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

131–140 of 270 posts

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

#131

Post by duskwuff »

dlevine wrote: post #116
matkoniecz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> owning an NFT should allow you to control access to that content are you aware that anyone may sell NFT for anything? I could produce and sell NFT pointing to say Walmart website. Or HN. Or Wikipedia.

Yes, and I believe that's one of the reasons why there is so much hate for NFTs on this thread. People are selling tokens for huge amounts of money that confer no rights other than being able to say that you own the NFT. Obviously you would need to actually own the asset to be able to hand over access control as part of the NFT sale. NFTs potentially have real use cases, but the technology and infrastructure isn't ma…

Right. The question that people keep coming back to is what ownership rights are actually conveyed with an NFT. The most common answer I'm seeing is "none", which makes it feel dishonest to equate the sale of the NFT as a sale of the thing it (supposedly) represents.

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

#132

Post by pontifier »

vaer-k wrote: post #20
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #10

What would happen if I put up a NFT for sale of something I had no part in making?

What would happen if you sold to someone the deed to a house you do not own?

You can sell a "quit claim deed" for any property. All it means is that you assign all your interest in the property to another party. If you have no interest in the property then you have transfered nothing, but the document itself is valid.

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

#133

Post by miracle2k »

coderintherye wrote: post #21
flowerlad wrote: post #2

NFTs may be a way for open source developers to make some money off of their work. Linus Torvalds could make a few hundred millions by selling an NFT for Linux, considering a JPG file sold for $69 million [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-c...

The beeple NFT shouldn't be used as a basis for comparison to future expected values given that it was artificially inflated by self-dealing, you can read more here about it: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...

Amy is wrong, as she often is. Metakovan gifting the artist some tokens as a thank you is not self-sealing. It's just a guy overpaying for an artwork, and possible having an interest in promoting an artist he already owns work from.

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

#134

Post by vaer-k »

endisneigh wrote: post #127
vaer-k wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mak…

A deed does not refer to a specific thing. It only does so in daily life as a matter of convention. It is the authority of the banks or the government or whatever that gives your particular deed any weight at all. A deed, like a dollar bill, is a piece of paper with no value. Indeed, a photocopied dollar bill has no value whatsoever. It is only our collective agreement to pair value with officially recognized papers that grants those papers value.

The situation I described does make sense, because it's exactly what we are circling around here. Anyone can sell anything; it is merely a question of whether the sale will be recognized by the parties that matter. An NFT is necessary because it distributes the transfer and sale of things without a central intermediary. There is and always will be a required authority to recognize the value of a given NFT, however.

Note that these two ideas of central authority are not equivalent. In one hand, you have a centralized authority over trade; in the other, an authority over value. Note also that in the case of NFTs, there is no "one central authority who governs all value", but instead many authorities, i.e. the creators! The artist or creator of a given work is free to recognize the NFTs that grant ownership of their creations. It is they who have the power of authority.

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

#135

Post by endisneigh »

vaer-k wrote: post #134
endisneigh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mak…

A deed does not refer to a specific thing. It only does so in daily life as a matter of convention. It is the authority of the banks or the government or whatever that gives your particular deed any weight at all. A deed, like a dollar bill, is a piece of paper with no value. Indeed, a photocopied dollar bill has no value whatsoever. It is only our collective agreement to pair value with officially recognized papers…

> A deed does not refer to a specific thing. It only does so in daily life as a matter of convention. It is the authority of the banks or the government or whatever that gives your particular deed any weight at all. A deed, like a dollar bill, is a piece of paper with no value. Indeed, a photocopied dollar bill has no value whatsoever. It is only our collective agreement to pair value with officially recognized papers that grants those papers value.

What? A deed, per common law, is a legal instrument which affirms ownership of something. I'm not going to talk about value as that is independent of the purpose of a deed (you could have a deed to something that everyone agrees is worthless, but regardless you are the owner according to the government(s) in question)

Again, if you have a central authority an NFT is unnecessary and pointless to begin with. Nothing you've said really refutes that. All of the functionality of an NFT can be trivially replicated by a central authority, and indeed it already is.

> Anyone can sell anything

No, they can't. By your own logic, anyone can do anything. Surely you already see that is not true. We live in reality, and in reality others must recognize actions in order for them to be recognized as legitimate.

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

#136

Post by [deleted] »

miracle2k wrote: post #126
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.

[deleted]

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

#137

Post by mattigames »

miracle2k wrote: post #126
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.

Signed prints are usually worth little, so it doesn't seem that like its digital equivalent.

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

#138

Post by mattigames »

basch wrote: post #77
rsj_hn wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or really trusting anyone who downloaded it and reposted it, etc. This is not about scarcity but about a certificate of authenticity that you can show around. The actual good is worthless, the certificate is what is hard to forge.

Correct, downloading and reposting the photo isnt the same thing, and not really a part of the conversation. Youre buying the print number, not the work.

You are buying the print number in a specific blockchain, tomorrow anyone can create a few thousand blockchains from scratch where this print number doesn't exist; just like one has to believe a currency has value to assume any value on one of its coins/tokens.

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

#139

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

basch wrote: post #128
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't replicate the exact numbers, but I don't see how one random string looks more authentic than the other. Whereas a handmade autograph with all its human inconsistencies looks more authentic than one made with a mechanical device.

I'm just as good as the most accomplished artist at reading numbers from /dev/random, that's why I don't see why one random-looking string would be more valuable than the other.

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

#140

Post by librish »

AMerePotato wrote: post #93
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…

There are some very interesting technical challenges that NFTs are being used for. Stuff like baskets of assets, appraising and taking out loans on assets, and certain distributed games like aavegotchi. At the end of the day, representing non-fungible assets is something useful. It's just that most people's exposure to it is seeing someone riding the hype to sell something that would probably have sold for a lot of m…

Why do you need the blockchain for any of the stuff you mentioned?
Post reply on HN