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

181–190 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#181

Post by TigeriusKirk »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #154
koonsolo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it won't.

This is the key conceptual leap you have to make to understand NFTs, or cryptocurrency for that matter.

The blockchain is a consensus mechanism, with the emphasis on consensus.

A lot of people agreeing on something having value means that it has value to those people. They can then exchange that thing among themselves and thus transfer the value.

One person saying something has value means it has value to them. If no one else accepts it has value, it can't be used to transfer value.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#182

Post by koonsolo »

PascLeRasc wrote: post #154
koonsolo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clearly not.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#183

Post by hellbannedguy »

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 was actually starting to accept NTF’s, until I noticed the price—-$69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat.

To all you pumped up to be the next Zuck, I would be coding a NFT site.

Oh yea, I heard these companies take your word that the bits are yours. People are ripping off online artists/originators.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#184

Post by mouldysammich »

madrox wrote: post #157
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…

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.

Maybe this is a the case, however there are, I would guess at least a billion people on earth who play games. there is nothing even close to that using blockchains. If blockchain energy usage is even vaguely in the range of games it can still be considered an enormous --possibly-- unnecessary usage of power

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#185

Post by vvanders »

madrox wrote: post #157
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…

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.

If you want to bring the data you mentioned we can have a conversation, however I would be very surprised if it came close to the 50-130GWh mark for just bitcoin alone[1].

[1] https://cbeci.org/

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#187

Post by mypalmike »

dehrmann wrote: post #113
insert_coin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset So far, "ownership" has meant "vague association." If people really wanted to own IP, you'd think there'd be a boom in song rights, but there isn't.

Kind of an aside but... there actually is a boom in song rights right now.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7285773/music-streaming-revenue/

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#188

Post by enneff »

lisper wrote: post #115
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.

c.f.: http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/

At least those who bought pixels on that page got something for it.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#189

Post by andybak »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #183
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 was actually starting to accept NTF’s, until I noticed the price—-$69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat. To all you pumped up to be the next Zuck, I would be coding a NFT site. Oh yea, I heard these companies take your word that the bits are yours. People are ripping off online artists/originators.

> $69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat.

I've briefly looked into a NFT markets and the cost was a few 10s of cents. Where were you looking?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#190

Post by capableweb »

sn_master wrote: post #156

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

Let's say we could replicate the painting stroke by stroke. Let's say we also use the same painter. Still, it doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not the same as the first and initial incarnation of that artifact, physical or digital.
Post reply on HN