The Worrisome Rise of NFTs • Hacker News Board

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#61

Post by julianz » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

diogenesjunior wrote: post #31

One of my favorite rappers, Nas, is selling royalty rights to his songs as NFTs[0]. I think selling NFTs as if they were trading cards is silly, but what Nas is doing? I think that's actually pretty cool. Thoughts? 0: https://www.nme.com/news/music/nas-to-sell-royalty-rights-to...

The NFT has nothing to do with the transaction here. You're giving something of value to Nas in return for a slice of a revenue stream. Nas could choose to do that with a regular old fashioned contract. The NFT is just an extremely expensive way to print the receipt, and introduces a third party to the process that doesn't need to be there. What happens when they go out of business or pivot to something else in a couple of years - are you still going to get your royalties then?

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#62

Post by matheusmoreira » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #21

The worst thing is the constant and malicious lie being perpetuated. You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. The ownership is not recognised in any country, by any court or international body. All you have is an entry in a logical database that says you own it. But unless you have signed a contract with the seller transferring or licensing copyright then it as meaningless as you buying a certificate saying…

Yeah. NFTs are not a bad idea but the current implementation is basically a scam. Ownership of these tokens means nothing, people pay for them and still own nothing.

They could be good. Imagine if instead of the current licensing hell you could just buy an NFT that represents your ownership of a song, a film, a video game. Companies wouldn't be able to take it away from you remotely, you'd be able to resell it at a later date. Such a thing could actually make copyright more tolerable. Unfortunately this would probably require an actual legal framework around it to guarantee these rights.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#63

Post by hnbad » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

friendlydog wrote: post #42

Commercial aviation makes up 918 million metric tons of carbon. Bitcoin mining makes up 22 million metric tons. I'm less worried about NFTs than I am air travel.

In other words: a single cryptocurrency is generating 1/42th the carbon as all commercial aviation. The carbon generated by the two things is only one order of magnitude apart.

If you consider that one of the two is (prior to COVID) used by a significant number of citizens of Western countries for vacations, business trips or visiting family, whereas the other is primarily used for financial speculation, money laundering and grey/black market financial transactions, this should be even more appalling.

I don't know what makes you think you can put these two numbers side by side and have Bitcoin's carbon emissions look like the reasonable one. Especially when aviation is an established industry and has been the target of ecological regulations for years.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#64

Post by daenz » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #56

daenz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If nobody can take it from you, you "own" it, and everything else follows from that. "It" being: your crypto identity bound to some metadata.

No the artist owns it. They have the copyright. So the funny part is that if you buy an NFT not only can I legally copy it but I can approach the artist, buy the copyright and then sue you for copyright infringement.

I said you own metadata bound to your crypto identity, not the thing that the artist is making into an NFT.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#65

Post by EGreg » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

delabay wrote: post #40

EGreg wrote: post #7

The company Ethereum (that supports cryptocurrency as well as NFTs) has indicated it aims to cut energy use by more than 99 percent by changing its core methodology. Interesting, Ethereum is referred to as a company by these authors?

This typo/oversight/error/whatever shows the depth of misunderstanding the author has about the subject he or she writes. People of hacker news will still love the content, but nobody outside of this bubble will view this as an honest criticism. If you want a truly great critique from a person who REALLY understands, read Moxie Marlinspike: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

I liked it a lot!

I wrote a very substantive rebuttal that I hope you like as well: https://community.intercoin.org/t/web3-moxie-signal-telegram...

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#66

Post by Uehreka » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

labrador wrote: post #11

I'm as concerned as the next person about energy use, but I did read some counterpoints in an article published yesterday [1] The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is reportedly going to investigate cryptocurrency’s effect on the environment... But the meme that bitcoin or cryptocurrency uses as much power as one country or another, promoted by The New York Times last Sep…

What bothers me personally is that they use so much energy _now_, even though they’re still pretty fringe. Sure, a lot of people have a little crypto floating around, but not most people, and almost no one is using it as a medium for exchange on a daily basis. And yet it’s still using ~0.5% of the world’s energy (aka as much as a mid-sized country).

I feel like you have to pick one: Either argue that crypto is a niche hobby that won’t get much more traction, and that 0.5% of humanity’s total power usage is not that bad. Or express your ambition for crypto to run the world and become a fundamental part of everyone’s life, and have an explanation for how to square this with a multiplication of humanity’s total energy usage and the effects that will have on energy prices, silicon prices and the climate. But I’m tired of people arguing for tomorrow’s revolution using today’s energy usage numbers.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#67

Post by abetusk » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

I would like to see an actual measured critique or discussion of NFTs and adjacent cryptocurrencies.

I'm absolutely willing to hear that NFTs (and related cryptocurrencies) are bad for the environment, bad for society, have no "intrinsic" value, but I'd really like to hear some counterpoints.

For example.

* Which is worse in terms of environmental costs: ordering 100 T-shirts or minting an NFT [0]?

* There will always be fads, regardless of NFTs. Beanie Babies were the fad in the 2000s that bootstrapped PayPal and EBay [1]

* There is at least an argument, whether it's true or not, that cryptocurrency can/will bootstrap solar adoption [2]

* Explorations of what it means to have "unique" art, especially as it pertains to the current ability to mass produce and copy maybe with real attempts at a critique against academic artists who believe in intrinsic value of fine art vs. digital art.

Though I'm not sure if there's any concrete statistics, it's at least a well accepted hypothesis that fine art is used as a tax evasion and/or money laundering device. If anyone has references on this point, I would appreciate it.

Again, maybe NFTs are an indication of societal decline, but I'd like to have a good faith discussion about it instead of incredulous dismissals.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20211112062740/https://twitter.c...

[1] https://morfene.com/021.pdf (pg 43-44)

[2] https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlT...

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#68

Post by SMAAART » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:50 PM UTC

"Worrisome"?

New tech will always bring out fear and anxiety, and fear and anxiety secures eyeballs and votes. Blockchain is here to stay, and Art will always leverage new tech.

Simialar arguments were made at the dawn of the internet, and at the dawn of photography as far as Art is concerned.

NFTs are Art, that's for sure. The concept of ownership that is challenged might as well be part of the Art itself.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#69

Post by dvt » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:50 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #56

daenz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If nobody can take it from you, you "own" it, and everything else follows from that. "It" being: your crypto identity bound to some metadata.

No the artist owns it. They have the copyright. So the funny part is that if you buy an NFT not only can I legally copy it but I can approach the artist, buy the copyright and then sue you for copyright infringement.

While this is (in most cases) true, you still own, say, a poster you bought of some artwork. The NFT is a sort of "poster" you own. You still own it, so I don't understand your criticism.

Re: The Worrisome Rise of NFTs

#70

Post by rr808 » Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 10:50 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #21

The worst thing is the constant and malicious lie being perpetuated. You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. The ownership is not recognised in any country, by any court or international body. All you have is an entry in a logical database that says you own it. But unless you have signed a contract with the seller transferring or licensing copyright then it as meaningless as you buying a certificate saying…

Even worse is that a bunch of NFTs are sold by people that didn't even own the art in the first place. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-a...