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

251–260 of 270 posts

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

#251

Post by ezoe »

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 think it's more of a moral problem. Would you commit a fraud to earn money?

If you start selling a proof of flat earth, 5G tower cause the COVID-19, a herb that cure cancer or similar nonsense, there are people willing to pay a huge money for. But would you?

NFT in its current implementation is totally bullshit. They relies on SaaS wallet service rather than running full Ethereum node, and instead of embed all data to Ethereum blockchain, they relies on traditional HTTP server hosted by... wallet service itself!

If you relies on a central authority, there are better and more efficient services to use. But oh the ignorance and speculation.

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

#252

Post by Lutzb »

Crazyontap wrote: post #178
hackinthebochs wrote: post #28

The only explanation for NFTs that made sense to me is that people with an interest in the network (e.g. early investors) are bidding up some choice NFTs to make news and drive interest in their network. There is no actual market for NFTs at these prices, but that doesn't stop groups with deep pockets from pretending like there is by purchasing well known memes for eye popping amounts. If internet "celebrities" are a…

Yes, this and Bitcoin both feel like pyramid schemes. There is a lot of initial investment from top-tier people who convince others to invest (by showing eye-popping returns) and drive more investment. Soon the people on the top-tier gradually cash out and eventually it's the common people who lost their hard-earned money.

The whole concept of wealth feels like a pyramid scheme.

Your second paragraph could be applied to any non-crypto asset class. The only difference I can see is that crypto just made this scheme more obvious, unobfuscated then let's say the stock market with its different investor classes.

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

#253

Post by intellix »

My favorite music artist Infected Mushroom just released an EP called Shroomeez with 4 songs. They also released all songs as NFT collectibles ($333 each and sold 15 x 4). Then the album had one secret unreleased track called Babka that sold for about $10,000. Everyone is really mad about it that they'll never get to hear the song

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

#254

Post by miracle2k »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #243
miracle2k wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can they make it worth nothing?

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

Indeed, the disconnect between the digital and the physical is why NFTs do not represent physical objects. beeple however cannot destroy the original JPEG, as there isn't one.

An artist renouncing the copyright (as in putting it into the public domain) does not per se devalue the NFT. It is not strictly obvious if you legally need to own the copyright to sell an NFT of something in the first place (it is likely just fraud to misrepresent your authorship of the work).

The creator of a famous photograph which they have previously put into the public domain would likely find a buyer for its NFT, while you would not. NFT buyers are under no illusion about what they are buying here - it is the official sanction of the creator of a digital edition of the artwork.

Similarly, a creator could print billions of NFTs, but Damien Hirst could also sell 499 more further sharks in formaldehyde. NFTs cannot and do not set out to solve this problem.

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

#255

Post by sirsinsalot »

musicale wrote: post #231
sirsinsalot wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> football making billions from people watching some people kick a ball about Presumably ritualized tribal combat has a long history. As does religion.

And collecting trinkets

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

#256

Post by jobigoud »

smnrchrds wrote: post #37
leephillips wrote: post #30

This is the Casablanca of YT, because, just as HB never says, “Play it again, Sam”, the kid here never says, “Charlie bit my finger.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_me_up,_Scotty

Or "Luke, I Am Your Father”.

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

#257

Post by magma1983 »

joshfraser wrote: post #235
kbelder wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As near as I figure, it's not even 'yes I own this thing'. It's 'I own the NFT that refers to that thing', which only happens to connote ownership by convention. IE... somebody could sell the object and keep the NFT, or vice versa. There's no legal concept tying the NFT to ownership of the object, except perhaps indirectly via contract.

I'm one of the founders of Origin, the project that hosted this auction. Here's my take on it: It's a social contract between the creator and the collector. Today when you buy a home you have someone go down to the local courthouse and check that there are no leans against the property and no one else is claiming ownership. In the future, you can imagine a world where that title would live on the blockchain and every…

AFAIK, nothing stops the family from selling another NFT of the same video.

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

#258

Post by illwrks »

yakkityyak wrote: post #207
jazzyjackson wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if they got a small % of the resale, with a blockchain as a verified record of sales?

- Games and consoles made years ago still generating revenue. - It would incentivise companies to support repair and continued use of old products.

I think it would be instant buy-in from those larger companies.

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

#259

Post by selfhoster11 »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #246
nickthemagicman wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An autograph = a personal "senpai noticed me" item, which to fans does have some value.

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

#260

Post by vwcx »

randomsearch wrote: post #249
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…

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.

Yes, but no one mentions the downside: that timing the exact bubble end, catching the proverbial falling knife without getting cut, is nearly impossible for the vast majority of bubble investors. The key would be to take your profit we’ll before the collapse, which you’ll notice is antithetical to the whole “HODL” and “never sell” mantra being spoonfed to the first-time meme stock/coin investors.
Post reply on HN