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

Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

artnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 262 posts

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#211

Post by barnbuilder »

V__ wrote: post #201
barnbuilder wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to cryptofees.net, BTC transaction fees average 4% That site hasn't been updated in almost a year. (Check the prices and recent transactions it links to.) Here's a more accurate way to estimate bitcoin's fees. Go to mempool.space and look at the current estimated Low/Medium/High priority fees. That is based on current pending transactions and most of the time, unless you are in a hurry, "Low" is enough to…

Thanks for correcting this. Can you explain the layer-2 network? Is this a separated kind of chain?

Lightning Network is a "layer 2" on top of "layer 1" bitcoin. The short summary is that it allows two parties to conduct lots of transactions and, when one of them decides they are done, the final balance is committed to the bitcoin blockchain rather than every single one of the transactions. These channels can also be used to forward payments to others, which means that depending on your Lightning node's connections you are able to transact in this way with many thousands of parties beyond just the ones you are directly connected to.

Each channel sets their own rates so the cost of transacting this way varies but it usually comes out to a very tiny amount, much less than 0.1%.

This is a pretty good overview with more detail: https://cointelegraph.com/bitcoin-for-beginners/what-is-the-...

The network has grown a ton in the past year and apps like CashApp and Strike now support it.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#212

Post by MartinCron »

srvmshr wrote: post #136
j4yav wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All NFTs contain a public URL inside them, as the thing the sellable token points at. You can go look at other peoples NFTs all you like, at any time.. they can’t stop you. NFTs aren’t contracts for the rights, so this is as real an NFT as any other. An NFT is essentially a text file, that only one person can prove they own via the blockchain, where the file has a URL written inside. Nothing more, nothing less.

> NFTs aren’t contracts for the rights, so this is as real an NFT as any other. An NFT is essentially a text file, that only one person can prove they own via the blockchain, where the file has a URL written inside. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the most succinct explanation I have across. Thank you. Now, this amazes me more that people are willing to invest & trade on text files with some URL in a Blockchain.…

> How does one view list(s) of NFTs?

A better question is "why" anyone would want to look at lists of URLs pointing to things that someone is pretending that they own by having an entry of their ownership in some arbitrary public ledger.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#213

Post by czzr »

cj wrote: post #69
golergka wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs of jpegs are scams. NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust, yes — unlike everybody else on the blockchain) like stock, real estate or anything else are not.

Can the people downvoting this explain why this comment is not valuable?

Hard to say since it’s a short comment, but an NFT of a stock is worthless without some other mechanism to enforce ownership, at which point why do you need the NFT?

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#214

Post by malka »

tablespoon wrote: post #36
malka wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment could be talking about all art.

> This comment could be talking about all art. Here's what I predict we'll find out: * Some high-value traditional art sales are "wash trades and money laundering." * Nearly all high-value NFT sales are "wash trades and money laundering." There's an important different between some and nearly all , but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader to work out.

I agree with this message.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#215

Post by MartinCron »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #66
dannyw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.

I think he's asking what the "it" is. Usually when you sell something, there are a bunch of legal rights that go along with the sale. What exactly did this guy buy? The right to look at the tweet? The right to restrict others from looking at it? The copyright? Any advertising dollars which flow because of that tweet? What?

Nope, nope, nope, and nope.

He bought the bragging rights to say "that URL of that image of that tweet, if you look at this particular public ledger, you'll see that the ledger says that I own it!"

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#216

Post by koonsolo »

poiuiopkj wrote: post #150
tablespoon wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. I would say no. It's a technology that serves no practical purpose, since the problems it addresses are ones purely created by certain peculiar ideologies. If you're not indulging in one of those ideologies, there's no point. And, like y…

No practical purpose EXCEPT for the ability to easily take assets across borders to leave authoritarian regimes, bringing a form of storing assets to the 2 billion or so unbanked individuals of the world, and comparatively cheap remittances for people sending money back to their families in another country. These are just a few of the incredibly practical use cases that quite literally change people's lives.

