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

151–160 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#151

Post by pmlnr »

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.

> Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that?

It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot.

> I certainly do

...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#152

Post by vvanders »

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?

If your Christmas lights used the same amount of electricity as the whole town? Maybe.

Thankfully we have an amazing new technology called Light Emitting Diodes so we don't have to worry about that theoretical problem.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#153

Post by insert_coin »

URSpider94 wrote: post #140
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.

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,…

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

The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable.

Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have less value, and a digital jpeg of an Ansel Adams photo has almost no value. I know, I "own" several.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#154

Post by PascLeRasc »

koonsolo wrote: post #105
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…

Just tell people you own it. Venmo me $5 and I’ll put your name down on the blockchain (a public Google sheet). It’ll have the same effect.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#155

Post by simonh »

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?

Owning a physical painting grants access to the object, so for example you can study the texture of the brush strokes, the canvas, take samples of the paint, smell it, destroy it, produce copies or images of it at any level of detail or resolution you like. None of this is possible with a digital reproduction.

If I own the copyright of an artwork, even one 'on the internet' I have exclusive rights to reproduce it commercially. For example I could sell prints, while it would be illegal for others to do so. The existence of the latest pop songs on Youtube doesn't stop the copyright holders commercialising it.

NFTs don't by themselves confer any of these rights or privileges with respect to the thing they purportedly represent.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#156

Post by sn_master »

I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex.

With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that the famous painter touched and painted, stroke by stroke, that can never be duplicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#157

Post by madrox »

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…

Do you play video games, then? Because arguably it isn’t NFTs that consume power...it’s the GPUs. GPUs do way more than NFTs, and there is data that shows that gaming consumes way more than blockchain.

If my mom is any indicator, many consider video games stupid and pointless. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#158

Post by insert_coin »

URSpider94 wrote: post #144
insert_coin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't need contracts to make copies of digital assets.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#159

Post by blendergeek »

Tenoke wrote: post #126
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.

Would you link this original link?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#160

Post by throw5throw5 »

craz8 wrote: post #103
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?

Collateralized NFT Obligations!
Post reply on HN