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

381–390 of 398 posts

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

#381

Post by csmpltn »

vmception wrote: post #361
csmpltn wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Children have the same use adults do. The subset of adults that use crypto natively, maybe "crypto onchain native" sounds like vague jargon to you but nothing I said were promises of a revolutionary change, this is what is happening right now. You are the one that doesn't understand and this is not the thread for you to learn that, what example would you like to see if it was? The only education offered is that child…

How old do you think I am? And how out-of-touch with the technology and the industry do you think I must be? Let me assure you, your presuppositions and biases don't make your points come across any better.

> "Children have the same use adults do."

This can't possibly be true, because kids and adults have different needs and are in different stages in life. I can't take the rest of your comment seriously when it's based on this claim.

I'm still waiting for concrete examples for uses children have for cryptocurrencies, and for some proof that this is somehow different than any other fad we've had before. I'm not denying kids will find random "currencies" (reference my previous response) to play with, but I'm absolutely discarding the idea that cryptocurrencies offer anything of meaning to children.

There's another comment under this very thread claiming that there's "code written by a 13 year old managing billions of capital in crypto". This too reads like typical FOMO propaganda. That somebody can "manage billions of capital in crypto" is an absolute meaningless claim, and it's easy to see how people that lack the knowledge and the context about the technology can be FOMO'd into spending money on this based on such grandiose vague statements.

The reality is that anybody can start their own "blockchain" and "manage trillions of capital in crypto" if they want to (why stop at billions when you can be so much richer?). Posting these claims doesn't resolve core questions such as "what do they use the cryptocurrency for", "how do they benefit from doing this", "what is the path into 'cashing-out' and extracting value from the cryptocurrency back into the traditional financial system", "how do they get other people to participate in their ecosystem", "how do they ensure their blockchain survives years into the future", "how do they protect themselves against common pitfalls that can undermine the cryptocurrency", "how do they protect themselves against fraud" etc. Ironically, those questions don't just apply to children by the way - they apply to pretty much every other use-case of crypto being touted today.

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

#382

Post by jaclaz »

TheDong wrote: post #352
jaclaz wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I see, but it is actually risky business, what if the "crazy" guy stops raising offers (for whatever reasons, let's say because he is struck by a lightning) and you win the auction with a bid of - say - 2,400,000 dollars?

I don't know how exactly offerers are "checked" or "validated" by Christie's in these kind of auctions, but there should be some process of some kind - particularly for telephone bidders - of checking identity and financial capabilities.

Or anyone can offer crazy amounts of money and then retire the offer without consequences?

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

#383

Post by rebelpixel »

mxxx wrote: post #34
stnikolauswagne wrote: post #22

I made the mistake of diving a bit deeper into the group who bought it and found a proposal where they are talking about literally burning the book they just bought after digitizing it for … reasons I guess [0] At this point I just hope its some sort of practical joke or whatever because this just seems a bit much. [0] https://forum.spicedao.xyz/t/nft-of-the-book-w-proof-of-jpeg...

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

If they only they took a step back, they'd realize yes they can scan it, but nothing beats preserving the original book itself physically. These guys need to go out, breathe air, and talk to people outside of their bubble.

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

#384

Post by lern_too_spel »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #159
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.

I believe JPEG2000 is commonly used as an archival format. Compression artifacts are irrelevant if your scan resolution is significantly higher than the print resolution.

JPEG2000 supports lossless encoding. Even if you scan at higher than print resolution, if you compress too much with lossy compression, the original print resolution date won't be recoverable.

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

#385

Post by h0nd »

jl6 wrote: post #158

For most of human history, people have lived in small, local information bubbles which were hard to penetrate with facts from the outside world. We see this manifest as the pre-industrial global patchwork of weird and wonderful religious/spiritual/cultural variety. Then somehow the world started to join up and information began to seep into local cultures and sweep away a lot of these pre-rational beliefs. And for a…

Wow, what a great comment. You just explained how the whole 'mass formation psychosis' was/is possible.

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

#386

Post by stephen_g »

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…

You’d need a separate legal contract that was valid in whatever jurisdiction saying the owner of an NFT owned the copyright. At which point the NFT is basically superfluous, because the contract is doing all the work and at that point you may as well just have the contract itself.

