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

171–180 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#171

Post by ryanmarsh »

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…

In the case of real property the clearinghouse for this is the local courthouse. Deeds, liens, etc... all flow through the local (city/county) clerk. If you can create NFT's such that transfer requires two signatures (one of those being the jurisdiction of the real property) then it would function little different than how property transfers happen today. Furthermore NFT transfers signed by the court could reduce or eliminate the costly need for title searches and title insurance. If real property moves to the block chain in this manner all you need is one final title search, then signed by the court, from then on out title can be ensured by the blockchain. If you can do fractional ownership of an NFT then it greatly simplifies land development, mineral rights, and other more complex transfers such as sub-division of a tract.

Having knowledge of this business for some time now I believe it's an issue of when, not if, real property will move to a blockchain of some sort.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#172

Post by ivanche »

capableweb wrote: post #88
insert_coin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, NFTs are a scam.

Well, if NFTs are a scam, then anything you buy for money is a scam. Usually we reserve "scams" for "trickeries", fooling someone out of their money, when they don't really want to. In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs. Maybe a better word is to use "hyped" or "mania" or something, because it's not really a "scam" as no one really own NFTs as a whole and are fooling others. Disclaimer: I'm myself not into N…

> In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs.

People being scammed, by definition, don't know they're being scammed. Otherwise they wouldn't be scammed. They also willingly buy something they believe is real.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#173

Post by gilmore606 »

mnouquet wrote: post #76
quesera wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) "Investing" in a Picasso is an investment in a long-term store of cultural value that you speculate will appreciate more quickly than the S&P. Probably because you bet that the 1% will see outsized gains compared to the 99%. Maybe you also like the art and want to be the only person in the world who can display it. Also it can be very useful as a tax dodge. "Inves…

> Physical art is different. (hang with me here, but..) No, it is not. Picasso died dirt poor, he never beneficiated in large sums from his paintings. It just happen he was crazy enough to make a name and now people brag about him.

This is famously not the case. Picasso was quite famous during his life and died wealthy.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#174

Post by mypalmike »

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.

*Edit: Too late to delete, but my sarcastic comment is likely against site rules. Apologies

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#175

Post by saltminer »

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?

Does being the winning bidder on this actually make you the owner (i.e. transfer all associated IP rights to you) or do you just get a higher res version of the image if you win? Both? Neither?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#176

Post by jjnoakes »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #171
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…

In the case of real property the clearinghouse for this is the local courthouse. Deeds, liens, etc... all flow through the local (city/county) clerk. If you can create NFT's such that transfer requires two signatures (one of those being the jurisdiction of the real property) then it would function little different than how property transfers happen today. Furthermore NFT transfers signed by the court could reduce or…

In the case of hacks (someone gets the court's private key and signs fraudulent transfers), mistakes (bugs, human error, etc), and other such scenarios, there would still need to be some kind of title insurance and human oversight.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#177

Post by trhway »

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.

almost 40 years too late :) These ones have been selling Moon and Mars real estate for all that time https://buymars.com/mars-land/ . I'd say it is original NFT.

The current legal regime of the space is based on the notion of Earth sovereign states - kind of oxymoronic if you think about it. Basically the modern space treaties is an attempt to repeat that division of the world like Portugal and Spain did back then - which worked for some time only because of the strength of their Navies at the time. I dont think it would work this time as even at such early stage as today the private corporation space development beats any state one, and once we are more and more into space the governments will be falling behind in the technical development and more importantly - in the thinking, not being able to digest and adapt to the fast coming paradigm shifts and different mentality of the space farers and long time dwellers. The primary government advantage has historically been armed force, and any space faring private corporation will possess what is de-facto equivalent of state-level strike capabilities - ie. interplanetary rockets and nuclear/fusion reactors. Thus the future laws in space is just whatever force-based relationships will be established between corporations - i.e. what we call international law on Earth just substituting corps for states.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#178

Post by [deleted] »

pmlnr wrote: post #151
koonsolo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#179

Post by [deleted] »

mypalmike wrote: post #174
koonsolo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*Edit: Too late to delete, but my sarcastic comment is likely against site rules. Apologies

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#180

Post by sbarre »

hatboxreappoint wrote: post #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.

I think you're missing the point of bragging rights in the first place.

It's entirely about the audience. Without even talking about NFTs in particular, you don't brag about something to people who don't care about that something.

I mean shit we have this page here that wouldn't exist if people didn't care, right?

https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders

There clearly is an audience that cares about NFTs, just like there is for plenty of other types of goods/accomplishments/ownership...

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for, or against, this stuff, just pointing out that there's nothing new about the motivations or desires of people getting into the NFT game.

Post reply on HN