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

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#121

Post by UncleMeat »

originalcvk wrote: post #8
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…

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…

State employed officials with guns will show up and remove you from a house if you are living in it without permission from the person who owns the deed. That is ownership.

There is no thing that another person can do regarding a piece of art backed by an NFT that you own that will cause state employees with guns to show up to stop them.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#122

Post by chrisco255 »

mdoms wrote: post #115
chrisco255 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a loaded opinion. A lot of people said the same about Bitcoin, the internet, social media, electric cars, and mobile apps.

My argument is that the system works just fine as a plausibly neutral ledger of account and for establishing provenance of ownership through reputation and convention.

And in fact I very much prefer it to the legions of corporate lawyers enforcing man-made copyright laws and enriching monopolistic centrally distributed platforms such as app stores. I consider it much more sustainable, universal, accessible, and respectful of human rights and expression than the current systems in place.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#123

Post by gfodor »

smoldesu wrote: post #86
gfodor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So wait, now we're going back to relying on centralized authority to determine the validity of the token? Seems, say, self-defeating in a sense.

The point is to extrapolate what I wrote.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#124

Post by zepto »

chrisco255 wrote: post #113
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mar…

> What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable?

The music is good, and it’s harder to get them elsewhere.

> What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable?

The books are good, and it’s harder to get them elsewhere.

> Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you?

Why would anyone be disturbed by this? I see nothing wrong with people trading tokens. What is disturbing are claims that trading these tokens is equivalent to trading in the associated goods.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#125

Post by gfodor »

evan_ wrote: post #100
gfodor wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the context. For example if it meant I was the only one able to spawn the bridge in Meta’s Horizon, maybe? You just don’t know what’s happening.

For $6,500 USD I will create a GitHub repo called “A Bridge in Brooklyn” containing your name in the readme. You may consider the commit ID your non-fungible token. If you wish to sell it I will add another commit with the new owner’s name after I receive a $500 “gas fee”. I will have my kid draw a picture of a bridge and send you a JPG of it; you can put that on Meta Horizon as many times as you want. Naturally like…

No, that doesn’t meet my requirement above. Nothing does, because Meta doesn’t impose the constraint I am talking about: it was a hypothetical example to try to convey to you the dynamics going on regarding NFTs that you seem to think you fully understand.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#126

Post by gfodor »

verdverm wrote: post #99
gfodor wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the context. For example if it meant I was the only one able to spawn the bridge in Meta’s Horizon, maybe? You just don’t know what’s happening.

What would stop someone from spawning a slightly modified (imperceptible to human eye) Brooklyn Bridge? The idea of artificial scarcity seems central to NFT, but it is unclear if this is really a moat or desirable. Does it really convey exclusivity over a "unique" set of bits?

No, an NFT is not a pair but a tuple. The third part of the tuple is the third party who issued the NFT. In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge, the NFTs I expect that would confer social status in the metaverse regarding the bridge would be ones issued by the City of New York or perhaps the descendants of the original architects. This will probably actually happen in some form but it will be a while. If you’re talking about a specific work of art depicting the bridge, the only NFT of value is the one sanctioned by the original artist.

That NFT is scarce. Too many people do not understand what an NFT represents and what it’s short and longer term expected conferred benefits are, and are hung up on trying to create analogies to existing forms of ownership like physical property rights or copyright.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#127

Post by lukebuehler »

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…

While I agree with your comment, new tokenization laws, like the one in Switzerland, make it possible to create tokens and NFTs that transfer legally binding rights. E.g., you can go to a judge, prove that you own the private key to a wallet owning assets, and they will enforce the contract behind a said assets.

Edit: here is one article describing the Swiss framework: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-virtual-currency-regul...

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#128

Post by gruez »

GDC7 wrote: post #118
gruez wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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 sounds like a lot of words to justify why viewing that particular painting has value, even though you can see a replica and probably wouldn't notice the difference. All the value of viewing the original in the museum comes from the social clout that you get from being a cultured person that can afford an european vacation to visit the louvre. That sounds a lot like NFTs. Here's a quote from another NFT article:

>“This is a great example of right-clicker mentality,” Midwit Milhouse said on Twitter. “Sure, you can make your own gold-coated steak for 65GBP, but then you don’t have the satisfaction, flex, clout that comes from having eaten at Salt Bae’s restaurant. The value is not in the cost of the steak. Go ahead, make yourself a gold-coated steak at home. Post a picture of it on Instagram. See how much clout it gets you. Salt Bae’s dish costs around 1500GBP because people want to pay 1500 GBP to show off that they can afford to pay that much. It’s all about the flex.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgzed/what-the-hell-is-righ...

>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.

Sounds like you're trying to hide behind the 0.00000000001%. In other words, the replica might be 0.99999999999% similar, but people are apparently willing to pay millions for the remaining 0.00000000001%. To me, that's as irrational as placing value in the remaining 0% that NFTs represent.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#129

Post by Jon12281818 »

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…

Your points about the media may be the case but there's a lot of other reasons to use NFTs.

Let's rephrase to 'perks'.

The owner of a house now has access to the perks of owning a house: E.g Noone can enter property without permission, can't park on your driveway, can act how you want in your own home etc

People without a house do not have this ability.

The owner of an NFT now has access to the perks of owning that NFT: Access to exlusive discord (training and information, etc), early access to new projects, job opportunities etc

An NFT can offer a lot of different utility which are only received by proving their ownership of the cryptographic token.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#130

Post by capableweb »

zepto wrote: post #74
capableweb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) i…

> 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. Such a token is inherently worthless. The only value comes from rights that token can confer. That’s why people are trying to associate them with objects of real-world value.

> Such a token is inherently worthless

Do you see data as being inherently worthless as well? Because that's all there is, data. And according to the current market, it's not worthless, just like even if some people consider Bitcoin to be inherently worthless, there is a market that says it isn't.

Post reply on HN