111–120 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't buy the art, they bought an NFT that represents a hash of the file containing all of the art in question. This doesn't convey any property rights to the art's copyright, unless the purchase also included those separately from the NFT, which, of course, happens all of the time without the NFT silliness and doesn't require NFTs at all.
Wait... the only way this NFT stuff made any sense to me was if they were actually selling the copyrights via NFT... this was actually just a $69 million version of calling “dibs” like some kind of schoolchild? WTF!
Come on...this is just money laundering...right?
This is obviously a bad idea for all kinds of reasons, and I would never do it, but once I had the idea it's kinda hard to imagine that someone else is not already doing it. Fun to think about non the less.
Anyway, this art trading stuff seams way easier.
A small tangent, I don't get NFTs, what's stopping me from creating a new NFT with beeples image, or if there is hashing involved with beeples image and a couple of pixels changed?
There is nothing stopping you from making a new lithography series of Picasso’s sketches, but they won’t be worth nearly the same as the originals. The utility provided by the NFTs is in actually owning the “original”, not that it is not reproducible.
I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…
> I'm not sure I get this point of view. I think that Beeple is basically just a rando-tier DeviantArt/Tumblr artist, and much of his art is cringe to boot. Since someone purportedly paid the equivalent of $69 million in ETH for it, it's noteworthy that there's no there there.
Even picasso was alleged to have told a diner to pay him an absurd amount of money for his napkin sketch - because it took him a few decades to get to draw like he did.
And I think Picasso's artworks are trash.
I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…
Your observation: > I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents ...is, I think, kind of what the article author is trying to get at. Beeple is arguably semi-famous not for his art, but for getting a staggering price for these 5000 images. It's as if someone bought a preserved notebook with 5000 pages drawings for tens of millions of do…
In case anyone missed it, the artist was also double-dipping on the sale: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...
Might be worth noting that Amy Castor seems to have a pretty strong anti-crypto bias in general, though that of course doesn't necessarily mean what she has written here is counter-factual, but she does seem to have an agenda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The token just contains a URL to the hosted image. That sounds... just insane. Content under an URL can and does change. URLs themselves are not even under full control of the seller. I could get signing data itself, but signing a pointer? EDIT: but the URL contains an IPFS hash, assuming it's not the mutable kind, maybe this is not completely crazy (or at least wouldn't be, if they included just the hash, without…
Yeah, and regarding using just raw IPFS hashes there's this comment further down the thread indicating not even that is enough (I know too little of IPFS to verify but seems legit): https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372169695277760519
IPFS, as a P2P system, only contains the files individual users are hosting. There's no fundamental obligation to rehost other people's content - but there are various incentive schemes[0]. The address itself is a hash of file contents, so if someone were to reupload the exact same (bit-level identical) file to IPFS again, it would appear on the network with the same hash. The limit to long-term availability of any given file is whether anyone who has it is willing to keep it in the network.
--
[0] - For one, IIRC, there was some automated caching/mirroring of the files you pull using an IPFS client (not IPFS->HTTP gateway), to ensure popular files will get mirrored around the network for a while. Secondly, the team also started developing FileCoin, whose purpose was to create a scheme in which people could get paid for putting their spare storage on the network, which would be used to replicate files on IPFS. I don't know if they managed to get it to work.
My interest in IPFS started to diminish after I saw the team getting very involved in cryptocurrency world. I only care about IPFS for the P2P, content-addressable storage layer - and they kept talking about things related to Ethereum. So I stopped paying attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is not, in any way, calling for the artist to be canceled. Please. "I'm not saying we should do something about it, but oh my gosh, look how offensive it is".
I suppose all criticism is cancel culture if you just pretend the “cancel” part is there.
Tone and style makes the difference between criticism and the works of the Schreibtischtäter. It's a great German compound word from Schreibtisch (=desk) and Täter (=perpetrator). It's the person sitting at a desk, keeping their hands clean, writing to make others do the dirty work.
I'm not sure I get this point of view. We know that famous artists did random rude and badly-satirical drawings for fun. Their dick drawings were contained in some old notebooks and trashed. But I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents. This is pretty much the equivalent of that - daily fun which went to the internet bin rather than…
Your observation: > I bet someone would buy a preserved notebook of someone semi-famous with 5000 pages of drawings, mostly regardless of contents ...is, I think, kind of what the article author is trying to get at. Beeple is arguably semi-famous not for his art, but for getting a staggering price for these 5000 images. It's as if someone bought a preserved notebook with 5000 pages drawings for tens of millions of do…