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

241–250 of 270 posts

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

#241

Post by mattdesl »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #200
mattdesl wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already many NFT marketplaces across a range of blockchains. Depending on who you ask, it may be considered poor form to mint the same token on multiple chains. It would be like a print artist selling multiple editions of what they claim to be a limited 1/1 print run (nothing is stopping print artists from doing this now besides integrity & social contracts - it could devalue their work).

> It would be like a print artist selling multiple editions of what they claim to be a limited 1/1 print run That sounds like it would be illegal.

Nope... not illegal, just a faux pas.

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

#242

Post by miracle2k »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #183
jonas21 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure, they make a mockery of the art market. But the art market seems to have had no trouble making a mockery of itself before NFTs came along. Like, why is this worth $58 million? It's a 10-foot tall balloon animal. https://www.doublestonesteel.com/blog/art-and-sculpture/koon... Or why is this worth $200 million? It's something a 5-year-old would make if you gave them an unlimited amount of finger paint. htt…

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).

How can they make it worth nothing?

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

#243

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

miracle2k wrote: post #242
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).

How can they make it worth nothing?

By destroying the original object or renouncing its copyright or printing billions of NFTs for it.

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

#244

Post by miracle2k »

mattigames wrote: post #137
miracle2k wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But not all. Most NFTs are worth nothing too.

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

#245

Post by ThrustVectoring »

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.

It's still limited edition in that there's only one first minting of an NFT, and with the blockchain you can tell whose is which.

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

#246

Post by axiosgunnar »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #171
floren wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key point: buying the NFT does not transfer rights to you. You're just buying the NFT. The original creator retains the rights to the video.

What! HA I understand it even less now.

Basically it‘s just one huge meme. Like an autograph has no „intrinsic“ value, people still want them and they can be traded for money as well.

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

#247

Post by mattdesl »

jallen_dot_dev wrote: post #201
mattdesl wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

The artist needs to confirm this. For example, many artists selling on Hicetnunc[1] will put their Tezos wallet address as a link in their Twitter bio. If you spot an artwork that looks like theirs minted by a different address, it’s likely a “copymint” (typically seen as worth no value).

There are other blockchain/crypto art projects that use the chain itself to store data; such as Autoglyphs[2], which is essentially a first of its kind generative artwork on Ethereum coded entirely within the Solidity smart contract. In this case there is no question about the authenticity; you simply look at that contract address and the tokens it initiated.

[1] - https://hicetnunc.xyz/

[2] - https://www.larvalabs.com/autoglyphs

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

#248

Post by axiosgunnar »

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.

Anybody producing real world „limited edition“ merch could in theory produce it again, so this is no different here.

I guess it‘s some form of „trust“ between the issuer and the buyer.

Or the 2nd NFT wouldn‘t be as memey anymore and thus not worth as much.

(It would probably be worth more the first time in reality, since issuing an NFT twice is not „supposed to happen“, so there would be some novelty to it, and I guess novelty is part of what drives the prices. See also Banksy‘s image that actually increased in value after it got publicly shredded by a built-in mechanism after being auctioned off.)

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

#249

Post by randomsearch »

bigdollopenergy wrote: post #118
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…

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…

Similarly I’ve engaged with financial experts online. Conversation goes:

Me: “but this is a giant bubble! None of this is intrinsically valuable! You’re buying to sell! A huge crash will wipe you out!”

Them: “you must be new around here... there is always a bubble, the key is riding it as long as you can safely do so.”

I found this so enlightening. I wonder if economic cycles are a result of this thinking.

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

#250

Post by vijayr02 »

bigdollopenergy wrote: post #118
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…

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…

> In order to make lot's of money nowadays, you shouldn't ask yourself "What is actually going to make a profit and/or provide utility in the future?" but rather "What are all the stupid people going to pile in on next so i can get in and out before it crashes?".

This has always been true [0]. Your comment had generated a thought for me: maybe as humanity has covered its essential needs, the idea of what has utility and value has progressively become less clear? Or is it just a side effect of QE and Central bank excess? Time will tell...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

Post reply on HN