Reading this, nodded along mostly in agreement until the author attempted to compare the crypto community to "Scientology and their beliefs about alien thetans and e-meters"... come on, that's a dubious stretch in logic and with that one mean comment makes his points, as a whole, much less credible.
The Tinkerbell Griftopia
141–150 of 251 posts
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source funding hits art. Anyone can view it and get the benefit of doing so, the artist got paid to create, somebody gets bragging rights. Everybody wins.
Everybody wins except for the part where a bunch of people wasted a bunch of energy competing to be the one whose computer confirmed the financial transaction in an absurdly inefficient distributed database. Patreon's been solving the problem of "open source funding" for about a decade without that part.
> wasted a bunch of energy competing
A problem of PoW based consensus, and will not be relevant to PoS/X based consensus.
> absurdly inefficient distributed database.
A decentralized distributed database with read/append commands available to any participant.
> Patreon
A centralized company.
You're not wrong, but you aren't making any points that people who are interested in crypto don't already know, or care about.
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kinda the point. The "collector" can feel like they own it -- using an idiosyncratic new definition of ownership that you don't really have to agree with but other collectors/speculators/crypto peoplke also feel is real. The artist gets paid (kinda rare for art, much less digital art), everyone else can enjoy their artistic output. System working as designed.
I’m curious if anyone actually feels like it’s real, or if it’s 99% speculation. I tend to think it’s the latter.
Some people really feel it, I know a few long-term collectors. Some people are into the VR galleries they assemble, others buy non-standard sized displays fit for specific NFTs to display in their homes. It's definitely an odd little community of rich people collecting digital art. And more broadly people feel attachment to their Twitter PFPs and feel like they can't truly use it unless they own it. It's a new social convention that's very unevenly distributed.
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I saved a bunch of that art and can view it any time.
Open source funding hits art. Anyone can view it and get the benefit of doing so, the artist got paid to create, somebody gets bragging rights. Everybody wins.
this is another instance of the phenomenon in tech and startup culture where someone claims to solve an already solved problem with a needlessly overly complicated technical "solution"
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#145I work in the crypto industry right now - my job is to keep bad guys from stealing XXX millions of dollars. I've also worked on a team that has done the tech side of several record breaking NFT's sales. And I've sold my own NFTS for fun, and strangers have bought them (wat!). I'm not a "believer". Crypto is indeed full of idiots - and scammers - and crazy people who will say anything to see the token they hold go up…
Well, you had me until you brought up Fidenza. It’s something somebody with less than a CompSci or SWE bachelors could do. It looks like something a nerd who can program that just took an entry level mechanical engineering fluid dynamics course & thought it was cool made. In other words, practically worthless, and hardly art. You would put them on your wall? Poor wall.
Recent Damien Hurst piece was a coke machine in the corner of a gallery that dispensed cans of coke with his signature on. Obviously a lot of easy criticisms there but still considered a collectible by some.
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kinda the point. The "collector" can feel like they own it -- using an idiosyncratic new definition of ownership that you don't really have to agree with but other collectors/speculators/crypto peoplke also feel is real. The artist gets paid (kinda rare for art, much less digital art), everyone else can enjoy their artistic output. System working as designed.
I’m curious if anyone actually feels like it’s real, or if it’s 99% speculation. I tend to think it’s the latter.
Speculation and money laundering. NFTs are perfect for the latter.
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#147Reading this, nodded along mostly in agreement until the author attempted to compare the crypto community to "Scientology and their beliefs about alien thetans and e-meters"... come on, that's a dubious stretch in logic and with that one mean comment makes his points, as a whole, much less credible.
Have you read some of the stuff written by Bitcoin believers like MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor?
It is genuinely Scientology-level in its open defiance of physics wrapped into scientific-sounding jargon. Bitcoin is a form of energy storage, it's a new form of energy, etc.
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#148I work in the crypto industry right now - my job is to keep bad guys from stealing XXX millions of dollars. I've also worked on a team that has done the tech side of several record breaking NFT's sales. And I've sold my own NFTS for fun, and strangers have bought them (wat!). I'm not a "believer". Crypto is indeed full of idiots - and scammers - and crazy people who will say anything to see the token they hold go up…
> And amidst the flurry of insanity in NFT world, there is some genuinely good art being created. ... The whole game around who gets to pay a stupid amount of money to say they own it of them doesn't diminish the fact that art has been created, and the art can be enjoyed anyone. It is good art, and thanks for the link, I hadn't heard of them before. But I don't see what the NFT aspect adds. They've been creating art…
> What's the practical difference in outcome for the artist between selling an NFT and selling a print?
With NFTs, the artist gets the money before they're dead!
Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#149Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source funding hits art. Anyone can view it and get the benefit of doing so, the artist got paid to create, somebody gets bragging rights. Everybody wins.
We already had pateron, github sponsors, etc. for that with significantly less complication and barely any scams.
Do any of those allow you to resell purely digital art?