An NFT is more like an autographed photocopy of something. Except apparently a lot of NFTs on popular platforms are created from stolen digital art, so you get the fun of not even being completely sure if the autograph is actually by the creator of the art (but it’s verifiable that is is by the creator of the token).

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

#387

Post by msh »

beckman466 wrote: post #288
mschuster91 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whether it's about wealth, ideologies or any other aspect of lifestyle: Suddenly it's right there, dangled in front of them. And for what it's worth, what is considered "luxury" has become more and more accessible/affordable or is not a status symbol any more: 7-series BMW models can be leased for ~800€ a month, luxury watches have fallen out of fashion, expensive clothing items can be rented or you just go for the…

> 7-series BMW models can be leased for ~800€ a month €800 a month? i have an income of €1100 per month. so after rent and bills (€500), i have €600 per month for all my other costs. no BMW for me. although (like you(?)) i do live in a European country (Holland) where there is excellent, although expensive, rail/bus travel and biking infrastructure.

Is that a full time job?

I thought holland was better paid than that. Short term unemployment benefits in Denmark would pay out approx 1808 eur a month after taxes.

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

#388

Post by SuoDuanDao »

the__alchemist wrote: post #286
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me think of Wilbur's writings on the pre-trans fallacy, the idea that 'post truth' and 'pre-truth' are identical. A lot of the 'facts based' approach did require trusted authorities, and there wasn't much thought paid as to who was a trusted authority. Now that some serious abuses of authority have happened we're suddenly aware of just how screwed we can be if we trust the wrong authorities, but the answer…

Sounds very Baysian.

It is. The book is basically a primer on Bayesian thinking for everyday life.

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

#389

Post by vmception »

csmpltn wrote: post #381
vmception wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children have the same use adults do. The subset of adults that use crypto natively, maybe "crypto onchain native" sounds like vague jargon to you but nothing I said were promises of a revolutionary change, this is what is happening right now. You are the one that doesn't understand and this is not the thread for you to learn that, what example would you like to see if it was? The only education offered is that child…

How old do you think I am? And how out-of-touch with the technology and the industry do you think I must be? Let me assure you, your presuppositions and biases don't make your points come across any better. > "Children have the same use adults do." This can't possibly be true, because kids and adults have different needs and are in different stages in life. I can't take the rest of your comment seriously when it's ba…

You're really worried about people spending money on something. How does people earning or managing other people's money inspire someone else to have confidence to spend money on something? In what way would it be "FOMO propoganda" (which doesn't mean false, by the way) to spend anything?

This entire thread isn't about spending money, its about earning money from organizations that already have wealth in the crypto space. These things don't happen on blockchains people spent up on their own, they happen on blockchains with larger saturation of attention.

Yes, a 13 year old could manage be managing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. You won't reach your standard of proof here, information appears where there is a benefit to that information existing publicly. There is no benefit for that. The applications are fairly simple and simply isn't an oversaturated space yet. Easy.

> I can't take the rest of your comment seriously when it's based on this claim.

Since you probably shut your brain off again at my first sentence, here is just a stream of thought to your "core questions" in no particular order. They extract value by taking a percentage of volume that passes through their applications. Their applications can manage unlimited sums if people like it. They get other people to participate by being active on forums and social media. The audit system and insurance industry is the protection against fraud, or none at all. They don't launch their own blockchains, bad assumption to begin with, the applications solve problems on existing ones or just provide entertainment. Children cash out when they are 18 by opening an exchange account at that time, this was answered earlier, they can acquire property, make investments, and get access to capital before they are 18, also answered earlier. Pretend to be a US child and look it up on youtube and ask around on TikTok and discord and see where you get.

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

#390

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> 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.

Assange is the one publishing the secrets of "US intelligence agencies," so they don't like him very much. Given this conflict of interest and the knowledge that they'd never be asked to provide any actual evidence, their credibility is low.

> Mueller proceeded to indict a lot of Russians who allegedly were involved.

He indicted actual Russians, who are in Russia and not subject to US jurisdiction. The expectation was that they wouldn't show up in court and prosecutors would never have to prove their allegations.

Then some of the accused did show up, so they dropped the charges against them: https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/justice-department-drop...

But even ignoring that they never proved it in court, that still doesn't imply that Assange reports to Putin or had any knowledge Russians were involved (if indeed they were).

"Sources lacking in credibility make claim without evidence" is debunked by Hitchens's razor.

Post reply on HN