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

211–220 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#211

Post by kllrnohj »

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.

A quick search finds that a single bitcoin transaction consumes around 773.80 kWh. That's enough to power a video game console, like a PS5 for example, for around 3100 hours. So the simple act of buying the video game to play would cost vastly more electricity than playing it ever will.

Whether or not gaming as a whole consumes more power than crypto as a whole isn't the question, it's whether or not crypto would consume more power per person using it than per gamer playing games. As in, give everyone a ~fixed power consumption quota - where is that power "better" spent, gaming or crypto?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#212

Post by andybak »

insert_coin wrote: post #202
andybak wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Of course, it is closer to the author. I am fully aware of what I am saying: things have value not only because of what they are or what they are made of, they have value for other reasons. NFT people claim things only have value because of what they are, an art piece has value because it is an art piece, because it is beautiful to look at or whatever, and that visual property can be stored on the blockchain. That is…

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning but it's hard to be sure because your last sentence is rather hard to parse.

> They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value,

Can you clarify?

> they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.

We're not talking about the value in a piece of art - or even the value of owning an original piece of art.

Ownership itself is a social construct. Back to my limited edition print comparison:

You own one of a series of 100 prints or a photograph by a famous artist.

I "own" a reproduction of the same work that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from your print.

Assuming you can prove the authenticity of your print (maybe there's a chain of custody you can verify) - your print is worth thousands and mine is worth simply the cost of making another copy.

How is this less silly than NFTs?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#213

Post by kvz »

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…

Ethereum is switching over to proof of stake this year which will pretty much solve the environmental issue

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#214

Post by remram »

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 will remember this. I even bookmarked that tweet, and it cost me nothing.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#215

Post by incrudible »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #124
andybak wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well - Proof of Stake NFTs are already here: https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/ So all I'm doing is hoping everyone uses these instead.

Thanks I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production. Will check this out. Do you know any others? I really enjoy NFTs conceptually, much more than crypto in general actually, and I really don't get a lot of the hate. If you remove the emissions aspect (which is the non-starter for me), I think it's so cool that there is a way to create scarcity in the digital world, even if that scarcity is totally "meaningle…

Cardano is a production proof-of-stake blockchain. It has the fifth-largest market cap.

However, Ethereum has virtually monopolized the DeFi space. It is supposed to move to PoS, especially considering that transaction fees are insanely high due to recent demand.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#216

Post by barry-cotter »

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 ...

> Maybe NFTs will not endure, which is a risk for anyone playing a pioneering role in a new genre. That is why the price was not $200 million or more. In any case, this is a world in which Marcel Duchamp’s urinal sculpture still is exhibited in major museums, regarded by many critics as a masterpiece of the 20th century, and it sold at auction for $1.6 million in 2002. Canvases painted a single color, and other forms of abstract and conceptual art, remain a major part of recent art history and can sell for tens of millions.

> The point is not to argue over what qualifies as “art.” It is simply that it is a mistake to assume that NFTs will fail in the art world.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/the-nf...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#217

Post by defen »

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…

> 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.

Just because your "final" title search doesn't produce anything doesn't mean a future one won't, so I don't see how the blockchain solves anything here.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#218

Post by systemvoltage »

toyg wrote: post #163
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.

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.

Who enforces this? Elon can just say he refuses to follow any gov mandates. If they try to penalize or jail him, he is going cause a massive uproar from the public that will prevent any such shenanigans. Power is in people that follow you.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#219

Post by SwimSwimHungry »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #181
PascLeRasc wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And a standard database transaction that can be done with pre-existing technology already can do this too? Like seriously, NFTs are not breaking new ground. This is just an excuse to piss away something that could be converted to objectively far more useful fiat.

The fed needs to raise interest rates and get the free dumb money out of the system as soon as possible so we can suck these schemes dry.

Frankly, I think John Cleese is trolling all of the NFT fans.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#220

Post by manigandham »

capableweb wrote: post #190
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.

This is not true. Digital items do not have an original. In fact creating the digital item itself creates multiple copies in the process, and every viewing of it creates infinitely more copies.
Post reply on HN