131–140 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you own the NFT, you can’t hang up the piece in cryptovoxels. That is ownership.
I honestly don't know if this comment is a joke or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NFTs are considered ownership in nascent online societies. There is no “at large” society. Even nation state recognized ownership in terms of copyright has its limits.
If there is no “at large society”, why don’t you live in a nicer house?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Concretely there are a variety of metaverse projects which only allow you to spawn the item if you own the (creator sanctioned) NFT.
It’s perfectly fair to say that NFTs work as an in-game currency and nothing more.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions, they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001%
Consumers decided that for some pieces of art it is worth to spend some amount of dollars to go and see it once, in person and get that final 10th decimal place.
This is what in turn gives the painting value , and then wealthy individuals and institutions are willing to pay millions, because the painting produces revenues for the museum.
Sometimes it's owned directly by the museum, while sometimes it has a private owner who lends it to the museum and takes a cut.
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 Gro…
It's a fools errand to try to equalize NFTs with anything from the physical reality we live in. NFTs are exclusive to blockchains and have no real-world counter-part, I think that is a part of why people are so confused about them. No analogy is perfect, and makes it hard for people to understand what they really are about. NFTs are not like naming rights, nor domain names, nor is it art, nor is it anything else. Eas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> In other words, the replica might be 0.99999999999% similar, but people are apparently willing to pay millions for the remaining 0.00000000001% This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions, they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001% Consumers decided that for some pieces of art…
"regular people" aren't paying hundreds of thousands for NFTs either.
>they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001%
>Consumers decided that for some pieces of art it is worth to spend some amount of dollars to go and see it once, in person and get that final 10th decimal place.
Are they really ascribing value to the remaining 0.0000000000001%, or just to the vague notion that the painting in the museum is the original? I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout). See also: people going to concerts, even though listening at home has superior fidelity (for one, there aren't hundreds of people screaming in the crowd).
>This is what in turn gives the painting value , and then wealthy individuals and institutions are willing to pay millions, because the painting produces revenues for the museum.
This totally fails to explain paintings that are in private collections. Why do rich people pay millions for original paintings, just to hang inside their house?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
I.e. they are in-game currency.
People are ‘hung up’ on analogies to physical ownership, because proponents of NFT’s keep claiming they are like deeds of ownership, which is what the linked article strongly asserted before it was amended.
If NFT advocates stopped calling it ownership, I don’t think anyone would be hung up about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no “at large society”, why don’t you live in a nicer house?
Huh? I own my home in the eyes of most people I care about (for example, most citizens and authorities of the United States.) But even within the US there are for example socialists who reject the idea I own my home. They just don’t have the means to overturn this particular norm within the sovereignty of my country - but in some circles like that insofar as “being a homeowner” confers privileges such privileges woul…
The fact that there are a few socialists tho object is irrelevant.