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

Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 270 posts

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#121

Post by UncleMeat »

benlivengood wrote: post #76
ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

It's righteous anger at a waste of resources and critical lack of understanding. NFTs aren't commodities or assets, they're just conspicuous consumption. Dramatically showing off how much money a person can waste on an illusion is cringe-worthy. It makes me annoyed in the same way pay-to-play games annoy me.

Yup. Especially since a lot of people have made gazillions in crypto for doing no labor so spending this sort of “funny money” as a lark is a frustratingly common occurrence.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#122

Post by duskwuff »

paxys wrote: post #115
flowerlad wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux code is anyways available under GPLv2 Yes, it doesn't stop anyone from using Linux. So win-win for all.

Soo..what is this NFT then exactly? Why would someone buy a Linux NFT?

Absolutely nothing, I guess. Like most other NFTs, really.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#123

Post by flowerlad »

paxys wrote: post #115
flowerlad wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux code is anyways available under GPLv2 Yes, it doesn't stop anyone from using Linux. So win-win for all.

Soo..what is this NFT then exactly? Why would someone buy a Linux NFT?

Why would someone pay $69 million for a JPG file?

Bragging rights. That's it.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#124

Post by vaer-k »

endisneigh wrote: post #103
vaer-k wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It totally disagree. I think it is quite equivalent. The difference is that we don't have a centralized authority to recognize valid NFTs, as we do for deeds. But if we did have a central authority, like perhaps the artist responsible for the work protected by the NFT, and if the artist made it clear and public that only the NFTs she recognizes could be considered valid proof of ownership of her works, then indeed an…

A common misunderstanding of NFTs is that they give you some level of legal rights. NFTs do not inherently give you rights. That's why a comparison with a deed is fundamentally flawed. A deed is a legal construct - inherently it gives you ownership. So even if it were sold, without the institutions notarizing the transaction it would not be a valid sale and could be easily reversed by the original owner. I could sell…

I have no misunderstanding about this whatsoever, in fact. I understand that NFTs confer no rights, which is why I posited the idea of a necessary authority who can declare which NFTs are valid representations of ownership of their works. It is the pairing of NFT and authority which grant the possibility of ownership.

Many people immediately jump on the idea that NFTs cannot confer ownership, and thus are worthless as a concept, but they fail to recognize that it is only one half of ownership, just as a deed to a house is just a piece of paper (that anyone can photocopy) without an authority to recognize it.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#125

Post by UncleMeat »

legitster wrote: post #69

So, most NFTs are on the Ethereum network, correct? What's stopping people from just... making a new crypto NFT network? What if Doge NFTs take off - could everything be sold a second time?

Everything can already be sold a second time. It is just “print #2” in a run.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#126

Post by miracle2k »

librish wrote: post #9

I don't have any problems with people buying or selling art for large sums of money, nor do I have a problem with people classifying art as pretty much whatever they want. The only thing I mind are the people pretending a real problem has been solved with NFTs. In any current (or conceived as far as I know) implementation of NFTs you have to trust so many people, technologies, and companies that the blockchain being…

People keep measuring this stuff by things it doesn't want to be. It's a digital equivalent of a signed print. You have to trust the author not to print 100 copies more in the same way you trust an author selling physical prints. No one is claiming it is any more trust less than that.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#127

Post by endisneigh »

vaer-k wrote: post #124
endisneigh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misunderstanding of NFTs is that they give you some level of legal rights. NFTs do not inherently give you rights. That's why a comparison with a deed is fundamentally flawed. A deed is a legal construct - inherently it gives you ownership. So even if it were sold, without the institutions notarizing the transaction it would not be a valid sale and could be easily reversed by the original owner. I could sell…

I have no misunderstanding about this whatsoever, in fact. I understand that NFTs confer no rights, which is why I posited the idea of a necessary authority who can declare which NFTs are valid representations of ownership of their works. It is the pairing of NFT and authority which grant the possibility of ownership. Many people immediately jump on the idea that NFTs cannot confer ownership, and thus are worthless a…

again a deed is referring to a specific thing. a photocopied deed is not a deed anymore than a photocopied dollar bill is legit money. in other words a deed is already authorized by definition.

if you have an authority to confer rights then the NFT itself was unnecessary to begin with.

anyway, the original point I was trying to make is that situation you described (selling a deed to a house you don't own) doesn't make sense since by definition the own who does not own the deed can not sell it. if, somehow the sale did go through, the original owner could easily get it back. this situation is not possible with NFTs without a central authority, but with a central authority NFTs would not be necessary to begin with.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#128

Post by basch »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #91
basch wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would happen if you tried to sell imitation autographs, labeled as such? Im guessing there would be no market, unless you yourself were famous.

The difference is that a facsimile autograph would inevitably be of worse quality. The phony NFT on the other hand would be indistinguishable from "the real thing". Beyond the payload it's just pseudo-random bits generated by an arbitrary CPU, isn't it?

> indistinguishable

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to art being duplicated, or a digital signature? You can verify that its a forgery, or from a different account than the first author. The digital signature isnt something you can replicate. You can print another one, but you cant duplicate the property of "first" itself.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#129

Post by miracle2k »

AlexandrB wrote: post #97
beforeolives wrote: post #52

I seriously doubt that the high-end NFT economy is sustainable in the long term. The people who are buying these are just burning money.

I'm curious what will happen when an NFT for the same piece of art gets sold on multiple blockchains. Now you can "own" a "Charlie Bit My Finger" NFT on Ethereum and someone else owns it on the FooBar blockchain. Which one is "authentic"? Blockchain doesn't help you here - you're going to have to go to court to prove you own the "authentic" one or sue the artist for selling 2 copies instead of one.

The artist can mint two copies on the same blockchain, no problem. It's a digital print.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#130

Post by miracle2k »

smnrchrds wrote: post #113
GuB-42 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't turn a real Van Gogh into a NFT. If anything the actual painting is the real life NFT to the image that is public domain on the internet. By destroying an original you own you are just burning money. And by doing that, you will also piss off pretty much everyone on the planet, and no one will want that (digital) NFT. In fact, I wouldn't want to take that shameful NFT even if you paid me for it.

I would rather not leave it to chance. If there aren't regulations yet, they should pass some ASAP. It didn't matter how many millions of people cared about Cecil the lion; it still took just one rich asshole for him to lose his life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion

Someone burned a Banksy print and converted it into an NFT. It's certainly possible. In the US, there are moral rights of an artist that would probably make the destruction of work illegal, but that might only apply to living artists.
Post reply on HN