Live data from Hacker News

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

twitter.com

161–170 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#161

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.

Ah, you're being nitpicky. Buyers of those NFTs will be betting on Musk setting the foot first, and thus claiming a big enough chunk of Mars land. Potential returns are very large when there's a lot of ambiguity and risk. By the time Mars is regulated by a pile laws, returns will be low and a million dollars will buy a tiny lot. Buyers of NFTs will also speculate on finding expensive minerals under the Mars surface. If you have billions rotting in stock market, investing 1% into this, backed by the Musk's reputation and potential, is a no brainer.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#162
post #157

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…

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.

> there is data that shows that gaming consumes way more than blockchain

Source?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#163

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.

It’s not just USGOV who has to approve that claim, it’s every country on COPUOUS : https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html

It’s more likely that Musk will have to settle for his Earthen technokingdom.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#164
post #155

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 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 com…

Which is why I think my comparison to limited edition prints is the most useful.

1. A limited edition print doesn't confer copyright

2. A limited edition print isn't the original

3. A limited edition print may never have been in the presence of the artist.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#165

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.

I'd add another use of NFTs that follows the letter of the law, but violates its spirit: a trust fund whose beneficiary is an owner of a specific NFT. This allows to conceal the identity of the beneficiary and pull out various tricks, such as tax free transfer of wealth (e.g. to heirs) or outright illegal stuff like getting your life insured, then faking an accident and living off the payments under a different identity.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#166
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there is data that shows that gaming consumes way more than blockchain Source?

If I had to bet I would probably bet that "all the gamers in the world" are using more power than "all the crypto miners in the world".

I can't think of a way to immediately gather any evidence for this either way but it seems like a plausible position to take.

(However - I think the value > utility chain is easier to argue for with gaming. I'm not making the same argument as the parent post.)

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#167
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…

IMO NFT are a path to the commoditisation of belief and the communities which spring up around shared beliefs. Imagine if QAnon were to launch their own, with the proof of patriotism baked in to your online in or if some religion reinvented the indulgence. These would probably be done on their own coinbase.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#168
Some people in this thread talk about "bragging rights". I am genuinely curious if anyone would be impressed by someone bragging about purchasing this NFT, or know anyone who would be impressed.

I wouldn't and can't think of anyone I know who would, the emotional response would probably just be of frustration at the absurd amount of money being spent, much like bragging about any large value novelty purchase.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#169
post #149

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.

It's the greek letter Xi, used because it's looks like an E. Nice metaphor for NFT, which look like a real thing but aren't.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#170
For anyone else wondering what NFTs are:

> Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are digital assets that are indivisible and provably unique. They can be used to represent both tangible and intangible items.

https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explai...

Post reply on HN