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

191–200 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#191

Post by maxerickson »

jjnoakes wrote: post #176
ryanmarsh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, even if you come up with a clean, secure way to publish attestations onto a blockchain, you've got a problem when they are transferred to an invalid or inaccessible destination.

That a title can be contested is actually a feature of the existing system, not simply a problem.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#192

Post by andybak »

roywiggins wrote: post #141
ori_b wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well yes. But anyone can make a reproduction of a Warhol print. But there is a chain of custody that adds value.

I'd like to reiterate that I think the value in a Warhol print is also stupid. It's less stupid than NFTs but the point I'm trying to make (apparently unsuccesfully) is that these differences are matters of degree rather than type.

We humans have a multitude of ways to invent value that is built on sand.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#194

Post by andybak »

insert_coin wrote: post #153
URSpider94 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 les…

> and the closer to the original the more value they have.

Do you see the step you've just taken?

It's no longer about authenticity, it's about proximity to authenticity. Would a reproduction from the original negative by someone other than Ansel Adams be more valuable than a different type of reproduction? If so, why?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#195

Post by leokennis »

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 ...

Exactly. There’s little I’d like less than bragging about having spent my life savings on a JPEG that everyone has but that I “own”...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#196

Post by kgwgk »

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.

The point is that the token only guarantees the ownership of a token from a limited edition of tokens.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#197

Post by moistly »

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.

I suppose one can “brag” about most anything. Seems to me, though, that a brag about “owning” an arbitrary sequence of bytes is pretty damn empty.

Overcome a challenge that presses your personal limitations? Worthy of a brag: you took up the task, persevered, and conquered.

Open your wallet to purchase something? I just don’t see that there’s any legitimate boasting to be had there: any damn fool with the same money could do it. There is no challenge, there is no accomplishment, there is nothing to be proud of at all. It’s such empty bragging.

IMO people who brag about owning things have deep personal insecurities and would be better off putting the money spent towards therapy.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#198

Post by capableweb »

ivanche wrote: post #172
capableweb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean "they believe is real"? NFTs are "real", not sure what you're on about. Or is it all fake, no one is actually trading NFTs?

Yes, people are stupid. Does that mean they are being scammed? No, they're just idiots.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#199

Post by multjoy »

monkeydreams wrote: post #167
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…

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.

Don’t give them ideas!

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#200

Post by drcode »

eloff wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy…

Some people would love to pay for a direct connection to an artist and their work.

It has emotional value.

Post reply on HN