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

311–320 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#311

Post by chrisco255 »

insert_coin wrote: post #102
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…

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…

Nonsense. Bitcoin solved this problem 12 years ago. You can't copy and paste a BTC. You can't copy and paste an NFT.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#312

Post by freeone3000 »

Igelau wrote: post #270
koonsolo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the person spending $50k does it with his lifes saving. You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.

> You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. A NFT is not an item. > Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more. Those are things. There is no correlation. NFT is selling you a pointer. It's a hash that on one software platform says "that thing over there". When Bob buys a NFT, he isn't buying a lightsaber that he can d…

Right, but in this case, you're buying a number provably owned by John Cleese, as part of a performance piece where he sold a token representing the Brooklyn Bridge, as a commentary on the entire concept of selling numbers. It's meta, it's brilliant, it's popular, (it's absolutely going to devalue the other Brooklyn Bridge NFT I own because mine was minted first but this one's more popular), it's ART.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#313

Post by Talanes »

Igelau wrote: post #270
koonsolo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the person spending $50k does it with his lifes saving. You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more.

> You don't buy a jpeg, you buy the unique item that John Cleese sold. A NFT is not an item. > Same for movie props. You can buy a nice lightsaber below $200. The ones that were used in the movies... a bit more. Those are things. There is no correlation. NFT is selling you a pointer. It's a hash that on one software platform says "that thing over there". When Bob buys a NFT, he isn't buying a lightsaber that he can d…

If Bob buys a movie prop lightsaber for $10,000 and a fully quality replica costs $200, then Bob has only bought $200 worth of something he can display, loan out, or hold. The remainder of the price is made up of the intangible connection to the film and artists.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#314

Post by bradleyjg »

asiachick wrote: post #303
pmlnr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ...

I don't like NFTs but your comment triggered a counter argument in my head. People buy and collect all kinds of worthless tuff. I know several people that spent between $3k and $10k on Magic the Gathering cards. From a non-player's perspective it's ridiculous. The cards are worthless and you could just print out images of the cards on a printer or copy machine if all you cared about was playing the game itself. And y…

Wizards of the Coast are making a game. I don’t doubt that the secondary market eventually changed how they operated but at base, they are a game company. That’s ethically different from someone that sets out to create a Ponzi scheme.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#315

Post by chrisco255 »

craz8 wrote: post #93

I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned that selling the Brooklyn Bridge is a very old scam, made famous by this huckster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker New technology, same scam

Not a scam in this case. John Cleese has signed the work himself, provided video evidence of its authenticity, and minted it on his own behalf. John Cleese is a famous humorist. The owner of this NFT will have a signed, authentic, John Cleese NFT. You can't copy and paste that. Even if John Cleese decides to mint 100 more of these, you'll have verifiable providence of NFT #1 of John Cleese's Brooklyn Bridge.

The drawing, of course, is quite ridiculous. But what else would you expect from one of the masterminds behind the "Ministry of Silly Walks"?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#316

Post by chrisco255 »

freetime2 wrote: post #227
wan23 wrote: post #221

You should consider an NFT to be something like a certificate. Some entity has issued you a certificate saying, e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. The value of certificates in NFT form is that they are difficult to forge and easy to verify. However, like a paper certificate that you might hang on your wall, the actual certificate is worthless. It is representative of something that may have value…

He isn’t actually selling the Brooklyn Bridge, but a (comically poor) drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321... So this is not really a scam, but rather a legitimate satire of recent NFT sales.

Yes, and John Cleese has made quite a lucrative career out of legitimate satire.

This is not unlike how Weird Al would sell more copies of his satirical music than the music he satired.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#317

Post by Talanes »

echelon wrote: post #273
samatman wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like describing a baseball card as a low-quality reproduction on cheap cardstock of an original photo. Personally, I don't care for baseball cards, I value them about as much as the paper they're printed on. But collectors like them, so if I found one (I dunno, dropped in its sleeve into a tip jar?), I'd check if someone else wanted to pay for it before I started using it as a bookmark. Same deal with NFTs. T…

Who can make a 50's era baseball card? Who can make an NFT? NFTs are Beanie Babies, but instead of a limited edition toy, you get a barcode. Anyone can make them for anything, so there's no scarcity. They're pogs you can't play with. And just like pogs, when Pizza Hut and Lunchables started making pogs, it was over. Pizza Hut and Lunchables NFTs are coming. I'm going to go sell an NFT of Jack Dorsey's fist Twitter po…

> Who can make a 50's era baseball card?

Any decently print operation? The MLB would come after them if they tried to sell them, of course, but it's not like pictures on cardstock is a tougher technology to recreate than NFT.

Both are only worth something because of their provenance, ease of manufacturing is irrelevant.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#318

Post by brendoelfrendo »

koonsolo wrote: post #255
brendoelfrendo wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the idea is to pay money to claim involvement in a cultural moment in which you played no role? Sounds sad and hollow to me.

Why do people buy movie props, collect stamps, let authors sign their books? Maybe all very "sad and hollow", but a lot of people seem to enjoy it. You judging those people says more about you than them.

> You judging those people says more about you than them.

Ouch, reading into it, much? I don't begrudge collectors their collections. I understand those because they own an object that holds value, either to them or to others.

The way you put it in the parent comment is "I'm spending money so that I have a story that I can use to flex on people later," which I just can't grok as a motive for spending tens of thousands of dollars.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#319

Post by ilikehurdles »

asiachick wrote: post #303
pmlnr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ...

I don't like NFTs but your comment triggered a counter argument in my head. People buy and collect all kinds of worthless tuff. I know several people that spent between $3k and $10k on Magic the Gathering cards. From a non-player's perspective it's ridiculous. The cards are worthless and you could just print out images of the cards on a printer or copy machine if all you cared about was playing the game itself. And y…

I don’t think anyone will disagree that money will be made by keen NFT creators and collectors, much like money is made by anyone peddling collectibles. The part of the argument where I depart is when proponents argue that this is somehow a transformative technology.

It’s digital baseball cards and pet rocks, “but crypto”.

I also remain convinced that NFTs are a fad in their current iteration. To use a rough analogy, NFTs are taking the record store into crypto when the future lies in building Spotify/Netflix in crypto.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#320

Post by solveit »

Igelau wrote: post #247
samatman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, but this is a common objection which is worth addressing. Specifically I disagree that NFTs are grounded in that particular conceptual framework. NFTs aren't attempting to be bearer instruments which convey ownership of some physical good, or even of a piece of intellectual property. Those require a corresponding Ricardian contract. This remains a good idea, but, to put it mildly, there are unsolved probl…

> A NFT is just a baseball card It's more like a pointer to a JPEG of a baseball card.

Yes, but a baseball card is just a piece of paper with some ink on it. It's only trivially harder[1] to replicate than a pointer to a JPEG. We have already established that sentimental value + proof of provenance suffices to yield basically any market price. Take this concept to its logical conclusion, and you get NFTs.

[1] At the price levels we're discussing.

Post reply on HN