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

351–360 of 398 posts

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

#351

Post by nybble41 »

Hokusai wrote: post #94
WA wrote: post #10

I guess, if you think in NFTs all day and truly believe that your JSON receipt is worth anything and gives you legal ownership, stuff like this happens to you in the real world, too.

But that is what the industry is selling (even that it's obviously not legally true). "NFT stands for non-fungible token, which basically means that it’s a one-of-a-kind digital asset that belongs to you and you only." https://fortune.com/2021/12/18/nft-making-selling/ Fortune, e.g., misinterpretes it in that same way. Anyone can make copies of an NFT backed asset unless you use other legal or technical methods to li…

That definition isn't wrong. However, the "one-of-a-kind digital asset" is the NFT itself—basically a digital autograph—not a copy of the image (or book) the NFT describes, or even a license to such a copy, and certainly not the copyright, unless the copyright holder explicitly agreed to that when minting the NFT. (And you would need some out-of-band proof that the NFT was truly minted by the copyright holder.)

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

#352

Post by TheDong »

jaclaz wrote: post #243
TheDong wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The twitter thread this post is to retweets the DAO in question claiming responsibility, specifically this twitter account: https://twitter.com/TheSpiceDAO Googling finds this website: https://dune.foundation/ , and some info about the etherium they raised here https://juicebox.money/#/p/spicedao Maybe this is some sorta elaborate hoax, but it looks like it's real eth, so unless juicebox is also in on it, it seems li…

Yep, but all this is "after the fact". In real time you are either on the auction in person or at the telephone, and there is someone else on a telephone connection. How do you know who that someone else is? All you know is the auction firm personnel on that phone line raises against your bid and conversely all the someone else knows is that someone (you in this hypothetical case) is offering and counter-raising. To…

The DAO, by how its structured, had to raise the money beforehand, and it did so using etherium in a public manner.

You could go to this page the day of the auction, before it started: https://juicebox.money/#/p/spicedao

From that page, you could tell how much money they had raised in etherium, and you could guess their cap from that.

I also give it better than even odds that the person bidding on behalf of the DAO was in discord, bragging about how much money they had to bid, right up until they won.

If you were interested in this auction selling for a large amount, would you not google a bit and find the spice DAO? Would you, perhaps, join their discord server, get on the auction call, and bid it up a bit?

This seems like something that quite reasonably could happen.

That's what I was suggesting above. One bidder is the DAO guy, the other bidder is someone who knows how much the DAO will bid, since it's public, and so raises it up to near that price for some ulterior motive, whether it's because they get a profit off of a high sell, or because they want the idiots who put money into the DAO to lose it. I have no doubt there are many people in both camps who were aware of the DAO before the auction started.

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

#353

Post by TaylorAlexander »

1_player wrote: post #180
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.

"""Since each page of the book will require many miners (minters), we must decide on what type of NFT each minter gets. I propose the following NFT variations ordered from easiest to most complex: 1. Every minter is rewarded with an identical NFT of the page. 2. Every minter is rewarded with a fraction of the final NFT that contains the page. [...] 3. By leveraging progressive JPEG 7 tech, every minter gets a unique…

What’s tragic is they could just upload the damn thing to internet archive but instead they’re going to use some bizarre storage method that will help ensure the book is actually hard for people to read.

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

#354

Post by GenerocUsername »

logifail wrote: post #337
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both closed circle SM (checking on your friends and acquaintances) and public facing SM (checking the influencers) It's even worse than that because of the algorithms. They show you more of what they think you like, but the bubbles are quite narrow. For example, suppose you want to see what's going on with all the vaccine skepticism. There is a bubble centered around Joe Rogan. They're talking about how the existin…

> when it's actually caused by not exposing everyone to contrary viewpoints so that they lose the opportunity to have their mistakes corrected There appears to be a growing trend that claims it's innately harmful to experience contrary viewpoints.

Yes... and anyone who peddles that line of thinking must be afraid of counter-arguments.

