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

141–150 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#141

Post by roywiggins »

ori_b wrote: post #134
andybak wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as anyone feels like producing. We could all mint a different Mona Lisa NFT.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#142

Post by ayngg »

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 think the majority of the value in art nfts will be derived from being part of the provenance, or being part of the history of the beginning of 'owning' digital art, much like owning a famous painting. By extension it could be applied to digital culture, for example the tiktok guy riding his skateboard is selling that meme as an nft. So if collectors are good (and lucky), they are basically able to buy their way into a niche of history by being associated with works that represent periods of cultural significance.

Sure that may seem stupid to most people, but most people don't even get why regular art is significant or can be very expensive. Personally I would attribute it to my lack of understanding rather than dismiss it outright.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#143

Post by andybak »

insert_coin wrote: post #125
andybak wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I agree. But my point is that this is only a matter of degree more stupid than the concept of limited edition prints. Or $10000 cigars you can't smoke. Or a hotel room that costs similar amounts per night. The list goes on.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#144

Post by URSpider94 »

insert_coin wrote: post #125
andybak wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

They can guarantee part of a limited edition, if the contract is written such that only x tokens can be issued. If a future contract issues more copies, then that release will be less valuable by nature of it being later/less exclusive, even though it’s the same physical file.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#145

Post by andybak »

bawolff wrote: post #130
andybak wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your analogy is flawed. The laptop has utility in terms of access and convenience.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#146

Post by [deleted] »

runeks wrote: post #138
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…

> 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?

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#147

Post by andybak »

vvanders wrote: post #123
coconut08 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is why I tried to limit my discussion to PoS. Which (I'll repeat myself here) already are being used for NFTs.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#148

Post by URSpider94 »

frongpik wrote: post #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.

Just as was done a generation above with selling off lots in the desert west ...

Barring any international treaties that would probably prevent any such claims, the general rule is that you or a physical representative have to set foot and survey before you can make a claim. And stepping onto Mars in one spot would not be sufficient to claim the whole planet.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#149

Post by runeks »

skybrian wrote: post #78

If you're looking for a discount, you could get this one instead: https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...

The top bid is currently quoted at 0.015. Which currency is this? Why don’t they specify this?

I see a dollar equivalent, but I don’t see how they translate from the 0.015 figure.

EDIT: Never mind. Apparently, the symbol Ξ refers to the Ether cryptocurrency.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#150

Post by dmitryminkovsky »

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…

> The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality.

That's the beauty of it. Yes, the digital good by its nature is infinitely replicable [0], but everyone knows and (hopefully) understands that, and that is not what it is being sold with the NFT. The NFT, as I understand it, represents a totally new type of "ownership" that has no analogue in previously established forms of ownership. The closest thing to NFTs are securities, where the value of the security is almost always speculative in nature. NFTs just take this to its teleological end. Yes, an artist or John Cleese can go ahead and mint another Brooklyn Bridge token, but doing this would degrade their reputation and make their future work less valuable and attractive to buyers, just like a company that keeps minting stock indiscriminately is going to have a harder time selling that stock. John Cleese selling a token is actually very cool in my opinion, because he didn't have to call Goldman Sachs to make it happen. I see a future where we have premier blockchains where all the top assets will be traded. Someone selling farts [1] and such will not be on those blockchains (unless those farts become highly regarded, which they might), and the blockchain itself will be a sort of crypto-artistic expression. I think this is just the beginning.

[0] https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cash...

Post reply on HN