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

NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 786 posts

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#511

Post by jameshart »

andypants wrote: post #498
tablespoon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can brag about owning such-and-such an image, but only as long as enough other people desire images from that particular set. When a set's popularity wanes, so does your token's value, and your ability to show it off. And only as long as people recognize your NFT claim to ownership as even being valid. Other people may view that brag as being as sad as someone bragging about their land holdings on the moon: htt…

There's a difference if the author of the art is the one that minted the NFT. It's like jack dorsey selling an NFT of the first tweet compared with any random person trying to do the same.

What rights do you actually have in a tweet?

Which of those rights are actually transferable?

What rights do you have in a tweet that you made in your capacity as an employee of a company?

What rights do twitter as a company have with respect to tweets? Or to impose restrictions on the ability of people to transfer rights with respect to tweets?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#512

Post by lottin »

sp332 wrote: post #486
lottin wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some rich dude has bought the "first tweet" for $2.5 million, despite the fact that it's publicly accessible [0]. I imagine it's about showing off how rich they are. They could achieve the same result by throwing $2.5 million into a furnace. https://twitter.com/jack/status/20

I don't think that's the question. That guy paid for the exclusive NFT thing, but no one else is going to make a profit selling cheap copies of that tweet.

Everybody who wants a copy already has one for free, that's what "publicly accessible" means.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#513

Post by playingchanges »

jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

It seems like your argument is more agains collectibles in general. I also can go online and look at the art for various rare Pokémon cards for example. I think you underestimate the psychological component of ‘ownership’ and the extra satisfaction that might bring a collector.

An anecdote,

I am an avid jazz record collector (vinyl). Every record I own is available to me on Spotify and I actually frequently find new records to purchase on Spotify (they have a great jazz selection).

Interestingly, or maybe not, I find that I listen to the records I own more than those I don’t even though I have access to so many more.

I also find myself having significantly more patience with the records I buy blindly than I would a random thing that comes on algorithm radio.

The point being, ownership creates psychological attachment which in turn creates some intangible form of value that I can’t quite put a number on but I definitely feel.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#514

Post by cma »

detaro wrote: post #125
kart23 wrote: post #118

Are NFTs actually decentralized? I heard they run on the ethereum network, but not too sure if thats universal. Also, what happens if someone starts uploading illegal content? Is there a method for deletion once an NFT is 'minted'?

Ethereum is the most common, but not the only blockchain people build NFTs on. As far as I understand, for space reasons they usually do not put the actual content on the chain, but a pointer to it (e.g. a hash that can be looked up on IPFS). AFAIK other blockchain things solve the illegal content problem by having lists of content they'll not show and that appears to have been enough for now. (e.g. there's been vari…

Why not batch these with a hash to a list of hashes? Is it that one extra level of indirection makes it too hard to explain to friends and newcomer investors what you own?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#515

Post by heliodor »

jerry1979 wrote: post #482

If Alice buys art from Bob, and that art goes up in value due to the open-market activity of anonymous [Carol?, ...], then Alice can donate that now expensive art to a digital museum for a tax write off. Where could Alice get the NFTs appraised? Is the open market activity sufficient? It's almost like the NFT system allows proles to do fancy tax write-offs like their bourgeoisie cousins.

Do people donate for the tax write-off or do they donate and happen to enjoy an additional tax write-off benefit?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#516

Post by gruez »

snarf21 wrote: post #489
jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. I have several hand painted reproductions of famous paintings (impressionist). I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I don't need to have $100M. I'm glad that content creators are getting paid n…

>NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties.

You can say this about literally every non-productive asset, including NFT's real-life counterparts eg. painting or trading cards.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#517

Post by yawnr »

snarf21 wrote: post #489
jamesgreenleaf wrote: post #37

NFTs make perfect sense for representing a claim on things that can be used, like event tickets or in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure. With something like CryptoKitties, you can do something with the tokens (play a virtual pet game). But with something like CryptoPunks you're essentially paying for digital beanie babies, which are worse than real ones since an…

NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. I have several hand painted reproductions of famous paintings (impressionist). I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I don't need to have $100M. I'm glad that content creators are getting paid n…

I’m skeptical about NFTs too but trying to keep an open mind, because at the end of the day, while you or I personally don’t need the 100M to enjoy the impressionist art, you can’t ignore the fact that someone out there is in fact willing to pay that for the original. And that’s kind of the same weird authenticity bragging rights situation.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#518

Post by gruez »

detaro wrote: post #353
lloeki wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the tokens even mean anyway? It doesn't mean "I'm the owner of this one in five paper canvas art", it just means "I'm the owner of this one number, which someone decided is related to that digital piece of art for which there can exist infinitely many copies that are perfectly identical". What does it even mean? Let's say I buy a NTF $1000 and get a digital copy, what prevents me (barring legalities) to per…

> Let's say I buy a NTF $1000 and get a digital copy, what prevents me (barring legalities) to perfectly duplicate it and massively redistribute it (not the token, the distributed supposedly high quality file) for a fraction of $$$ and turn a profit The file is usually publicly accessible, why would anyone give you money for something they can just download?

Why do people pay extra for signed books? A signed copy is literally identical to a non-signed copy aside from the signature ink.

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#519

Post by jjnoakes »

andypants wrote: post #500
runeks wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can brag about owning such-and-such an image [...] How? You don’t own a (digital) image. You own a token that references an image. Everyone else can view the image and send it to their friends. But you have some token allegedly signed by the author of the image — who cares?

It's like owning a celebrity's autograph. Some people do care, a lot.

Except it is different in a way. Owning a physical autograph is different from owning a picture of one; the physical autograph can't be reproduced and has value due to its uniqueness and to its physical existence.

It would instead be like owning a unique piece of paper with a unique number on it, which somehow corresponded to a picture of the autograph. Now the autograph portion is identical between you and anyone else (neither of you has a physical autograph); the only differentiator is your piece of paper. Where is the value?

Re: NFTs Are a Dangerous Trap

#520

Post by lottin »

jameshart wrote: post #505
lottin wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some rich dude has bought the "first tweet" for $2.5 million, despite the fact that it's publicly accessible [0]. I imagine it's about showing off how rich they are. They could achieve the same result by throwing $2.5 million into a furnace. https://twitter.com/jack/status/20

What rights do you get with ‘owning’ the first tweet? Who could you buy those rights from? Do you get any responsibilities along with that? Like if UNESCO declare the first tweet a culturally significant artifact, could you be held liable for allowing it to fall into disrepair? And what does the existence of an NFT allow you to do with respect to that bundle fo rights you bought that couldn’t already be done by havin…

The buyer gets to own not the tweet but a "digital certificate of the tweet" which is the actual NFT thing. So what they buy is a certificate although I'm not sure what it certifies.
Post reply on HN