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

#355

Post by GenerocUsername »

vba616 wrote: post #348
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both closed circle SM (checking on your friends and acquaintances) and public facing SM (checking the influencers) It's even worse than that because of the algorithms. They show you more of what they think you like, but the bubbles are quite narrow. For example, suppose you want to see what's going on with all the vaccine skepticism. There is a bubble centered around Joe Rogan. They're talking about how the existin…

>or that Julian Assange reports to Putin Ah...this has been debunked? The story so far as I know is that "multiple US intelligence agencies" told Congress that (in 2016) people working for the Russian government hacked the DNC and provided the emails to Wikileaks. Wikileaks didn't reveal its source, but Assange said "no, nope, it definitely wasn't the Russian government, no way". Mueller proceeded to indict a lot of…

You may be the victim of a large disinformation campaign.

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

#356

Post by topranks »

ParadisoShlee wrote: post #103

All I really want to know if they had to bet against another bunch of other crypto people to get the 3 million price... or if the 3 million was their first and only offer on a $60k book??

Based on how I understand the ContitutionDAO went down the problem is it’s clear to others what funds these things have available going into an auction (as it’s organised publicly).

In ConstitutionDAO’s case it means they were narrowly outbid. In this case the suggestion is it makes it safe for any second buyer to make high bids, knowing the DAO will counter up to a certain amount.

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

#357

Post by novok »

ethanbond wrote: post #219
sneak wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFT data is public, generally.

Then in what sense is owning a token owning anything?

As far as I understand it, NFTs usually represent the title for the copyright, etc for the piece of art or whatever other non fungible item it is supposed to represent. Honestly NFTs should be pointing to a legal document showing that it's acting that way in addition to a copy of the image asset. 2 urls. Maybe NFTs do or should have an addendum part for transactions, so you can add URL or hash updates as hosting goes down.

When you transfer an NFT from one address to another, you have transferred title to whoever owns the private keys for it.

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

#358

Post by csmpltn »

vmception wrote: post #339
csmpltn wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "children are forced to only earn crypto onchain" What use do children have for cryptocurrencies? Buying items in World of Warcraft? > "I know children that have a few hundred $ in their joint bank account but $100k in crypto onchain and just waiting till they turn 18 so they can cash out without telling their parents." This entire post reads like some weird crypto-bro FOMO propaganda. To "cash out" they'll need a…

> This entire post reads like some weird crypto-bro FOMO propaganda. Its intended to be devoid of opinion to the extent possible which is probably why you don't recognize it. Your thoughts on what they can do are incorrect. The only thing a child still cannot do is enter into a real world contract and have it be enforceable. But in environments that require zero, or less, or different kinds of non-contractually enfor…

I'm asking for specific and concrete examples that would demonstrate what use do children have for cryptocurrencies - and you respond by using the same vague promises of a revolutionary technology intermixed with keywords from investment and financial jargons, sprinkled with a bit of FOMO propaganda on-top.

Kids could buy and trade items in World of Warcraft or Club Penguin for 20 years now. They collected and traded marbles, then Magic: The Gathering, Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Music albums and candy. Kids will always find a "currency" to play with, depending on what's trendy and hip right now.

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

#359

Post by sneak »

mpeg wrote: post #246
sneak wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPFS isn't hosting, it's transport. You can't "put something on ipfs" and expect it to stay there any more than when you "put something on http".

Most IPFS gateways allow you to pin content, plus they will automatically pin popular content to keep it available.

> plus they will automatically pin popular content to keep it available

This is false. Popular content is cached temporarily. Pinning persists the data until unpinned; the ipfs daemon does not automatically pin anything.

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

#360

Post by sneak »

novok wrote: post #357
ethanbond wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then in what sense is owning a token owning anything?

As far as I understand it, NFTs usually represent the title for the copyright, etc for the piece of art or whatever other non fungible item it is supposed to represent. Honestly NFTs should be pointing to a legal document showing that it's acting that way in addition to a copy of the image asset. 2 urls. Maybe NFTs do or should have an addendum part for transactions, so you can add URL or hash updates as hosting goes…

> As far as I understand it, NFTs usually represent the title for the copyright

You don't understand it. This is false. NFTs do not represent copyrights of any kind, either in theory or in common practice.

Post reply on HN