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

Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 270 posts

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#261

Post by vwcx »

ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

The flip side to this jealousy, like many things in life, is the unsexy realities: even an investment in an index fund this past year would’ve outperformed the average year’s ROI several times over. The upside is right there, available just by following the same common sense, safe investing advice being preached for decades.

Definitely not as fun as making millions on meme’d speculation.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#262

Post by t0mbstone »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #72
delecti wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NFT is essentially a trading card for the thing that it's attached to. Just like you don't "own" Babe Ruth in any meaningful sense by owning a Babe Ruth trading card, you don't "own" the artwork associated with an NFT by owning the NFT itself. The exception is if there's some arrangement external to the NFT that links ownership of the NFT to ownership of the thing.

Could I sell an NFT for my birth certificate to raise some cash, while my original birth certificate remains at the state's Vital Records Department under ownership of the state? If so, what exactly would the buyer be buying? Just a virtual trading card and a promise that I won't sell my "birth-certificate NFT" trading card to anyone else?

BRB selling myself into slavery via NFT

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#263

Post by randyrand »

benlivengood wrote: post #76
ALittleLight wrote: post #17

I would describe myself, usually, as not a jealous man. I don't recollect the last time I've felt jealousy. But, something about NFTs provokes anger within me. Maybe that anger is jealously. It feels like NFTs are a mockery of the "market" for lack of a better word. When I think of what I would need to sell (items or time doing labor) to get these amounts and how incredibly useless NFTs actually are... It's frustrati…

It's righteous anger at a waste of resources and critical lack of understanding. NFTs aren't commodities or assets, they're just conspicuous consumption. Dramatically showing off how much money a person can waste on an illusion is cringe-worthy. It makes me annoyed in the same way pay-to-play games annoy me.

the wealth is just transferred. not used.

You should be concerned about where society consumes resources. labor. concrete. gold. machine time. These things, in a given year, have limited supply.

You should not be very concerned about society consuming dollars - which is impossible to do (apart from burning it or fed decisions). Dollars are often a useful proxy for resources, but are not intrinsically linked. In the case of NFTs, the stock market, etc, they don’t consume as many resources as the large dollar figures would imply.

Yes there is some electricity use, I know. etc.

Point being, a wealth transfer does not consume resources. Carry on.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#264

Post by bigdollopenergy »

prestigious wrote: post #221
bigdollopenergy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently heard someone say "I'm not stupid enough to make money in this market", and I think it rings very true. With the short squeeze speculation on stocks, the crypto run+crash and NFT's. The market is a very confusing place nowadays. You'd have to be bonkers to invest in these things on paper, but yet, lot's of people are making bank from it every day (and vice versa). NFT is probably the most confusing of the…

What do you think of something like Veefriends where there is a real world value attached to it (tickets to a conference)?

I'm not referring the technology itself. That's actually quite useful with real-world applications that may be worth investing in. The ticketing use case and also Gamestop's rumored use of NFT for reselling digital game licenses are actually awesome ideas. I'd invest in companies using this technology provided they had a valid business case for it and aren't just chasing the hype.

The craziness i'm pointing out is the apparent sale/purchase of NFT tokens for lackluster pieces of digital art at insane amounts. You aren't really investing in the technology in this case, you're investing in that piece of art. It confers no proven legal privileges, meaningful ownership or protection from being copied. It just gives you the ability to prove to someone that at a specific point in time you made a token for that bitstring or bought it from someone who did. Would these pieces fetch the similar prices on the art market right now where you can actually buy real proven legal rights/ownership of the piece? I highly doubt it.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#265

Post by daniellarusso »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #237
daniellarusso wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I have been working on a very stupid idea for some time now, that actually started as a social fart sharing app, record your farts, etc. Then, I needed a way to make sure people were actually sharing farts, and not other noises (like burps or dog barks). So, ML to the rescue. Train on a corpus of real fart audio and other sounds. But then, I needed to make sure the farts were not copies or derivative works. So, a…

You a Letterkenny fan? https://youtu.be/fgsltPQQGxY

There are some aspects of their implementation I had not considered, but being desktop only, it is a different product, in my opinion.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#266

Post by daniellarusso »

Sylamore wrote: post #238
daniellarusso wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I have been working on a very stupid idea for some time now, that actually started as a social fart sharing app, record your farts, etc. Then, I needed a way to make sure people were actually sharing farts, and not other noises (like burps or dog barks). So, ML to the rescue. Train on a corpus of real fart audio and other sounds. But then, I needed to make sure the farts were not copies or derivative works. So, a…

Allow me to introduce you to season 1 episode 3 of Letterkenny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1IAUWIWjo8

Product adjacent. Nice effort from the degen devs, though.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#267

Post by axiosgunnar »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #259
axiosgunnar wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically it‘s just one huge meme. Like an autograph has no „intrinsic“ value, people still want them and they can be traded for money as well.

An autograph = a personal "senpai noticed me" item, which to fans does have some value.

Did we just come up with a trillion dollar idea - Personalized NFTs? :)

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#268

Post by joshfraser »

magma1983 wrote: post #257
joshfraser wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the founders of Origin, the project that hosted this auction. Here's my take on it: It's a social contract between the creator and the collector. Today when you buy a home you have someone go down to the local courthouse and check that there are no leans against the property and no one else is claiming ownership. In the future, you can imagine a world where that title would live on the blockchain and every…

AFAIK, nothing stops the family from selling another NFT of the same video.

That's why I said it's a social contract.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#269

Post by ddalex »

rajin444 wrote: post #79
ddalex wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I have to trust an oracle or similar why even bother with a blockchain in the first place? Well how else do you generate hype with an aura of breaking edge tech to impress the clueless and give credibility to your scam?

I imagine a lot of artists have benefited from this over the centuries.

Very, very interesting point.

Art has a couple of sticky points that allows it to be used as storage of value:

* It is impossible to copy and produce second original

* It is recognizable by trained and common people alike, it is useful a symbol of status

* New art inherits some of artist's prestige; say a newly discovered Picasso painting will be recognized as valuable just because it's a Picasso

* It is very difficult to produce enmasse - a computer-generated drawing in the style of Picasso will not be valued as an original Picasso

* Wealthy people agree it's a storage of value - when somebody needs liquidity they can be assured that somebody will buy their unique piece.

Do NFTs touch all of these points? 1, yes. 2. they're trying to build the fame of NFTs now. 3. they're trying to build it now, very unlikely it will succeed. 4. Are some NFTs esthetically pleasing ? I would guess this is why it's needed to be tied to an artwork. 5. Unlikely.

Re: Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

#270

Post by AMerePotato »

librish wrote: post #140
AMerePotato wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some very interesting technical challenges that NFTs are being used for. Stuff like baskets of assets, appraising and taking out loans on assets, and certain distributed games like aavegotchi. At the end of the day, representing non-fungible assets is something useful. It's just that most people's exposure to it is seeing someone riding the hype to sell something that would probably have sold for a lot of m…

Why do you need the blockchain for any of the stuff you mentioned?

It's the fact that decentralization is now an option for those things when centralization used to be the only option
Post reply on HN