Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

€2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 398 posts

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#101

Post by Nextgrid »

knorker wrote: post #28
xmprt wrote: post #17

2 things confuse me about this. 1. This was a normal auction and not an NFT one. How is a DAO enforced in this case? What happens if the nominated bidder decides to go rogue and bid more or less than the decided cap? What happens if the price of Ethereum drops to the point that the DAO is no longer able to find the 2.6M they need? 2. If this is an auction then there has to be another bidder (I doubt even the people i…

According to the buzzfeed article it was bought by one guy, and then the DAO community appears to reimburse him. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dune...

As expected, the problem of interacting with the real world comes up again.

It doesn't matter how decentralized your blockchain or "DAO" is, ultimately all interactions outside the blockchain will rely on one or more trusted parties that can go rogue or be coerced... at which point you may as well not have a blockchain and just trust these people directly.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#104

Post by cinntaile »

Nextgrid wrote: post #101
knorker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the buzzfeed article it was bought by one guy, and then the DAO community appears to reimburse him. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amansethi/spicedao-dune...

As expected, the problem of interacting with the real world comes up again. It doesn't matter how decentralized your blockchain or "DAO" is, ultimately all interactions outside the blockchain will rely on one or more trusted parties that can go rogue or be coerced... at which point you may as well not have a blockchain and just trust these people directly.

Sending some ethereum to a central address sure is easier though, especially when you're collaborating across borders.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#105

Post by chimen »

I had commented before the other week so I'm gonna quote myself from now whenever I see NFT:

> I see a whole new wave of fouls about to lose their money to ponzi schemes and over-hyped "investments", much like it happened with the bitcoin/crypto train.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#106

Post by nkrisc »

libertine wrote: post #87
knorker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that's interesting. They can't, of course, sell the images themselves; they don't hold the copyright. But they can sell URLs referring to the content. That's pretty clever. I mean it's super dumb, but it's clever. By that I mean that an NFT whose content is an URL to an image you don't own, is dumb. But it's clever to "mint" these, and you'll find more fools to buy the NFTs if you give the appearance of legitimac…

I don't know the legal intricacies of this, like to what extent can they sell not the content but the actual physical square piece of the book, under an NFT? For example, a company called MSCHF sold 999 fake Warhol drawings and 1 real[0], all mixed up so no one knows which one is the real one, for 250$ each... can they do this? Is this legal? At least people were aware of it, so I doubt it's fraud. Here's the math of…

Sounds like it was just a raffle. $250 for a 1 in 1,000 chance to win a prize worth ~$8,125. Happens all the time in school fundraisers and other community events. Of course they didn’t need to use a blockchain or cryptocurrency to hold a simple raffle, but here we are.

Also in a raffle they usually just tell you when you’ve won.

Better odds and potential return dollar for dollar than the lottery, though.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#107

Post by nikanj »

cdirkx wrote: post #52
mxxx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck me, they’re talking about using JPEG as an archival format before destroying the original. What is going on here.

> Because the book remains on-chain, the book does not die, but crosses the boundary of physical to digital. It reminds me of the video game SOMA, where people upload a brain-scan of themselves to live on after some catastrophe, essentially making a digital copy of their consciousness. But because they are also still physically alive, they see the digital version of themselves as a clone, someone else. To "complete t…

Are you familiar with the Heaven’s Gate suicide cult?

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#109

Post by whywhywhywhy »

DemocracyFTW wrote: post #100

Also worth to understand and remember, from the linked thread: "digitisation does not = preservation. All they’ve done is replace a long term, resource-light asset with a short term and resource-heavy one that doesn’t work in the way the creator intended."

Can someone explain what he meant by that please.

Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP

#110

Post by SahAssar »

pjc50 wrote: post #64
Genmutant wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens if you upload copyright protected data in cleartext on a blockchain without having the distribution rights?

You can't really put content on the blockchain, that costs a surprising amount because of all the proof-of-waste. What happens is people put the content on a host and the URL on the blockchain. I suppose in theory it could be kept in IPFS, but few NFTs seem to bother with that.

Read the linked parent forum post. They are talking exactly about putting the actual images on the blockchain.
Post reply on HN