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

331–340 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#331

Post by Igelau »

solveit wrote: post #320
Igelau wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> We have already established that sentimental value + proof of provenance suffices to yield basically any market price.

Those are some of the means by which we arrive at price.

> Take this concept to its logical conclusion, and you get NFTs

Mistake this concept for an end by itself and you get NFT.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#332

Post by sellyme »

runeks wrote: post #129
tomerico wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could generate a signature that proves that you have the private key associated with the address

And how do I prove that this address is associated with John Cleese’s work? Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet, or how is it associated with him?

> Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet

Yes, he has done so.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#333

Post by insert_coin »

chrisco255 wrote: post #311
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…

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

I can totally copy and paste a bitcoin.

I may not be able to put it back in the same blockchain, which is a different issue, but if I only care about the bits that make up the “coin” I can absolutely copy them. I could even copy the entire blockchain.

AND the problem is not with the token, you can own all the original tokens for an image you want, you still don’t have anything different than a jpeg.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#334

Post by toss1 »

Tenoke wrote: post #121
toss1 wrote: post #25

Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade. All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly. If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent…

>the electricity and carbon footprint. That's no longer a concern for an increasing number of NFTs minted today[0]. 0. https://svilentodorov.xyz/blog/nft-electricity/

good update - thx! I knew about ETH POS coming (soon we hope...), but aspects of those other projects were good news

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#335

Post by [deleted] »

gerdesj wrote: post #79
toss1 wrote: post #25

Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade. All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly. If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent…

"wing-flapping rate of African swallow" Laden or unladen? In a vacuum?

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#336

Post by AshWolfy »

koonsolo wrote: post #242
leokennis wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”...

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.

Thats not something that translates into digital content. That original lightsaber is valuable because it is unique, it can never be recreated, a jpeg is infinitely reproducible, thus less valuable

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#337

Post by remram »

dpool wrote: post #301
koolba wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve created an NFT of a bookmark to the tweet. Starting bid is 1000 Doge.

to the moon!

Joke aside, what's to prevent anyone from selling an NFT for "the first NFT"? They've done it for tweets... And what would that make of their claim of "verifiable unique" ownership?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#338

Post by AshWolfy »

qeternity wrote: post #268
moistly wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The item isn’t the brag. The purchase is. People don’t buy Rolxes because because it doesn’t anything radically different than a $50 watch. They buy it because it tells people they have money. That’s what art is. That’s what NFT is.

I cant think of anything more depressing than saying art is showing off you have money.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#339

Post by evilDagmar »

dexterdog wrote: post #278
koonsolo wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a unique and quirky item is worth a brag. Bragging with an expensive Rolex is very different than bragging with the NFT of a terrible image of the Brooklyn Bridge by John Cleese who sold it as a joke.

Except there is nothing unique about it.

John Cleese has done how many pieces of architectural art now?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#340

Post by jancsika »

prepend wrote: post #292
jancsika wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> optometrist was wearing arcteryx gear during my exam Arcteryx pieces feel great on, the same way avocados taste great in your mouth. And just like you'd likely be misleading people by using an avocado as an example of the average fruit, you are misleading people by using Arcteryx to stand in for technical outdoorwear. Hell, that holds even if your optometrist was wearing a fucking rain shell in the office. Compare:…

I hear you, I’m a big fan. But arcteryx isn’t just something that feels good. It’s good technical gear that feels good. The more optometrists who wear it because it feels good, the sooner it sucks being technical because optometrists don’t care if it fails because they aren’t 200 miles from another version.

I don't want to pull you out of the techwear Matrix too early, but Arcteryx has used the model you're afraid of for some time: e.g., they make rain shells designed to wear in the city, etc.

Also, that is a model followed by every similar company-- a model started by Patagonia back in the day when a technical piece of clothing was literally a rugby shirt.

In short, if you woke up in a nightmare universe where all optometrists wear Arcteryx you'd probably end up with a few more pieces in their technical line.

Post reply on HN