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

The Tinkerbell Griftopia

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 251 posts

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#211

Post by iskander »

vkou wrote: post #209
iskander wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't have any value for lack of actual provenance (you can test this by trying to sell your own copy of Fidenza, please report back).

What part of the NFT protocol verifies provenance? And why did this not work for Davidson Carvalho, who hasn't seen a cent of the money made by someone selling NFTs of his work? If there was no provenance, why did anyone pay $170,000 for them? [1] Could it be the case that the NFT market doesn't give two figs about provenance? [1] https://twitter.com/colorblindmess/status/145059819884259328...

Social interpretation of the contract that the token is attached to.

e.g. if your Art Blocks NFT is on the Art Blocks contract, it's authentic. If it's the same image on a different contract, it's inauthentic.

Just saw your edit: now that it's known that the art is stolen from a different artist, I would expect the original NFTs to lose most if not all of their value. The convention of authenticity is a social one. If an artist misrepresents art as their own then it seems authentically theirs until shown otherwise. Same as e.g. selling prints of someone else's work.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#212

Post by [deleted] »

_dain_ wrote: post #201
Kapura wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's easy, when you see lots of people making absurd claims, to go beyond just refuting those claims, and to slip into purely dismissing everything without ever checking to see if there's something of value there. > But there is good, interesting stuff going underneath the madness frothing on twitter around crypto. Deep behind the apparent wall of film-flam artists, there's work going on in super weird math, formal…

is the dril tweet even wrong though?

[deleted]

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#213

Post by 015a »

burnished wrote: post #200
015a wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What’s stopping any of these companies from simply buying 51% of the tokens to a decentralized DAO, for example? Smaller coins, sure. Its a legitimate concern. But it becomes far harder as coins get bigger. Up to a local maxima of general global use and investment. Even harder as companies compete against one-another to do the same thing. What's stopping Chase Bank from buying up tons of coins and mining power to c…

Whats the distribution of mining power in the bitcoin network right now? Like, what % of the total are the top ten groups?

The top singular contributors to mining power are, for most coins, mining pools comprised of thousands of individuals and corporations. So, its very difficult the say; we can point to pools, but that's where the investigation stops.

The pools themselves are collectives, and as such really don't hold much logical power in swaying the network. If one pool goes rogue, miners are generally pretty savvy, and would react (this has happened in the past).

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#214

Post by vkou »

iskander wrote: post #211
vkou wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of the NFT protocol verifies provenance? And why did this not work for Davidson Carvalho, who hasn't seen a cent of the money made by someone selling NFTs of his work? If there was no provenance, why did anyone pay $170,000 for them? [1] Could it be the case that the NFT market doesn't give two figs about provenance? [1] https://twitter.com/colorblindmess/status/145059819884259328...

Social interpretation of the contract that the token is attached to. e.g. if your Art Blocks NFT is on the Art Blocks contract, it's authentic. If it's the same image on a different contract, it's inauthentic. Just saw your edit: now that it's known that the art is stolen from a different artist, I would expect the original NFTs to lose most if not all of their value. The convention of authenticity is a social one. I…

> I would expect the original NFTs to lose most if not all of their value.

Since crypto trading operates on the principle of offloading to a bigger fool, this does not seem like a sufficient disincentive. The original seller and the next N people to pass that hot potato around made money.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#215

Post by splistud »

casi18 wrote: post #17
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the signatures and the economic security of that signature taking place is valuable Except, it isn't. What is the point in having a certificate of ownership of a resource so un-scare that it is practically free? We have achieved post-scarcity of information, and people are desperately trying to cram scarcity-based economics back into it because that's all our society knows how to deal with. We should instead be wor…

People need to be paid to do the work, so they can eat and pay rent. We dont actually live in a post scarcity star trek world. So we find a way that people can be paid yet the information and content can remain free to everyone. It seems like lots of people like this. For some reason some people really really hate that other people are willing to pay to make content freely available to them. The people buying NFTs ar…

Are you saying this is the monetization of virtue signaling?

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#216

Post by iskander »

stanleydrew wrote: post #207
iskander wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's legit very hard to sift through the scamminess of the space, I've been thinking of it as the cost of revolutionary potential: exponentially more people rush in to profit off "being early". I would say start with web3 science folks like https://twitter.com/joshuaforman and https://twitter.com/eperlste who have a vision for the utility of DAOs for positive social impact that's unlinked from personal profit.

If I read something from the folks with vision for the utility of DAOs, will they explain why a DAO is meaningfully different from a traditional corporation for whatever purpose they are imagining?

To really act meaningfully in the world outside crypto, DAOs needed to be wedded to LLCs so they can participate in the legal system.

