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

NFT Canon

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: NFT Canon

#41

Post by aboodman »

Judgmentality wrote: post #30
clpm4j wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that John can take a picture/jpg of the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and sell his picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. Jane can also take a picture/jpg of the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and sell her picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. I think the difference shows up when Jack Dorsey mints a screenshot of his first tweet and sells it, it's worth $2m because it's sold by Jack. Whereas I could scr…

This is also my understanding, and my point was (in this example) Jack Dorsey can just do it a second time, and a third time, and so on. And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity.

Both of these statements are true:

- An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work

- Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash.

However:

> And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique.

Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself has an address and its own history. They are distinguishable. They are orderable.

> This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity.

The record has a guaranteed longevity - the longevity of the underlying blockchain. The object it points to obviously does not.

However that's not really important. Building records in the city clerk office have a guaranteed longevity that is far greater than the buildings themselves.

So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable.

If Jack attached IP rights to those NFTs, courts would presumably only consider the first valid.

I personally find NFTs that lack actual legal property rights to be silly and valueless, but I wanted to address confusion about how they actually work.

Re: NFT Canon

#43

Post by miracle2k »

dvt wrote: post #33

NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-dump token, but rather with DR…

Whatever you think about NFTs, there are plenty of earnest people in the space; they have been trading, building and podcasting for years without any mainstream attention, or in fact, without making money. And yes, people are still trading Cryptokitties.

Re: NFT Canon

#44

Post by russellbeattie »

I don't think I would have ever have predicted that having control over a line of data in a shared database running on just 8,000 computers would be so valuable.

"See this database entry? It's yours. In order to change it, you need this little JSON file and a password. Got it? Great. That will be $69 million please."

Re: NFT Canon

#45

Post by Judgmentality »

aboodman wrote: post #41
Judgmentality wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also my understanding, and my point was (in this example) Jack Dorsey can just do it a second time, and a third time, and so on. And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity.

Both of these statements are true: - An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work - Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash. However: > And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself has an address and its own history. They are distinguishable. They are orderable. > This is an identical digital copy from the same pe…

> So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable.

That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to value any of his original "work" highly.

I am open to being wrong, but it still boggles my mind anybody could think NFTs are anything other than a scam. At least bitcoin had lots of legitimate theory to be used as an alternative to currency, even if it only ended up being an investment alternative for gold. An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art.

Re: NFT Canon

#47

Post by miracle2k »

asimpletune wrote: post #39
rusk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s the thing - if it relies on a central authority to say “this is the genuine article” why do you even need a blockchain? A PGP certificate or X.509 is arguably “a cryptographic representation of something unique” EDIT even something like a domain name - which is arguably a better example as only one of such a thing can actually exist in that only one owner can derive the value from it.

Because then it’s not on the blockchain. Yes, I could sell you a txt record, saying you own this hash, which represents a jpg, but then it’s not blockchain. Honestly, I don’t know. Maybe it’s because the blockchain is immutable? Like, I could change that txt record because I’m evil or something. That makes sense to me, in terms of technology.

Someone is trying it your way: https://signed.work/

The problem is that these signatures cannot be traded anymore, since no one is tracking who owns which editions. I can sell my signature to you, and then sell it to someone else tomorrow. The artist intended to mint 100 "prints", but suddenly 1000 people claim to own one.

Re: NFT Canon

#48

Post by miracle2k »

Judgmentality wrote: post #45
aboodman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these statements are true: - An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work - Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash. However: > And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself has an address and its own history. They are distinguishable. They are orderable. > This is an identical digital copy from the same pe…

> So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credib…

> An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art.

An NFT of a tweet maybe. But actually artists do create art and sell it as NFTs.

Re: NFT Canon

#49

Post by Judgmentality »

miracle2k wrote: post #48
Judgmentality wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credib…

> An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art. An NFT of a tweet maybe. But actually artists do create art and sell it as NFTs.

Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates of that work later. Unless the author has a legal contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that work again, there's no reason to believe in its authenticity.

And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs don't strike me as trustworthy.

Re: NFT Canon

#50

Post by echelon »

miracle2k wrote: post #43
dvt wrote: post #33

NFTs just happen to be the token du jour, and it's a bit sad that a16z is peddling them. There's nothing of value here, and no one will care in 4 years. Remember Crypto Kitties[1]? Don't worry, no one else does either. The idea of "proof of ownership" makes no sense in a digital context, anyway, and the best way forward (if actually trying to solve this problem) isn't with some pump-and-dump token, but rather with DR…

Whatever you think about NFTs, there are plenty of earnest people in the space; they have been trading, building and podcasting for years without any mainstream attention, or in fact, without making money. And yes, people are still trading Cryptokitties.

People are still working on Commodore 64, but that doesn't make it a logical next step for our industry or the internet.
Post reply on HN