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

101–110 of 195 posts

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#101

Post by originalcvk »

zepto wrote: post #91
originalcvk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to update it. Better? Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.

> Better? Not really. The original document contained an outright lie which have now removed because it was exposed. If you didn’t accept it was a lie, you wouldn’t have removed it. This has nothing to do with imperfect accuracy. It has to do with you writing an outright falsehood.

In a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#102

Post by originalcvk »

TrevorAustin wrote: post #80
arduinomancer wrote: post #65

Can I legally create an NFT of someone else's artwork? What determines that NFT "A" is the canonical NFT of artwork "X"?

Legally, there’s nothing stopping you. The only thing that would make “A” the canonical NFT for “X” is social convention. I imagine that where the original creator of the artwork is involved in the minting of X that convention can be pretty strong, but I also expect lots of boundary-testing. This is the art world after all, and a particularly weird slice of it at that.

Actually, legally, there is. Copyright still exists, and still applies to NFTs.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#103

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

shiohime wrote: post #94
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right-click download picture is completely meaningless as the true power is simply proof of ownership of the piece, having a copy of the image means nothing if you don't own the token and you will be denied access to the service. Sure, fine. Why do I care? I can use said copy on any other service I want. If your argument is "ah yes, but someone out there believes that's not as valuable because it ignores their…

I don't think you are understanding at all what I am saying lol. I have a program, think of it as a traditional web app, that has a backend that validates whether you own the asset prior to granting access. You can't use any copy of the png to interact with other services, since there is only *one* service that allows for the interactive capabilities, and it requires ownership of the token to access. Hell, you could…

> You can't use any copy of the png to interact with other services, since there is only one service that allows for the interactive capabilities, and it requires ownership of the token to access.

This makes no sense. Given any possible interaction you could have with a PNG some other service can replicate it. They could choose to do so with alternative NFTs pointing to the same PNGs, or just let you use any PNG at your leisure.

Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say your service is utterly unique. That you have somehow invented some kind of super-magic software that does something super incredible with PNGs that no one else can manage, and you've decided that NFTs are the way to determine who can and cannot use the service. What exactly is your reasoning to use NFTs in this way instead of traditional authentication mechanisms? Because the only one I can think of is capitalizing off the NFT hype.

Please, convince me that NFTs as a technology have some inherent value instead of all their value being derived from a collective delusion and FOMO. I'm aching to hear a good, concrete usecase for the technology that simply cannot be done better without it.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#104

Post by verdverm »

shiohime wrote: post #40
verdverm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the NFT acting like a password to the service? Do you have a way to revoke access in this scheme? (For example an abusive user) How would NFT access work for a service which requires monthly or usage based billing? (As this seems like a one time payment currently)

Not quite. It acts as an access token, in about the purest sense, kind of like an auth token in traditional webapps. I could revoke access by blacklisting the NFT if I really, really wanted to I suppose, but I don't in this specific service I've built, as there would be no reason whatsoever for me to revoke access to the interactive capabilities of my art from someone that purchased it, and never would implement such…

Sounds more like the NFT is a ticket for entry to an experience.

How does this work if a person makes a unique wallet for this NFT and then shares the private key? Does that essentially break the exclusivity mechanics?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#105

Post by zepto »

meheleventyone wrote: post #15
originalcvk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-con…

If you own a Meebit NFT it’s actually the extant legal system that determines what that means. https://meebits.larvalabs.com/meebits/termsandconditions And note you don’t own the media and that what owning the NFT means can change.

“(b) Ownership. (i) When you purchase a Meebit, you own only the NFT, not any associated Art. Each Meebit is associated with a non-fungible token (an “NFT”) on the Ethereum blockchain. When you acquire a Meebit, you own the NFT, not the associated Art, or any other Meebits Materials (as that term is defined below), or any Third Party IP.”

Not really sure what point you are trying to make. With Meebits, you don’t own anything other than the token itself.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#106

Post by mdoms »

> We at ClubNFT fired up a massive AWS instance with 40TB of EBS disk space to attempt to download this, with a cost estimate of $10k-20k over the next month,

Is this for real? Why would they do it this way? I can buy 20TB of storage for less than $1000 (in New Zealand, no doubt far far cheaper in USA). Using one fifth of my residential gigabit bandwidth that would take just over a day to download.

Why on Earth would someone spend $20k and a month to achieve what can be done for one twentieth the cost in one thirtieth the time? Only to have the files on a remote AWS instance where you would still need to download them if you wanted to access them?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#107

Post by mattdesl »

zepto wrote: post #73
mattdesl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to buying a signed print from an artist—no contract involved, no legal transfer of copyright or intellectual property, no claim to anything except ownership of the artist-signed artefact. In the case of NFT it is mostly equivalent: claim of ownership over the artist-signed artefact (the token).

Exactly this. Which is fine. What isn’t fine is when people pretend that the ownership is over the media itself.

Most collectors aren't claiming to own the media (because anybody can right-click save it, and because it is usually hosted on IPFS, the very purpose of which is to allow the media to be copied & distributed across many nodes). But they may claim to own "the artwork," referring to the artist-signed artefact. Much like how a museum may choose to acquire & build provenance around a signed photographic print, despite the availability of unsigned prints that depict the same exact media (see Ansel Adams signed vs unsigned prints, for example).

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#108

Post by [deleted] »

aledalgrande wrote: post #31
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…

> This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. That depends on the conditions attached to the NFT. For example, the Bored Ape Yacht Club gives full commercial ownership to the owner of each ape for the particular ape they own.

[deleted]

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#109

Post by zepto »

aledalgrande wrote: post #31
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…

> This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. That depends on the conditions attached to the NFT. For example, the Bored Ape Yacht Club gives full commercial ownership to the owner of each ape for the particular ape they own.

The bored ape yacht club grants a copyright license to people who buy the NFT. Nothing more and nothing else.

That is not ownership.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#110

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

originalcvk wrote: post #102
TrevorAustin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally, there’s nothing stopping you. The only thing that would make “A” the canonical NFT for “X” is social convention. I imagine that where the original creator of the artwork is involved in the minting of X that convention can be pretty strong, but I also expect lots of boundary-testing. This is the art world after all, and a particularly weird slice of it at that.

Actually, legally, there is. Copyright still exists, and still applies to NFTs.

Sure, in the same way that copyright still applies to NES roms. That doesn't really stop anyone from copying them and calling Nintendo sill for asking $40 for one.
Post reply on HN