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

TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

clubnft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 195 posts

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#41

Post by moron4hire »

gfodor wrote: post #32
zepto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…

Unless you own the NFT, you can’t hang up the piece in cryptovoxels. That is ownership.

But owning the NFT is not 1-to-1 with having the right to redistribute or having the right to transfer the right to redistribute. Are you keeping track of which NFTs confer copyright with the purchase? Or are you leaving it to the honor system? In which case, what is the NFT providing?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#42

Post by GDC7 »

gruez wrote: post #23
GDC7 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You technically can do it in the real world! It's called stealing the painting lol. When buying an NFT you are essentially betting that society would come around to equate "right-clicking" with stealing. And that would employ the same social and technological resources to prevent right-clickers to do their bidding as it does today to prevent thief from stealing paintings from museums.

I don't fully agree with your characterization. I'm more in favor of: Stealing the painting = hacking the wallet/private key to transfer the NFT Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking

> Taking a picture of the painting = right clicking

Absolutely not.

A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings.

Right clicking a JPG , saving it on your laptop and looking at whenever you want gives you the exact same satisfaction as paying 100k USD for the work of art.

Matter of fact it gives you way more satisfaction, because you got for free what a fool paid 100K to obtain.

The real world equivalent would be finding a perfectly conserved Banksy in an abandoned barn, keeping it for a while and then selling it.

You get to enjoy it for free and the buyer has to pay you 6 figures.

Thing is you don't have to be extremely lucky to right click, you only have to know how to use your thumb.

In conclusion I'd point out that even without NFTs , there is no market for JPG pictures, exactly because they can be replicated very easily and potentially an infinite amount of times.

The most famous JPG ever is "the Afghan girl" by McCurry. The original sold for 62,000 EUR.

https://tvpworld.com/50367201/iconic-afghan-girl-photo-sold-...

Nobody sane pays for JPGs because they are very easy to replicate.

Paintings , on the other hand are not.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#43

Post by TrevorAustin »

It’s weird to keep using the Mona Lisa, when there’s a much more apropos metaphor intimately connected to crypto: NFTs are like naming rights.

Crypto.com did not buy the Staples Center, and doesn’t have the right to charge admission. They bought (leased, really) the right to have their name associated with it. Some of that has the force of law, but a lot of it is social convention too. Here in Chicago, the Willis Group owns the legal naming rights to a large building downtown, the building itself is owned by Blackstone, and locals actually call it the Sears Tower.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#44

Post by throwaway1777 »

gfodor wrote: post #32
zepto wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), Wrong. > I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own. Yes, you contradict yourself. > Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none . Yes, which is not what you say in the parts I quoted - let’s remind ourselv…

Unless you own the NFT, you can’t hang up the piece in cryptovoxels. That is ownership.

Giving cryptovoxels a little too much credit. Its one digital museum but there can be infinite other ways to display nfts.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#45

Post by malermeister »

gfodor wrote: post #19
zepto wrote: post #2

> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…

You’re presuming ownership universally means copyright. It doesn’t. Ownership is as much a cultural norm as a legal one. Owning the NFT, in certain circles, allows you to participate in an alternative cultural norm of ownership, decoupled from copyright ownership.

The thing about cultural norms is that they're only meaningful if they're accepted by the prevailing culture.

Based on this thread, I would say NFTs are not.

So what exactly is the point of an "alternative form of ownership" that is only considered valid by a small subculture and not society at large? Is it really ownership in any meaningful sense?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#46

Post by gruez »

malermeister wrote: post #38
chrisco255 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not, because the star registry doesn't have provenance of the Milky Way.

And neither does the Blockchain have provenance of... anything really.

But at least some of the NFTs are endorsed by the artists themselves?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#47

Post by Bombthecat »

zepto wrote: post #2

> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…

It's like options on a stock market. You don't own the stock itself.(part of the company) Just a link (with rules) to it.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#48

Post by moron4hire »

GDC7 wrote: post #35
moron4hire wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the NFT didn't give you ownership of the image, so what right do you have as the NFT owner to tell people not to right-click?

As always with every social phenomenon, it's all about the social hatred they can manage to gather among the population and throw at right-clickers.

I see. So you are advocating for property disputes to be settled by the mob. You're arguing for literal anarchy.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#49

Post by shiohime »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #36
shiohime wrote: post #28

I someday hope that people realize what you can do with single issue tokens beyond simply having a link to cloud storage. You can create products that utilize this same behavior, but also leverage proof of ownership to create actual unique applications. With even just an ounce of developer ingenuity, you can use NFTs as an access token to whatever service you wish to provide. I put together a collection that is both…

The digital piece can disappear when you still have the ownership and there's still nothing the owner can do about it.

In my case, if arweave allows for digital pieces to disappear from the web, then that means they've likely failed as a project considering they've positioned themselves to be a permaweb.

However, interestingly if you leverage the token ownership for access, in my collection's case, even if the static image is wiped for whatever reason, they could still access the interactive service and see their art, and interact with it.

This of course has the assumption that I'm continuing to host my service indefinitely, which I know is a problem with my current implementation. I am planning to recreate my APIs as onchain programs, and migrate my app to be hosted on arweave. If it works the way I think it does and arweave doesn't fail as a project (which I don't think they will), then I'm hoping that I can have a service that is permanently accessible. I have yet to test that hypothesis of course.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#50

Post by capableweb »

akira2501 wrote: post #30
zepto wrote: post #2

> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…

What does "ownership" of an NFT even mean? Can you even repudiate ownership later if you so chose? Can you remove the record of your ownership of the NFT? Can you transfer that ownership outside of the blockchain? NFTs seem like blockchain graffiti. You've purchased the right to tag a passing train car, that's all.

> What does "ownership" of an NFT even mean?

It means that the shared ledger (also called blockchain) has a record of that specific NFT belonging to your address.

> Can you even repudiate ownership later if you so chose?

Yes, you send it to a "burn address" which is a address no one has access to.

> Can you remove the record of your ownership of the NFT?

Like remove the history? If so, no, blockchains are (usually) immutable ledgers, it's actually one of the core value propositions for blockchains. You can send the NFT to a "burn address" if you don't want it anymore.

> Can you transfer that ownership outside of the blockchain?

Well, kind of but not really. You question is a bit like if you can transfer the ownership of a .com domain to outside the internet. I guess you could, in some way, but in most practical ways, no.

> NFTs seem like blockchain graffiti. You've purchased the right to tag a passing train car, that's all.

I don't know what to make of this, how is it related to graffiti and tagging trains?

A NFT is a really simple concept if you stop thinking about pictures and other media (since that doesn't really have anything to do with NFTs): A NFT is a cryptocurrency which only has a single token of itself. Like there only was one Bitcoin that was indivisible. You can transfer it to other addresses, but there can only be one at a time. That's all there is to it.

Post reply on HN