But...the DAO governance structure allows very low friction, high transparency coordination between pseudononymous strangers on the internet.

The DAO is the "real" manifestation of the collective will of a bunch of people, the corporate shell is just going to perform whatever actions the DAO votes on.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#217

Post by iskander »

kibwen wrote: post #164
paconbork wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really that's just an inherited property from physical art

Digital art has been free of this "inheritance" for years. We don't need to impose the arbitrary constraints of physical art on digital art. It's as backwards as Blockbuster trying to ban digital video so that they can sell more DVDs. It's philosophical DRM for jpegs.

It's kinda the opposite of DRM though, there's a strong culture of CC0 / public domain licensing in the NFT space. The idea is that you should be able to use and remix media freely but you can preserve a kind of monetary value through which artists get paid via a novel concept of ownership.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#218

Post by 015a »

skohan wrote: post #208
015a wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, are you rich after torrenting that? Of course not. There's the disconnect. The phantom in the system that some people aren't groking; the leap of faith. Why do (a vast minority of) the NFTs in that torrent still have value, despite the torrent existing? Why is Disney worth $275B despite all of their movies hitting The Pirate Bay immediately upon their release? I can Google Image search pictures of the Mona Lisa…

Disney creates works billions of people want to see, and they have governments around the world enforce the ownership rights. Nobody wants the piece of art associated with your NFT’s. And is there even any legally framework for the ownership of NFT’s or is it just something a weird club of people says is so?

> Disney creates works billions of people want to see.

Yup!

> and they have governments around the world enforce the ownership rights.

This is one of the strongest selling points of crypto for its supporters; that, when it makes sense, floaty, legal ownership rights can be replaced with hard cryptography. It doesn't make sense for every good, or even every digital good.

> Nobody wants the piece of art associated with your NFT’s

Speaking wholesale for seven billion human beings, I see.

> And is there even any legally framework for the ownership of NFT’s or is it just something a weird club of people says is so?

Ideally, theoretically; its not a legal framework, its a cryptographic framework. The minting address of the original artist would be publicly known, and is encoded into the chain of custody for every NFT.

This is the jump that many detractors don't make. Its not the blockchain that prescribes authenticity to the NFT; the chain VALIDATES authenticity, it doesn't prescribe it. Its not OpenSea (though they can definitely make it all more user friendly). Its the chain of custody and the address of the original minter.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#219

Post by iskander »

cwkoss wrote: post #184

There are several major issues with NFTs but I don't think this article identifies any of them: - NFTs are not durable. All of the implementations I've seen are trading "ownership" of URLs that rely on DNS and WHOIS. URL is nice for convenience feature, but they should at least include file hashes, ideally multiple perceptual hashes as well. If there is a central point of failure in a web service, the benefits of dec…

>NFTs are not durable

Some of the more prized NFTs are entirely on-chain; I agree that ones which just encode a URL of an image feel very superficial and brittle.

>Scarcity is entirely illusory across ecosystems

Every successful ETH NFT has been copied (probably multiple times) on other chains; this isn't really any different from just even copying on the same chain. In all cases it's treated as a copy.

>There is no validation of copyright upon NFT creation

I agree and I think this is a huge problem for 1/1s!

> NFTs have not succeeded in a test within the courts

Best NFTs are CC0 licensed and don't confer any legal rights (but instead encourage liberal reuse and remixing)

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#220

Post by stanleydrew »

Tossrock wrote: post #154
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I think artists getting paid does change the world for the better I don't disagree, but if it weren't for NFTs there are still other ways for them to get paid. Hell, there are still other ways to scam rich idiots for that matter. Point is, it isn't the technology of NFTs getting them paid, it's the sociology around it. My contention is that the technology itself brings us nothing of value. > I'm not sur…

"There are still other ways for them to get paid" is not the same thing as "they would in actuality be paid the same amount". I agreed in my message that it was always possible, and yet it wasn't happening. I don't care whether it's theoretically possible that artists could be paid, I care whether they are actually paid. NFTs are actually getting them paid. You seem to be missing, or avoiding, this point. I am not ma…

I think you're not wrong that some artists are actually getting paid whereas they wouldn't have were NFTs not a thing. But I think you might be wrong about the "why."

The Apple App Store got a lot of indie developers paid in the early days because Apple made payment easy and made side loading hard. There was a gold rush that is largely over now.

The question to ask is whether the NFT art market is sustainable.

My hunch is that there is a relatively small number of people with paper gains in ETH looking for something to do with it, but that the underlying demand for digital art hasn't changed much simply because there's now a new way to "prove ownership."

Post reply on HN