61–70 of 257 posts
An NFT can be traced back to the creator. So you don't have the same history or satisfaction of giving back to the creator of the NFT.
I think people on here are getting too caught up in the technical. I can print out a shiny charizard pokemon card but it isn't the same thing is it?
A better way to think about NFTs is exchanging a monetary gift to the creator of something you enjoy for a collectable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can screenshot the Mona Lisa or print out a signed Mickey Mantle rookie card, but it's not the same thing is it? The verifiable timestamp and record of account associated with a wallet address (public key) that is known to be associated with the artist that produced the work is the same as establishing physical provenance for a unique item. And as for value goes, NFTs are far more liquid than physical art wo…
You wouldn't steal a car would you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, you can screenshot the Mona Lisa or print out a signed Mickey Mantle rookie card, but it's not the same thing is it? Obviously not, because those are tangible things. That’s not a valid comparison.
But you're not paying for the tangibility. Digital image replication is near perfect. You could have a tangible copy of the Mona Lisa that is physically indistinguishable from the real one. The reason people pay millions for artworks is because of the intangible provenance. If the value was the tangible, then tangible digital replications would sell for the same value as the original.
It certainly would not be. It might look very very similar, but in no way indistinguishable to the degree that one digital file is literally the same as a copy of itself.
yeah but only I have the certificate of authenticity
You have a url that purports to be a certificate of authenticity. What happens to that certificate of authenticity when the site goes down, or gets sold to someone who decides to replace all the images there with poop emojis?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I can explain. I understand why others value them, although I don't agree with the valuation (as a litmus test, I also think shelling out $30k for a genuine Rolex is very stupid). My lack of agreement also does not prevent me from participating and profiting off the people who think they do have value, although I have not done so. There are basically two theories of their value: the collectible theory and the…
> they never degrade on the blockchain I don't think this part is generally true, since the image itself isn't hosted on the blockchain. ...which brings me to: as someone who knows very little about this technology, why aren't the images themselves stored on the blockchain? Are they simply too big for that to be feasible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can screenshot the Mona Lisa or print out a signed Mickey Mantle rookie card, but it's not the same thing is it? The verifiable timestamp and record of account associated with a wallet address (public key) that is known to be associated with the artist that produced the work is the same as establishing physical provenance for a unique item. And as for value goes, NFTs are far more liquid than physical art wo…
> The verifiable timestamp and record of account associated with a wallet address (public key) that is known to be associated with the artist that produced the work is the same as establishing physical provenance for a unique item. Not really. In your Mona Lisa example, an NFT would be more like a blockchain based ticket to the Louvre that has a link to a Mona Lisa JPEG. That’s the mismatch in NFT discussions: The be…
Well that's the point isn't it?
It's valuable within the in-group that the person is part of. It increases their status within the crypto community and gives them access to exclusive networks/events.
Sure you can right-click save a crypto punk, but will that allow you into their community?
Much in the same way that I marvel at peoples ability to spend millions of dollars on Modern art (Basquiat's for example look like a 5 y/o drew them), NFT's to me serve a similar function.
Yet another way for humans to form tribes, create meaning and use conspicuous consumption to signal status.
I used to come onto HN and see crypto-coin news and I'd jump into the comments and ask something along the lines of "But isn't bitcoin and all the other things like it just a giant scam?" and someone who believed in Bitcoin to be a transformative technology would jump in and explain the real potential. I personally still think it's sort of a scam, but I'm happy for all of the people who used it to get rich....so, alo…
Think you need to look into how the art market actually functions. The reality of preserving these artifacts goes way beyond just owning the painting, I mean even over time the paintings have to be re-painted over to restore them as they age anyway. Then you have things like videoart, digital art or just conceptual art. Maurizio Cattelan's "Comedian" piece, if you own it you don't just own the banana till it rots but…
Is there at least a hash of the image stored with the metadata and link?
I used to come onto HN and see crypto-coin news and I'd jump into the comments and ask something along the lines of "But isn't bitcoin and all the other things like it just a giant scam?" and someone who believed in Bitcoin to be a transformative technology would jump in and explain the real potential. I personally still think it's sort of a scam, but I'm happy for all of the people who used it to get rich....so, alo…
I think I can explain. I understand why others value them, although I don't agree with the valuation (as a litmus test, I also think shelling out $30k for a genuine Rolex is very stupid). My lack of agreement also does not prevent me from participating and profiting off the people who think they do have value, although I have not done so. There are basically two theories of their value: the collectible theory and the…
NFTs solve none of these problems. The underlying asset is not stored on the blockchain and can be deleted at any time. Fakes are unaddressed since you can only validate you are the owner of a specific url and there's no guarantee that what you own is the original version (bytes are easy to copy). Any validation of authenticity must happen OFF of the blockchain in which case why are we doing this again? Transaction costs are a function of the market (even on the blockchain) and are not at all connected to NFTs.
I used to come onto HN and see crypto-coin news and I'd jump into the comments and ask something along the lines of "But isn't bitcoin and all the other things like it just a giant scam?" and someone who believed in Bitcoin to be a transformative technology would jump in and explain the real potential. I personally still think it's sort of a scam, but I'm happy for all of the people who used it to get rich....so, alo…
I think I can explain. I understand why others value them, although I don't agree with the valuation (as a litmus test, I also think shelling out $30k for a genuine Rolex is very stupid). My lack of agreement also does not prevent me from participating and profiting off the people who think they do have value, although I have not done so. There are basically two theories of their value: the collectible theory and the…
The way to make a business model is to associate copyright ownership with the NFT ownership and then assert those rights by filing DMCA takedowns (and/or lawsuits) everyday to anyone who displays the "art" without paying for the privilege and using the NFT owners original work as the source file.
This would create digital scarcity because copies couldn't be used without legal exposure, so any real business or serious person who wanted to use it would pay for the rights to. It's like the Getty Images business model scaled way way up. I don't necessarily think this business model is good for society or will actually happen but it's the way to monetize NFTs.