Live data from Hacker News

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

131–140 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#131
post #19
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…

> 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.

I'm not so sure. Owning $10-$50M homes in major world cities, flying in a private jet, summer homes, winter homes, no car cheaper than $200k, no car older then 5 years, private school for your kids, private tutors, etc. adds up fast. Not to mention the effort that goes into make sure you never have to fly business class again.

The obscenely wealthy seem to either be content (Buffet), focused on charity (Gates), or all over the place (Musk). Anything less than $100M is less interesting thank you'd think.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#133
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…

I would much rather own this (now famous) NFT that John Cleese sold, than anything from Luis Vuiton.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#134

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?

Owning an NFT is not the same as owning copyright. It's just owning the right to transfer the NFT.

There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as the (edit: anyone) artist feels like producing.

[1] https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266

[2] https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69mil...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#135
Elon Musk can make another 100 billions by claiming a chunk of Mars territory and selling NFTs backed by 1 acre lots of Mars land. The NFTs will be real so long as Elon gets the US gov to recognize his landlord rights on Mars, at least near the location of his first rocket landing. The thing is, he can start selling NFTs right now, as his promise alone is this valuable.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#136
post #44
post #17

Brilliant move by John Cleese. The sale is the performance, and the performance aligns perfectly with his genre.

The obvious follow-up is to mint an NFT of the promo announcement/performance and sell that too. Obviously that would require its own performative announcement post...

"It's NFTs all the way down."

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#137

That’s a hip target to skewer for such an elder humorist.

Dada of NFTs, the future is going to call this Cleese’s bridge for NFTs as we call Duchamp’s urinal. It will probably sell, that’s why he didn’t just tell us the joke but also listed it.

NFTs have already started mocking themselves, almost as soon as any money has been spent on it (for example banksy's "I can't belive you morons actually buy this shit: https://opensea.io/assets/0xdfef5ac9745d24db881fef3937eab1d2... selling for $350k). This is just another high-profile example (though I think it's a slightly pointier critique at NFTs).

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#138
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…

> I'm fine with stupid and pointless things as long as your stupid and pointless things don't wreck the environment.

I hang up decorative lights around Christmas time. Is that not okay with you, or do you not find it pointless?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#139

The internet is just a fad. Only nerds want a smartphone Bitcoin is a scam NFTs are just stupid Just because I don’t like the aesthetic qualities of NFTs does not mean the whole space is bunk.

Sometimes the doubters are correct. AOL keywords, WAP phones, pets.com stock, self driving cars are two years away, X.25, VR, Hydrogen Cars.

The doubters are correct most of the time. That’s what makes VC lucrative.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#140

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.

How about photographs? Even back in the days of silver chemistry printing, it was fairly straightforward for an artist like Ansel Adams to go into the darkroom and print up more copies of his pieces. Most famous photographers, in fact, hire assistants who do the actual duplication to their formula, and then they sign, date and number the prints. Today, when even fine art photographers print their results via inkjet, it’s incredibly easy to reproduce as many copies as you want.

For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition.

Post reply on HN