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

351–360 of 404 posts

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#351

Post by Talanes »

echelon wrote: post #321
Talanes wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're not going to be able to sell a forged baseball card at Christie's. You can't prove its provenance, and it wouldn't hold up under scrutiny. NFTs aren't scarce. Anyone can make them for anything. I can sell you the couch I'm sitting on as an NFT. If I own a Picasso, I could burn it, have my tigers urinate on it, or make sure no other human ever sees it again. I can do whatever I want. What exactly can I do with…

I really don't understand your point. I can print trading cards for my cat. You can make NFTs for your couch. No one wants to buy either. But if the MLB or John Cleese are selling, the equation changes.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#352

Post by Talanes »

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.

Sure, but this NFT was specifically valued for the interaction of the sale of this NFT. Just like buying Dorsey's Tweet is. It's just pure commoditized interaction without a base good under it.

I do agree that it's completely ridiculous, but I feel that way about the stock market.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#354

Post by koonsolo »

AshWolfy wrote: post #338
qeternity wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do you think the person that buys a Picasso is:

A) The world biggest fan of Cubism and a lifelong fan of Picasso.

B) A person with a shitload of money, that has nowhere else to put the money than in some famous artwork.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#355

Post by WalterBright »

sellyme wrote: post #330
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…

> 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. I don't think anyone's under the impression that people paying lots of money for extremely stupid things is a recent phenomenon. I deride those buying single-colour canvasses for 8 figure price tags just the same as I deride anyone buying into the litany of cr…

I once wandered through a museum with a modern art collection. Several of the pieces looked like literal trash to me. I wasn't sure if the security guards were there to keep people from stealing the art or keep the janitors from taking the art out to the dumpster :-)

I get it that some people buy it as investments, hoping to find a sucker to sell it to at a higher price. But that just sounds like pump-and-dump to me. Or maybe it's rich people who have run out of fun things to do with their money.

Me, I'd rather do what Elon Musk does. I wanted to buy stock in SpaceX, but it is privately held, so I bought TSLA instead. Lucked out on that one.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#356

Post by [deleted] »

tinco wrote: post #293
Igelau wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. Survivorship bias. The successes are highly visible, and we never hear of the failures. > If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Ceci n'est pas une pipe. All art is a kind of deception.

The success is part of the art. A highschool kid scribbling "this is not a pipe" next to a pipe in his notebook is not the same as an accomplished artist convincing a gallery to feature it in an exhibition.

[deleted]

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#357

Post by moistly »

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.

Nor anything unique about a Rolex. Can’t see how a purchased watch qualifies for bragging. It takes no skill, no dedication, no smarts, no gumption to open one’s wallet to purchase a watch.

The person who built the watch might have something to brag about.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#359

Post by madrox »

vvanders wrote: post #185
madrox wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you want to bring the data you mentioned we can have a conversation, however I would be very surprised if it came close to the 50-130GWh mark for just bitcoin alone[1]. [1] https://cbeci.org/

These are the sources I've used when I've gone looking, but it doesn't help that we don't actually do industry-by-industry energy consumption comparisons.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257768246_Electrici... - US energy consumption by video game consoles in the US alone was 16 TWh in 2010

[2] https://grist.org/article/video-games-consume-more-electrici... - Globally, PC gaming (not console gaming) was estimated at 75 TWh in 2018

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#360

Post by madrox »

hatboxreappoint wrote: post #162
madrox wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> there is data that shows that gaming consumes way more than blockchain Source?

These are the sources I've used when I've gone looking, but it doesn't help that we don't actually do industry-by-industry energy consumption comparisons.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257768246_Electrici... - US energy consumption by video game consoles in the US alone was 16 TWh in 2010

[2] https://grist.org/article/video-games-consume-more-electrici... - Globally, PC gaming (not console gaming) was estimated at 75 TWh in 2018

Post reply on HN