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

201–210 of 270 posts

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

#201

Post by jallen_dot_dev »

mattdesl wrote: post #185
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?

The NFT is not the image/media - it is the transaction securing a relationship and/or movement of tokens from the artists wallet to the buyers wallet (which may or may not point to a file hash, or some other data). The authenticity of this is easily verified by querying the transaction directly from the on-chain smart contract.

How do you verify the person in control of the "artists wallet" is actually the person who created the work (or is authorized by them to create the NFT)?

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

#202

Post by basch »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #150
basch wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's timestamped earlier, or its proven to have been generated by a person who exclusively had a certain private key.

> Because it's timestamped earlier That depends on who thought of making the NFT first. Which isn't necessarily the artist. > or its proven to have been generated by a person who exclusively had a certain private key That has the same problem, it's generated by arbitrary pseudo-random numbers, rather than a real, living human hand. Look, I'm not disputing the underlying cryptographic principles. I'm happy they exist,…

It’s not artistic merit. It’s artificial scarcity. It’s printing only five of a rookie baseball card because you can.

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

#203

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

adflux wrote: post #187
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the art market, at least you're buying something . Ownership is being transferred. As far as I can tell (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), with NFTs you're effectively buying nothing . The seller could just turn around tomorrow and make whatever it is you have worth literally nothing (if it wasn't already).

For most NFTs you are essentially buying a record which links to an url on a platform. The video is not encoded in the nft

Exactly, and the URL could 404 tomorrow or redirect to goatse or download malware ...

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

#204

Post by sirsinsalot »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #192
bigdollopenergy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently heard someone say "I'm not stupid enough to make money in this market", and I think it rings very true. With the short squeeze speculation on stocks, the crypto run+crash and NFT's. The market is a very confusing place nowadays. You'd have to be bonkers to invest in these things on paper, but yet, lot's of people are making bank from it every day (and vice versa). NFT is probably the most confusing of the…

> I'm not stupid enough to make money in this market > What are all the stupid people going to pile in on next so i can get in and out before it crashes? Haha that's awesome. I spent so many hours researching stuff to invest in so I could make a good decision or at least an educated one. Company stock, cryptocurrency projects, whitepapers... And then I watched people making ridiculous amounts of money off of DOGE of…

I mean it's what happens when entry barriers to "invest" are low enough and you have meme marketing. Everyone in the middle of the bell curve piles in and things of average reasoning happen. A bit like football making billions from people watching some people kick a ball about. You can monetise the banal with fun.

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

#205

Post by xwolfi »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #192
bigdollopenergy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently heard someone say "I'm not stupid enough to make money in this market", and I think it rings very true. With the short squeeze speculation on stocks, the crypto run+crash and NFT's. The market is a very confusing place nowadays. You'd have to be bonkers to invest in these things on paper, but yet, lot's of people are making bank from it every day (and vice versa). NFT is probably the most confusing of the…

> I'm not stupid enough to make money in this market > What are all the stupid people going to pile in on next so i can get in and out before it crashes? Haha that's awesome. I spent so many hours researching stuff to invest in so I could make a good decision or at least an educated one. Company stock, cryptocurrency projects, whitepapers... And then I watched people making ridiculous amounts of money off of DOGE of…

Nah, it's a common story. When electricity and physics-based innovations started in France, people were so enamoured with novelty they started believing in anything remotely associated.

Hence magnetism and homeopathy, still limping along to this day, came to have huge amounts of followers. "if you can turn on a powerful light at night, surely you can cure with magnetic fields coming out of your hands".

Here is the same, if you can store value simply by convincing each other without central authorities (bitcoin), surely you can explore it to its conclusion with NFTs. Ill remind you that before the 2017 crash, we were already seeing joke tokens, it just disappears once the hangover starts.

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

#206

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

mionhe wrote: post #186
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is that, with NFTs, you know someone else is losing out BIG time and, being a compassionate human being, you feel sad that they're being taken advantage of. In the cases of inherited wealth and the lottery, huge numbers of people are losing out to an infinitesimal degree, so it doesn't seem as bad.

How are huge amount of people losing out if someone passes money to their children, exactly? Was the money supposed to be given to the government and redistributed? And as for the lottery, the reason that states/countries have lotteries is because they make buckets of money off of them. Is the state at fault, then? While I personally think it's a waste of money to participate, people choose to give money to the lotte…

> How are huge amount of people losing out if someone passes money to their children, exactly?

In the context that, otherwise, it would go to the state in taxation and everyone would benefit to a tiny extent.

> Is the state at fault [for running the lottery]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'at fault', exactly. As you say, people participate of their own accord. The only thing that you could take slight issue with is the "are told up front what the odds are of winning" because (many? most?) humans are notoriously bad at rationalising probabilities, especially astronomically low ones such as the chance of profiting from a lottery.

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

#207

Post by yakkityyak »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #196
echelon wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets even crazier. https://nft.gamestop.com GME as an NFT?

Actually its one of the few use cases that makes sense Gamestop's whole business was used games. I mean they'd sell you a new copy happily, and you could sell it back at discount and spend the money on a different used game Playstation / Xbox digital stores killed the market, now I pay $60 for the new assassin's creed and can never sell it, there's no such thing as a used game anymore If Gamestop has streaming rights…

It seems like any potential success GameStop could have in the digital world solely depends on Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Valve explicitly allowing them to do so. And I see no reason why they would do so, considering not only could these companies completely handle reselling of digital games on their own market, there's little-to-no incentive for them to allow resale of digital games at all.

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

#208

Post by atleta »

adflux wrote: post #187
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the art market, at least you're buying something . Ownership is being transferred. As far as I can tell (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), with NFTs you're effectively buying nothing . The seller could just turn around tomorrow and make whatever it is you have worth literally nothing (if it wasn't already).

For most NFTs you are essentially buying a record which links to an url on a platform. The video is not encoded in the nft

Well, I guess you could include some kind of hash/checksum too. That could prove your 'ownership' without any platform whatsoever. (It doesn't make it more meaningful, but at least decreases the dependency on whoever owns the platform hosting the link.)

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

#209

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

tom_mellior wrote: post #195
jayd16 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its better to think of NFTs as limited edition merch instead of ownership of the work.

Ha! This is an excellent take. Maybe minus the "limited edition" part, since whoever minted the NFT can just mint the same one again. Even if they claimed they wouldn't.

And minus the "merch" bit since you don't actually get anything tangible.

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

#210

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #190
mdoms wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is covered in the article.

I've read the article three times now, I'm not sure which part you are talking about. Could you quote the passage?

> its owner does not actually buy the copyright itself
Post reply on HN