity is totally "meaningless." Yes, there are some goods with inherent value: food, shelter, heat sources. But NFTs are far from the first type of asset that has no inherent value, and that includes both the cyber and real worlds. Humans like to curate and collect, and NFTs are just an expression of that drive.

What I wonder if why NFTs suddenly took off now. I remember hearing about them years ago.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#125

Post by insert_coin »

andybak wrote: post #119
insert_coin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

NFTs cannot guarantee the ownership of an original digital asset despite its claims because a digital asset has no original. They cannot even guarantee the ownership of a limited production "edition".

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#126

Post by Tenoke »

craz8 wrote: post #93

I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned that selling the Brooklyn Bridge is a very old scam, made famous by this huckster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker New technology, same scam

It was mentioned in the original link here, it's just that the link was changed to the tweet which doesn't explain the backstory.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#128

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #95
meowface wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Cryptocurrency and "Web 3.0" is absolutely not all zero-sum, and I'm overall optimistic in the long-term, but much like the existing finance industry, a high percentage is definitely zero-sum or close enough on net. People compare NFTs to trading cards. But if you already think those things are basically useless zero-sum speculative Greater Fool insert-other-overused-but-apt-buzzwords bullshit, your opinion of…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#129

Post by runeks »

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

And how do I prove that this address is associated with John Cleese’s work?

Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet, or how is it associated with him?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#130

Post by bawolff »

andybak wrote: post #114
dehrmann wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I can go to a library to use a computer, does that mean owning a laptop is meaningless? This seems like a very silly comparison.
Post reply on HN