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

TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

clubnft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#161

Post by archagon »

Volundr wrote: post #142
capableweb wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such a token is inherently worthless Do you see data as being inherently worthless as well? Because that's all there is, data. And according to the current market, it's not worthless, just like even if some people consider Bitcoin to be inherently worthless, there is a market that says it isn't.

Here's some data: 0.416411230181442 What's that worth? Data by itself is inherently worthless. It's only worth something if it represents something we care about. This could be something fictional (e.x. a video game world), or real (a warehouse inventory), but on it's own? Worthless. You say an NFT is a cryptocurrency with a single individual token and... what? It's a piece of data, but what can I do with it or what…

Lisa, I want to buy your data.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#162

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

capableweb wrote: post #157
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why would anyone want that? Why would I want to buy and sell access to some entry in a registry that ultimately means nothing?

That's besides the point. Why anything? I'm not gonna pretend to understand high-art, because I don't, but apparently some people see value in it, so who am I to question what they value? To be honest, I don't see much value in the current Images-as-NFTs hype either, but again, who am I to judge what people spend their money on? I also thought the same about Bitcoin initially, but after a while saw value in it myself…

> That's besides the point. Why anything?

I mean, ok, if we're going to engage in some form of economic nihilism then I guess we can say anything is valuable. Q-Ray Bracelets, faith healing, and star registries included. Tulip bulbs really can be "worth" a fortune. But that's not a very useful premise for discussion. What people are arguing over is whether or not there is any non-woo value to be associated with these things.

> When it comes to NFTs as a concept though, I think they can be applied better than what people are currently doing.

I'm not convinced. I keep hearing people say this but I have yet to hear even one idea that can't be done better by other, older, non-hyped technologies.

> SaaS licenses that can be resold for example is one interesting use case.

Case in point: we can do this just fine today, but we don't because there's no reason for an SaaS provider to want to do that.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#163

Post by ViViDboarder »

originalcvk wrote: post #102
TrevorAustin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally, there’s nothing stopping you. The only thing that would make “A” the canonical NFT for “X” is social convention. I imagine that where the original creator of the artwork is involved in the minting of X that convention can be pretty strong, but I also expect lots of boundary-testing. This is the art world after all, and a particularly weird slice of it at that.

Actually, legally, there is. Copyright still exists, and still applies to NFTs.

And does copyright prevent someone from sharing a link to someone else’s work? If so, someone should tell Google.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#164

Post by gruez »

GDC7 wrote: post #154
gruez wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions "regular people" aren't paying hundreds of thousands for NFTs either. >they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001% >Consumers decided that for some pieces of art it is worth to spend some amount of dollars to go and see it once, in pers…

> I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout) What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and yo…

>What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point.

I don't go on social media so I can't really comment on that. That said, I do see a lot of people taking pictures of paintings (mostly famous ones) at museums. What gives? If they wanted the best fidelity recreation of the picture, they'd be better off going to wikimedia commons and getting something that a professional photographer took. Maybe they're after the sentimental value, in both the case of going to the museum in person, and taking the picture. It's definitely not for the remaining 0.0000000000001%, especially when you consider that you need x-rays or radiocarbon dating to tell a fake from the original.

>Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and you seem to be somehow on the same wavelenght.

What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association?

>The vast majority of people who right-click an image of the Mona Lisa do have a desire to one day go out and see the painting in person as they think it would be a cool thing to do and would pay for it.

>There is a clear difference, at least for people who have common sense.

>Given that museums have existed for hundreds of years and have generated trillions of dollars in revenues, the burden of the proof is on NFTs, not the other way around.

So your point is... that NFTs are a bad investment if you plan to start a museum and charge patrons? I don't think that's really controversial, or anywhere close to what we were discussing. Are you trying to use "can charge people to see it" as a proxy for "has value"? While I do agree that's one way to objectively value works of art, it isn't hard to see that's not the only source of value. Like I mentioned before, private collections goes totally against this.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#165

Post by TigeriusKirk »

GDC7 wrote: post #154
gruez wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is wrong. People (as in regular people) aren't willing to pay millions "regular people" aren't paying hundreds of thousands for NFTs either. >they are willing however to spend 20/50/100 dollars to go an see it in person at the museum vs. googling an image of it. All for that 0.0000000000001% >Consumers decided that for some pieces of art it is worth to spend some amount of dollars to go and see it once, in pers…

> I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout) What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and yo…

NFTs have no "burden of proof."

People who collect them can explain to you what they see in them, and you can agree that you also see it or you don't.

There's little to no point in continuing beyond that.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#166

Post by GDC7 »

gruez wrote: post #164
GDC7 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I alluded to this before, but the alternate explanation is that they're not going to the museum because it offers the best fidelity, they're doing so for other reasons (eg. social clout) What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. Regardless, it seems to me that there is a lack of common sense among the NFT crowd, and yo…

>What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. I don't go on social media so I can't really comment on that. That said, I do see a lot of people taking pictures of paintings (mostly famous ones) at museums. What gives? If they wanted the best fidelity recreation of the picture, they'd be better off going to wikimedia commons…

> What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association?

