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

Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#131

Post by lottin »

mattdesl wrote: post #129
lottin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for taking the time. My question was about the supposed connection between the NFT and the object of art. You're arguing about what constitutes art, but that wasn't the question. In fact, the object doesn't have to be artistic at all, it can be anything. At any rate, I'm not disputing that the object is "art". I'm questioning that there's a connection between the NFT and the object.

The connection at a technical level depends on the art project and token. For example ArtBlocks tokens are tied to a unique pseudorandom hash that is generated at the time of purchase, and that hash is used as input to the JavaScript software that is embedded within the smart contract in order to produce a matching visual. Autoglyphs does something like that directly in a smart contract without JS. Many 1/1 NFTs act…

So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misrepresenting what NFTs are. Selling NFTs under the pretence that they're more than just directions is dishonest at the very least, if not downright fraud.

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#132

Post by mattdesl »

lottin wrote: post #131
mattdesl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The connection at a technical level depends on the art project and token. For example ArtBlocks tokens are tied to a unique pseudorandom hash that is generated at the time of purchase, and that hash is used as input to the JavaScript software that is embedded within the smart contract in order to produce a matching visual. Autoglyphs does something like that directly in a smart contract without JS. Many 1/1 NFTs act…

So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misr…

A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs."

Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the token (i.e. record in a distributed ledger). In the case of CryptoPunks, there is not even any "hyperlink" in the NFT – it is just an integer from 0 to 9999, stored within the state of the CryptoPunks contract.[1]

Do they hold ownership over the media file, or pixel artwork? No. Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.

[1] - https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865d...

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#133

Post by lottin »

mattdesl wrote: post #132
lottin wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the alleged connection is a hyperlink (or something to the same effect). And in the case of a physical object, it could be GPS coordinates. Right... therefore the only tie between the NFT and the object it's allegedly tied to is that the NFT contains directions to find the object... but these directions can also be found elsewhere for free. I think it's clear that the only way NFTs can be sold for money is by misr…

A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs." Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the tok…

> Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes.

The social consensus says what? Obviously the NFT promoters want the public to believe that the NFT is part of an art collection, and this is why they use this ambiguous language that is intended to create the false impression that the NFT and the piece of art are the same thing or at least are closely connected with one another, and indeed the uneducated public will tend to believe that, but this a belief that is founded upon a lie. Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#134

Post by mattdesl »

lottin wrote: post #133
mattdesl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A token could be boiled down to a secured record in a distributed ledger ("X wallet owns Y token"). Most artists & collectors in the space understand this; but the mainstream media often mischaracterizes it as "buying JPGs." Nobody who purchases a CryptoPunk today would expect to receive a JPG or media file of a pixelated avatar in return for their purchase. Rather, they would expect to receive ownership over the tok…

> Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes. The social consensus says what? Obviously the NFT promoters want the public to believe that the NFT is part of an art collection, and this is why they use this ambiguous language that is intended to create the false impression that the NFT and…

I'm not sure how my language is ambiguous. It's very clear to those participating that buying an NFT does not give you ownership over the intellectual property of the artwork, or even ownership over the image itself, hence the many "Right click Save As" memes[1].

> Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent.

This is pretty presumptuous, and also wrong. One such counter-example is ZKM, which began acquiring NFTs in 2018.[2]

[1] - https://superrare.com/artwork/right-click-and-save-as-guy-11...

[2] - https://zkm.de/en/exhibition/2021/04/cryptoart

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#135

Post by lottin »

mattdesl wrote: post #134
lottin wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do they hold ownership over a digital token that (according to the project's creator, and according to social consensus) represents part of the CryptoPunks art project? Yes. The social consensus says what? Obviously the NFT promoters want the public to believe that the NFT is part of an art collection, and this is why they use this ambiguous language that is intended to create the false impression that the NFT and…

I'm not sure how my language is ambiguous. It's very clear to those participating that buying an NFT does not give you ownership over the intellectual property of the artwork, or even ownership over the image itself, hence the many "Right click Save As" memes[1]. > Anyone who actually knows what an NFT is is very unlikely to agree that these NFTs are part of an art project or have an artistic intent. This is pretty p…

It's an ambiguous language, for example, when you say that the NFT "represents part of the CryptoPunks art project". Is it true? Well, maybe. A bread crumb can represent the starship Enterprise, but it would be absurd to describe it in this way. Or when ZKM describes NFTs as "digitally certified images" and also as "digital works" that are "transformed into unique pieces" (from your own link). In this is case, not so much ambiguous, but directly deceiving.

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#136

Post by Traster »

garbagetime wrote: post #18
Traster wrote: post #15

Well, congratulations to those NFT scammers, it finally paid off. They got their Whale. The entire game of pumping up NFTs to try and pass them off as a useful tool that'll see widespread adoption has finally paid out. This is a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, but this creates a fantastic permission structure for unsophisticated investors to throw away their life savings on a set of worthless e-certificate…

Would you mind explaining your comment a bit more? NFT "scammers" have made a lot of money recently, and this purchase doesn't at first glance seem such a great moment.

NFTs are worhtless. They don't solve a problem, in fact they create a problem. They're like any other form of verified ownership except that you can't do all the things you want to do, like allowing established 3rd parties to protect the integrity of the market. So how do you make money from NFTs? You trick other people into thinking there's value in NFTs. That is literally the only use- trick someone into paying you for something that's worthless. Now they have a new string to their bow - if Visa say NFTs are legitimate, then they must be valuable right! Better hand my savings over to that scammer for that amazing mediocre peice of digital art. Never mind the fact that $150k is nothing to Visa.

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#137

Post by Jxl180 »

analognoise wrote: post #103
Jxl180 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a physical painting doesn’t give you any licenses to the artwork itself either. Just because you buy a modern painting at auction for $30 million doesn’t give you rights to start printing T-shirts of the art.

Yes it does. You own the art. (?) For that price, you're getting all the rights to it in perpetuity.

That is incorrect. You own the physical piece of art, not the copyright to the art. if I own an original sketch by Charles Shultz of Charlie Brown, that doesn’t give me any rights to the character of Charlie Brown. If an author gives me a handwritten, first draft manuscript of a new novel, I may be able to sell that physical manuscript but it doesn’t give me any rights to the work itself.

Re: Visa Buys CryptoPunk #7610

#138

Post by TimJRobinson »

mgh2 wrote: post #104
carlosdp wrote: post #102

It's wild to me the top comments on HN are still "crypto has no actual use case," despite the literal billions of actual dollars ($) being transacted every day through projects like Uniswap, Axie Inifinity (a video game), and the plethora of DeFi apps and NFT projects out there. Despite the massive UX problems that still exist. It's willful ignorance at this point. Like, I get it, I was a crypto skeptic for a good wh…

Please enlighten us: provide resources I am sure the HN community will be open to actual proof - not marketing material please Note: The fact that this comment was downvoted says something

Best resources I found for understanding Decentralized Finance (Which I think is the most interesting thing in decentralization right now, from a tech perspective)

Finematics on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/c/finematics

Bankless Podcast - http://podcast.banklesshq.com/

Modern Finance (by Kevin Rose, also covers NFT's a lot) - https://modern.finance/

Post reply on HN