X: there are no use cases

Y: here are the use cases

X&Z: let's downvote and be negative anyway.

Welcome the usual crypto discussions on HN. Why do people still bother?

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#217

Post by ineedasername »

drexlspivey wrote: post #105
ineedasername wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And is what's out there the actual tweet? I'm sure their data is distributed & duplicated across many regions. Does the NFT encompass all of them? Are any of them even original? It's possible that the first bits & bytes on a server that hosted that tweet are long gone, tossed out after twitter scaled beyond its humble beginnings. The original could be a slagged hard drive, a cooled molten lump of metal & silicon. Act…

That's why usually NFTs point to IPFS addresses which are just hashes of the content and it doesn't matter where they are hosted.

Seems like a very lossy form of compression. Not to mention that hashes usually aren't reversible. Not a great stand in for the real thing, especially when the real thing might be a widely available jpeg. There's really something I don't understand about how an NFT, apart from cryptographic foundation, is different enough from, say, a UUID in a traditional database.

Also it would be funny if there was a (very highly unlikely) hash collision between two different valuable NFTs.

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#218

Post by danielmarkbruce »

MartinCron wrote: post #215
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's asking what the "it" is. Usually when you sell something, there are a bunch of legal rights that go along with the sale. What exactly did this guy buy? The right to look at the tweet? The right to restrict others from looking at it? The copyright? Any advertising dollars which flow because of that tweet? What?

Nope, nope, nope, and nope. He bought the bragging rights to say "that URL of that image of that tweet, if you look at this particular public ledger, you'll see that the ledger says that I own it!"

It is a compelling proposition.....

If the NFT craze has shown anything, it's that too many people don't have any understanding of the law. They don't seem to know what "own a thing" means - neither the "own" part or the "thing" part...

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#219

Post by tasuki »

colpabar wrote: post #65
tablespoon wrote: post #24

From another article on the same topic https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/14/twitter-n... : > Man who paid $2.9m for NFT of Jack Dorsey’s first tweet set to lose almost $2.9m > ‘This is the Mona Lisa of the digital world’, says crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi who bought the NFT in March 2021 This is a good example of why so many people don't take cryptocurrency seriously. It full of hype men who spout tr…

This is a genuine question - should anyone take cryptocurrency seriously? To me, the only purpose of it is to make money. It's the stock market, but with less rules, and it's 24/7. People will say that crypto is important because it's decentralized and non-fiat or whatever, with the implication being that it's not controlled by a government. But we have seen time and time again that that isn't true, and if a governme…

> if a government wants to freeze your crypto assets, they can do so easily

They can, but only if they get physical hold of you and like, threaten you with a $5 wrench. This is not limited to governments, if whoever gets hold of you and threatens you, they will mostly be able to get your assets, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

> So in all seriousness, what is the point of crypto, other than a "new stock market"?

The second time you mention the stock market. From my pov, (most?) crypto is very dissimilar to stock market. Stock market includes mostly somewhat productive assets. Crypto usually isn't productive, it's just predictably scarce. Esp Bitcoin and similar are much closer to digital gold than to stocks. See eg https://www.lynalden.com/what-is-money/

Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value

#220

Post by j4yav »

MartinCron wrote: post #212
srvmshr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NFTs aren’t contracts for the rights, so this is as real an NFT as any other. An NFT is essentially a text file, that only one person can prove they own via the blockchain, where the file has a URL written inside. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the most succinct explanation I have across. Thank you. Now, this amazes me more that people are willing to invest & trade on text files with some URL in a Blockchain.…

> How does one view list(s) of NFTs? A better question is "why" anyone would want to look at lists of URLs pointing to things that someone is pretending that they own by having an entry of their ownership in some arbitrary public ledger.

I had an idea to make a physical NFT picture frame that would only show things other people own, to contrast with the ones that only show ones you own, but I decided it was too absurd.
Post reply on HN