No. I said "wavelenght", not "same as".

It seems to me you are looking at the price action of some NFTs, the price action of the ETH token and the volumes on the auctions houses built on top of Ethereum, plus the social hype being generated. And using those as your starting point you are trying to walk your way backwards towards pointing at some sort of underlying value.

I honestly don't think you'd be trying to find value in NFTs if not for the price action and volumes going amber red to bring the phenomenon to your attention.

It's FOMO-lite, the same that had Stanley Druckenmiller buy the very top of the Nasdaq in 1999, back when he was running Soros' Quantum Fund.

Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no underlying value beneath the price action, there is no reason or rhyme as to why people become maniac about stuff, and feel like they MUST have it.

Tulips, beanie babies, NASDAQ in 1999, NIKKEI in 1997, Real Estate in 2007...

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#167

Post by malermeister »

gfodor wrote: post #87
malermeister wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about cultural norms is that they're only meaningful if they're accepted by the prevailing culture. Based on this thread, I would say NFTs are not. So what exactly is the point of an "alternative form of ownership" that is only considered valid by a small subculture and not society at large? Is it really ownership in any meaningful sense?

NFTs are considered ownership in nascent online societies. There is no “at large” society. Even nation state recognized ownership in terms of copyright has its limits.

> NFTs are considered ownership in nascent online societies.

iow: "small subcultures".

> There is no “at large” society.

Of course there is. Do you really think USD for example isn't accepted by society at large?

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#168

Post by gruez »

GDC7 wrote: post #166
gruez wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What % of social media posts are museum oriented? We are talking 0 percent.... it's only a matter of seeing what's the first decimal point. I don't go on social media so I can't really comment on that. That said, I do see a lot of people taking pictures of paintings (mostly famous ones) at museums. What gives? If they wanted the best fidelity recreation of the picture, they'd be better off going to wikimedia commons…

> What's your point? That because I'm "somehow on the same wavelenght" as "the NFT crowd", that I have "lack of common sense" by association? No. I said "wavelenght", not "same as". It seems to me you are looking at the price action of some NFTs, the price action of the ETH token and the volumes on the auctions houses built on top of Ethereum, plus the social hype being generated. And using those as your starting poi…

>Sometimes no matter how hard you look there is no underlying value beneath the price action, there is no reason or rhyme as to why people become maniac about stuff, and feel like they MUST have it.

...like people paying millions for an original painting rather than getting a replica made for $100k (or whatever) for their private collection? My point isn't that NFTs have underlying value (whatever that means), just that they're valuable in approximately the same way that original paintings have value over replicas. I'll quote an earlier comment here:

>But you still paid a few million more for the original painting, even though it's virtually indistinguishable from a replica. It's more helpful to think of an original painting as a bundle of two things:

>Original painting = thing that looks like a painting + bragging rights

>An NFT is just the "bragging rights" part of the original painting, and the JPG that anyone can access is the "thing that looks like a painting ".

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#169

Post by zepto »

gruez wrote: post #82
zepto wrote: post #2

> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…

>This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. Doesn't the same logic apply to paintings/prints? If you buy a painting from an artist, is there anything preventing the artist from making a copy/replica? As for as I know, selling a painting does not constitute a transfer/assignment of copyright. The only difference here seems to be that paintings are an…

> is there anything preventing the artist from making a copy/replica?

Yes, the fact that fake paintings are detectable. Prints are not which is which they are cheap.

Re: TheNFTBay: Fake, but Worth Discussing

#170

Post by zepto »

Jon12281818 wrote: post #129
zepto wrote: post #2

> The value of an NFT is in having the right to insert yourself into that story, as the owner of that work, and with the ability to transfer that right to another person (i.e. selling the work). This is a false statement. The NFT doesn’t make you the owner of ‘the work’. It makes you the owner of the NFT. > The same way purchasing a painting gives you the right to resell that painting and prove to others that you are…

Your points about the media may be the case but there's a lot of other reasons to use NFTs. Let's rephrase to 'perks'. The owner of a house now has access to the perks of owning a house: E.g Noone can enter property without permission, can't park on your driveway, can act how you want in your own home etc People without a house do not have this ability. The owner of an NFT now has access to the perks of owning that N…

> The owner of an NFT now has access to the perks of owning that NFT: Access to exlusive discord (training and information, etc), early access to new projects, job opportunities etc

> An NFT can offer a lot of different utility which are only received by proving their ownership of the cryptographic token.

The NFT isn’t offering anything. The business that offers the perks is. If the business changes or goes out of business, the perks disappear.

Not so with your ownership of a house.

Post reply on HN