Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 200 posts

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#101

Post by rcxdude »

klodolph wrote: post #91
rcxdude wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most legitimate uses of NFTs the creator is the artist.

How would you know if an NFT is legitimate? There's no "legitimate" bit on the NFT that distinguishes it. If you wanted to support the artist, wouldn't it be faster, easier, cheaper, and more reliable to support them directly, through Patreon or something similar?

Generally when the artist endorses it. NFTs give you a token that represents a piece of art they made which you can move and resell independently, even if the artist is no longer around. I personally am not very likely to buy any, but I can see the appeal (it's much the same as owning the originals of any other bit of art as opposed to a copy). The current cost of creating and moving them around is unfortunate, however (and reflects the immaturity of crypto as a whole. I believe ethereum is working hard to improve their scaling with a plausible plan, so this should improve, but it is a definite problem at the moment)

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#102

Post by ww520 »

toss1 wrote: post #72
ww520 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what copyright is about?

Not quite. Copyright prevents Bob from misappropriating Alice's work. E.g., Bob purchases a painting from Alice for $100. Bob can not legally now use that painting as a source to make and resell copies. But Bob can sell the original painting to Charlie for $200 and pocket the entire $200 from Charlie. Alice has nothing to do with that sale, and does not profit from any subsequent sale. But if Alice sold Bob and NFT i…

RIAA collects a loyalty every time a song is played just because they hold the copyright. Why isn’t there moral outrage on that?

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#103

Post by scatters »

dschnurr wrote: post #48
thebean11 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about as easy to enforce on the blockchain as it is in meatspace... All you have to do is "wrap" the NFT in a smart contract, then move the smart contract around. The NFT itself is not moving (its owner is the smart contract) so it won't trigger the fee.

Some artists choose to attach "perks" to their NFTs – i.e. meet and greets, access to private communities. They could choose not to honor these perks for NFTs held by contracts. They could even choose to re-mint the work if the new owner is doing nefarious things with the old one (though many would see this as a dubious action)

Eh, so write a warrant to buy the NFT for a dollar, then sell the warrant.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#104

Post by lottin »

mattdesl wrote: post #76
billytetrud wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between making royalties for distribution of copies of an item and making royalties for transferring a single item from one person to another. One makes sense, the other is a weird misleading way to rent to people.

Royalties apply on re-sale, not every transfer. Royalties on sales going back to the original creator is pretty normal practice in the arts and creative industries (music, writing, art, photography). The good thing, compared to traditional markets, is that this is something that can be (loosely) enforced with smart contracts, the % rate is flexible, and the current NFT royalties are typically far better for the artis…

What on earth are you talking about? If I buy a copyrighted work in the second-hand market I don't have to pay any royalties to the original creator. That would be extortion.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#105

Post by intotheabyss »

echelon wrote: post #74
berberous wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would take a broader bet that is not tied to Beeple (i.e. that NFTs of significant artists will have long-term value in a similar manner as a painting).

I would take that broader bet that NFTs will have zero long-term value.

So the condition of your bet would be that all NFTs everywhere have zero long term value? So something like, by 2030, no non-fungible token will have a monetary value?

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#106

Post by lottin »

Trias11 wrote: post #8

I totally agree. Tulips was the first thing that came to my mind as well. However as a technology NFT has it place, especially when crypto ecosystem evolves beyond ETH limitations

I disagree, I don't think it has a place. It's useless.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#107

Post by Y_Y »

doggosphere wrote: post #11
djoldman wrote: post #3

> Certainly it's not harmful — some people collect coins, some people collect stamps, some people collect NFTs. If they want to pay money for this, it's fine with me. Exactly. If someone makes some purposeless set of objects and others buy and sell them and money is lost and gained by informed adults in the process then.. nothing? If one thinks that NFTs are inherently a BAD THING then it may be more accurate to say…

Energy will negligible upon Eth 2.0 PoS merge

This was a stupid comment about how I didn't like the nomenclature and now I regret making it.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#109

Post by intotheabyss »

singold wrote: post #93

What I dont understand is what stops you from minting the same thing on multiple NFT blockchains and why is it any diferent than something centralized, and thats why I dont like all the NFT hype (I may be dumb and dont get what NFTs really are)

Because the NFT is only as good as the blockchain it was minted on. The vast majority of (valuable) NFTs are minted on Ethereum. If someone mints the same NFT on Flow for example, it won't be as valuable because it's a copy (verifiably so) and it's secured by a centralized chain. NFTs are supposed to live on as if they were physical objects, so minting an NFT on a centralized chain has a significant risk of not existing in the future.

Re: Cryptography experts trash NFTs on first day of RSA Conference

#110

Post by [deleted] »

twox2 wrote: post #90
jcranmer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another thing you're missing: First Sale Doctrine. In the world of physical goods, once you've sold a copy of something, you have no rights whatsoever to constrain what people can do with that copy. Authors don't see a dime for used book sales, for example.

But the IRS still gets a perpetual royalty on every subsequent sale. Why can't the producer?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN