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

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#111

Post by zepto »

originalcvk wrote: post #101
zepto wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

At the beginning of an article you told an outright lie. Later you equivocate.

The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say later is obviously absurd.

As I have pointed out this is a motte and Bailey fallacy.

Also, it’s still a completely misleading statement. The change to ‘similar to’ doesn’t make it true. It still isn’t true, only now you have some wiggle room to claim it’s not a lie.

You are still trying to misleading people into thinking that NFTs confer ownership of the media.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#112

Post by Y_Y »

capableweb wrote: post #53
malermeister wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The blockchains have provenance of themselves and the space within them, which is exactly what the NFT represents. Nothing more, nothing less.

> Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#113

Post by chrisco255 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #61
capableweb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blockchains have provenance of themselves and the space within them, which is exactly what the NFT represents. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right, and the entry in any particular star register's registry is the same thing. They have provenance over their registry, nothing more, nothing less.

Clearly not. If an artist with an on-chain reputation such as Beeple creates a digital artwork and mints it on-chain and continues to do so over time and that artist's work becomes sought after, the reputation and history and story of that work being created and minted and transferred is as good as any other form of provenance.

What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? Is there something about the virtual nature of NFTs that gets to you in a way that these intangible marketplaces don't? Why does itunes and Kindle not bother you? Because they have an army of lawyers to enforce copyrights and license agreements behind them? Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#114

Post by _gf4m »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #103
shiohime wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

It's pretty simple really. You just seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an NFT actually is. It is simply a single issue token. The current implementation is nearly 100% for art purposes, in that they are tokens that point to cloud storage. As a developer I can create whatever services I want, based off of a determined, finite collection of single issue tokens. The token can do whatever the developer of the token wants it to do, and grant access to whatever services they want it to have access.

If I was to implement this with traditional web infrastructure, it would increase the scope of my project by likely 2-3 times. I am a single developer, and yeah I may have like a decade of experience at this point, but utilizing this instead of integrating traditional payment and authentication services, as well as traditional database services, dramatically decreases the scope of my project. Seriously, it would probably not be a feasible project for me alone if I stuck to traditional infra. It is empowering me, as a solo developer, to create something unique that I hope people find some enjoyment out of.

Let me be very straightforward here - I have spent the past 4 months working full time creating interactive generative art, that I 100% absolutely never would do so, unless there are economic incentives. This is an independent venture, I'm running it as my first business venture outside of the traditional corporate world, and I want to create something unique. I am planning on charging a very fair price for mint, basically only enough that if my full collection is minted and I do nothing else, then I would extend the amount of time I have until I have to go back to the corporate grind from about 6 months from now to about a year. I'm not creating a collection and charging like $500 per piece, I am targetting like $20.

Just because there is a ton of hype in the technology and people are making get quick rich schemes left and right with really low effort collections, please don't rule out the tech entirely.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#115

Post by mdoms »

chrisco255 wrote: post #93
malermeister wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how that's related to art though. Of course a self-referential system is good for internal consistency. The issue comes with trying to use it for anything outside the system, such as monkey jpegs.

Not at all. It clearly works just fine as the marketplace volume suggests. Go right click save a CryptoPunk and try and sell it. Go make a BAYC clone and try and sell it. Try it out on chain, deploy your own copy of the smart contract. Or go and create a website and set up a Paypal account and try to sell some JPEGs. Let me know how that works out. Even if you succeed in making money, like selling a fake Gucci purse,…

Most rational people argue that NFTs are a bubble/mania. Your argument that it's not because people are throwing wild amounts of money at them does nothing to convince us otherwise.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#116

Post by capableweb »

Y_Y wrote: post #112
capableweb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blockchains have provenance of themselves and the space within them, which is exactly what the NFT represents. Nothing more, nothing less.

> Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing.

As a reminder:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#117

Post by nickitolas »

mattdesl wrote: post #107
zepto wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

imo anyone claiming to "own the artwork" when talking about widely available digital media is talking about copyright, and if they're talking about something else, they're high

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#118

Post by GDC7 »

gruez wrote: post #79
GDC7 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

>A pic won't ever provide you the same satisfaction as standing in front of a painting, that's an innate characteristic of paintings. That seems a bit handwavy to me. Apparently some museums don't even put originals on display, only a replica (due to conservation/vandalism concerns). Maybe that means that the "satisfaction" you get is purely placebo? In other words, it's the same painting for all intents and purposes…

A painting is different than a picture, also the volume of copies matter.

Say a museum has one original and 4 copies of a painting. That's 1:4.

With JPG it can potentially be 1:∞

In other words you have to go to that particular museum to see the painting , and everybody knows that you have to go there, there is a bottleneck in the both the quantity and quality of copies of the original, and it's very tight, matter of fact social, logistical and common sense factors limit the capability of copying the painting in 1:1 fashion just to the museum . That's in order to protect from vandalism and theft.

And the beauty of the physical world is that the copy is never 1:1

It's 1:0,9999999999999 and maybe cannot be picked up, but again: common sense.

As a matter of common sense everybody knows that the physical world can NEVER be exactly replicated in a 1:1 fashion.

With JPG pictures instead everybody knows that they can be copied at will, there is no bottleneck and also for pics (unlike painting) it makes no difference if they are visualized on screens or printed.

Finally everybody can make their 1:1 copy and it's identical . And the whole process can be repeated an infinite amount of times and it will ALWAYS be exactly as the original.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#119

Post by GDC7 »

smoldesu wrote: post #89
GDC7 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

Listen, I despise NFTs as much as the next guy but this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of what these people are buying into. You're not buying a raster graphic, you're buying a hash that points to your wallet on the blockchain. Yes, both are equally as asinine in the grand scheme of things, but conflating them is just outright wrong. Paintings are trivial to replicate, people don't buy them though because it's…

> Paintings are trivial to replicate

The physical world simply cannot be replicated 1:1 .

It can be 1:0,99999999999 but it cannot ever be 1:1

Also it very costly to replicate a painting, whereas saving a JPG is essentially free and can be done infinite amount of times.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#120

Post by shiohime »

verdverm wrote: post #104
shiohime wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah, that is how I am envisioning it as well. It is a ticket to services I've already created, and services I intend to create in the future.

And sure, a user could create a shared wallet and let others see the interactive capabilities of the art in that wallet. Personally I wouldn't mind if someone wanted to do this, my collection will have X number of unique pieces, each of them are a completely different generative piece. So, yeah, you could buy a piece, put it in a shared wallet, and share it with your friends. Up to the purchasers of the piece to do what they want with it :)

Post reply on HN