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

341–350 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#341

Post by toss1 »

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?

Perhaps, only the NFT owner will hold the answer? If that could be setup, it might drive some lively bidding!

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#342

Post by dfinr »

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…

Charmin

https://rarible.com/charmin

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#343

Post by eitland »

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

At least John Cleese clearly mentions "I have a bridge to sell you" in the video in his tweet.

That saying is a reference to the scams of George C. Parker who "sold" the Brooklyn Bridge a number of times to gullible people, and from the context of the video it is clear he is referring to that.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#344

Post by krupan »

solveit wrote: post #326
krupan wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to assume that very little energy will be spent to acquire coins for staking. If there is real interest in ether and stiff competition to stake (and there better be for proof of stake to work), I'm afraid that won't be the case.

At that point that's just energy spent on acquiring money though.

So that won't harm the environment, but bitcoin proof of work will?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#345

Post by solveit »

krupan wrote: post #344
solveit wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point that's just energy spent on acquiring money though.

So that won't harm the environment, but bitcoin proof of work will?

It will harm the environment, but no less than the rest of our economy. There are two problems being conflated here. In basically all of society, people harm the environment in order to acquire resources. In proof of work, you go one step further and proceed to destroy the resources you just acquired. This is because destroying resources via reversing hashes is a costly signal that cannot be faked and is hence not susceptible to a Sybil attack.

Proof of Stake doesn't have this problem. The mere act of owning a coin does not entail the destruction of value. In proof of stake, you just make money, probably harming the environment along the way as you do, and buy the coin. That's it. The resources you obtained are not destroyed, they are passed on to whoever you bought the coins from.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#346

Post by tolbish »

wernercd wrote: post #307
Invictus0 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real change can only happen if the poor (people earning less than $1M per year) unite against the rich. Instead, the poor are hopelessly divided and fight pointless culture battles, like the main/master debate.

> poor (less than 1m) the top 10% globally is 30k... which is low income for Americans. Americans bitching about the 1% is laughable.

Why is it laughable that Americans want a better world for others? Most Americans have no control over what their country's leaders do.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#347

Post by _carbyau_ »

Buying an object, any object art or otherwise, for any reason. At least gets you that object.

Buying an NFT gets you a digital token. That token can say anything it likes but that is all you get.

Until NFTs are somehow anchored to ownership of the thing they mention... I don't see the point.

Do we need governments to provide a NFT Enforcement Registrar or something? Kinda defeats the purpose of "no central authority" then...

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#348

Post by meibo »

jamiek88 wrote: post #252
dleslie wrote: post #244

There are children going hungry at school, people with trivial to fix but prohibitively expensive medical issues, and silicon valley millionaires are spending more than many will make in a year by purchasing bullshit. Shit's on fire, yo.

> Shit's on fire, yo. Let them eat cake. Can anyone else hear the guillotines being sharpened? Seriously though this obscene inequality can only lead one place, and we were lucky that they were morons on January 6th and not organized properly. Ironically the revolution will be stoked by those first up against the wall in the name of engagement . It won’t be televised but it will be on Instagram.

Good thing no one knows who to behead if you pay the $50k with ETH.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#349

Post by somjeed »

Igelau wrote: post #327
Talanes wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see what you're saying that the authenticity and the connection have some value. That value is intrinsic to the object itself though. NFT is asking us to pretend that that "intangible connection" can be parceled out for speculators as collectible magic numbers while the real lightsaber hopefully sits in Lucasfilm's warehouse.

NFTs imply there is a platform which supports the contract and blocks all non-ownership AND people will use no other platforms

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#350

Post by rorykoehler »

Igelau wrote: post #254
barry-cotter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is a misdirection. No one upthread was saying anything is or isn't art. This isn't about art. This about NFT.

Technically it's an artwork that is a commentary om NFTs.
Post reply on HN