441–450 of 687 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn’t Banksy setup a whole pipeline to do just that?
He also created a painting that, upon being sold immediately shredded itself. They pulled the plug halfway through, though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXKE0nAMmg4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your NFT’s trade provenance will reveal it was never owned by Technoviking’s key. He won’t need to use copyright law, you simply can’t impersonate him so no one will value your duplicate NFT.
I might be mistaken but I don't think >99% of people who have bought an NFT have verified that the key used to generate the token does in fact belong to the artist that created the piece that's (currently) behind the link that's in the token.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hate is because the realized instantiation of the supposed value creates a bunch of collections of four thousand images of a rabbit or something stupid. The NFT community is largely a bunch of people hyping up crappy animal picture collections on twitter as the next big thing. The attraction to the medium is not through aesthetics or craft, but through FOMO.
I agree there are issues, but the same was (and still is) true in crypto - shitcoins and shitNFTs. That doesn't mean there aren't valuable use cases, or real artistic value and utility in some NFTs, and it doesn't mean there aren't real visionaries building things with authenticity and heart behind them.
On the other hand, if you voluntarily would like to value an NFT by purchasing it, that's your option as a consumer.
Don't like it, don't buy it. Seems simple enough. Contrast this to the existing structures of copyrights and intellectual property. NFTs may not enforce ownership rights in the same way as other mechanisms, but they do commodify existing voluntary relationships.
A better question might be why the premises of subjective valuation and voluntary association upset so many individuals?
Why must we all agree upon a standard of value? Different consumers have different desires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're both correct and underestimating how broken NFTs are. If you buy an NFT that gives you nothing except bragging rights that you "own" this NFT. What ownership actually means when devoid of the associated rights is anyones guess. Buying an NFT of a GIF doesn't stop anyone from using that GIF on reddit. No one is going around checking if posted GIFs have a matching NFT out there and enforcing property rights base…
Not that I support NFTs much, but conceptually, how is that different than you buying a Marilyn Monroe from Andy Warhol and him printing the exact same Marilyn Monroe and selling it to someone else ? Hopefully in 2021 everyone would agree that the two are distinct artworks, even if the physical object is exactly the same to the human eye ; that's not what matters when buying art.
There’s a lot of confusion here about why NFTs are valuable if the buyer doesn’t get to own the image copyright. This should not feel mysterious - NFTs are just like baseball cards. If you buy a Barry Bonds baseball card for $1,000, you don’t own the artistic rights to the image on the card. All you own is the card itself, which has negligible manufacturing cost. It would be trivial for any card company to produce a…
This week I learned it's not.
NFT are Non Fungible Tokens, which means tokens that can't be divided, unlike crypto currencies like Bitcoin that can be divided in Satoshis. So you exchange the totality of it, or not. Basically it's a unique number in the blockchain you change ownership by applying cryptographic signatures during a transaction. Most of the time it's an ethereum smart contract address + a token id.
But wait, where are the pics ? The gifs ? The videos ?
I mean, opensea.io does allow you to mint (the term for magically turning a media into an official NFT backed by the blockchain) up to 100MB of content.
So where is it? Not in the blockchain, obviously, it's already fat enough with tiny transaction data.
Well, it's just stored in the centralized platforms like opensea, rarible, etc.
Basically, the NFT is not even that piece of art, baseball card or whatever, it's just the number linked to the proprietary, centralized, privately own trading platform that hosts the content.
The platform disappears, or bans you, or changes policy, or is blocked, or whatever, and your NFT is back to being a bare-bone blockchain contract number and a token id.
It's even more bullshit that I though! You don't even have control on whatever you make believe to virtually own. It's madness.
But you know what, the week I spent in this weird universe was also so much fun. There is an atmosphere of creative WTF, a mix of scams, community bonding, money laundering and genuine experimentation all bathed in some frenetic craziness that reminds me of the early days of the internet.
Despite all that crap, I kinda like it.
There’s a lot of confusion here about why NFTs are valuable if the buyer doesn’t get to own the image copyright. This should not feel mysterious - NFTs are just like baseball cards. If you buy a Barry Bonds baseball card for $1,000, you don’t own the artistic rights to the image on the card. All you own is the card itself, which has negligible manufacturing cost. It would be trivial for any card company to produce a…
A Baseball Card has some underlying value and fun, kids get baseball cards. They cannot be diluted as 'reprints' would never be accepted as substitutes.
If some people want to trade those things on the margins, fine.
A 'number' i.e. digital signature is not a collectible.
Digital signatures of any creative work are meaningless, nobody will derive satisfaction out of owning them and they'll probably just lose value over time.
It's an obvious money grab populist grift that really doesn't create net value for anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NFTs are not like baseball cards. NFTs are a JSON string on a proprietary entity that point to the image of a baseball card. The image can be viewed by everyone. The bragging rights of owning a JSON string depend heavily on whether or not the proprietary entity will become the dominant player in the I own a JSON string -world. This also has zero to do with blockchains. The proprietary entity could've used any databas…
Surely the baseball card’s value does not come from the fact that you can hold a piece of cardboard in your hand. Whether the data representation is a piece of cardboard or a JSON string replicated on 10,000 Ethereum nodes or a tulip or a Venmo balance is arbitrary; it just matters whether a lot of humans are looking at the same thing. And for the time being, a lot of humans are looking at crypto ledgers!
Yes, the value of the Baseball Card is derived from the fact that it actually exists.
The fact that someone is arguing that 'The Baseball Card' is not materially different from 'a number' is really an interesting cultural phenom.
There’s a lot of confusion here about why NFTs are valuable if the buyer doesn’t get to own the image copyright. This should not feel mysterious - NFTs are just like baseball cards. If you buy a Barry Bonds baseball card for $1,000, you don’t own the artistic rights to the image on the card. All you own is the card itself, which has negligible manufacturing cost. It would be trivial for any card company to produce a…
There are various vague touching points of NFTs and real world collectables like baseball cards, but they are not the same. Artificial scarcity is one of them, e.g. there is no reason why there couldn't be a billion baseball cards of the most expensive kind (which would make them stop being the most expensive). Somebody else could create fake ones, but they would have little value for the fact that they are not genui…
This is a hilarious contradiction. You are saying there can be a billion baseball cards of the most expensive kind that are at the same time not the most expensive kind.
There’s a lot of confusion here about why NFTs are valuable if the buyer doesn’t get to own the image copyright. This should not feel mysterious - NFTs are just like baseball cards. If you buy a Barry Bonds baseball card for $1,000, you don’t own the artistic rights to the image on the card. All you own is the card itself, which has negligible manufacturing cost. It would be trivial for any card company to produce a…
The big difference with NFTs, of course, is that the true nature of the transaction is not being disguised. That makes it legal and even ethical, but whether that is enough for you to be a buyer is up to you.