John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT • Hacker News Board

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#401

Post by newswasboring » Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 7:31 AM UTC

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…

While I agree with you on the surface, it not being able to be displayed is not really true. Bob may not hang it up on their wall or hold but they can put it on their website. Bob can make a dedicated personal museum showing their ownership live streamed in vrchat and altspacevr. Bob can constantly talk about it on their social media. Bob can be an equally big asshole about this as if they could hold it physically.

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#402

Post by mitchdoogle » Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

xyzzy123 wrote: post #232

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…

People doubting that a thing is actually art at all seems to be a fairly consistent marker of something being good art. It's fresh, it's pushing boundaries, it's making people think and wonder, it's generating snark and discussion. If readymades are art, if a blank canvas is art, then art is just a scam! Not sure if it will stand the test of time though (I mean technically in terms of the artifacts persisting, and co…

This is like saying, "denial means someone is probably lying"

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#403

Post by basch » Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 11:26 PM UTC

quesera wrote: post #394

basch wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patronage is the worst counterpoint (if you meant it as one.) Buying an NFT from an artist you like is direct support.

"Patronage" is a word with a few different connotations. I meant it in the simplest way, which simply means "support".

Aren't NFTs great for patronage?

Re: John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

#404

Post by Sargos » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 6:56 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #374

samatman wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you have insisted (twice!) that the secp256k1 curve will be broken makes it impossible to take anything you have to say on this subject seriously.

Longbets 20 years $5000? I expect quantum to pick up major steam, especially if major state actors want to screw over the Bitcoin network.

Minor note, NFTs are on Ethereum and not Bitcoin. Ethereum is already quantum resistant and has slot in solutions to make it quantum secure when needed (they aren't in use right now as they are less efficient). Quantum computing is not an existential threat to NFTs or blockchains.