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

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: NFT Canon

#91

Post by MR4D »

chrisco255 wrote: post #77
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…

Of course we remember CryptoKitties. The makers of CryptoKitties went on to build NBA Top Shots, which is selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of merchandise: https://nbatopshot.com/ And even CryptoKitties is still around. Early generation CryptoKitties are still considered collectibles, but of course there's an infinite supply of Kitties, so the rarity is less than say, CryptoPunks (which pre-date Kitties)…

Same was true for Beanie Babies. eBay grew huge because of them.

Today, eBay is around, but not Beanie Babies, at least not in any significant sense.

I think NFT will be the same. Eventually we might put real estate on it and do something useful, just as eBay has become much more than a place to trade Beanie Babies.

Re: NFT Canon

#92

Post by sibeliuss »

MR4D wrote: post #91
chrisco255 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course we remember CryptoKitties. The makers of CryptoKitties went on to build NBA Top Shots, which is selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of merchandise: https://nbatopshot.com/ And even CryptoKitties is still around. Early generation CryptoKitties are still considered collectibles, but of course there's an infinite supply of Kitties, so the rarity is less than say, CryptoPunks (which pre-date Kitties)…

Same was true for Beanie Babies. eBay grew huge because of them. Today, eBay is around, but not Beanie Babies, at least not in any significant sense. I think NFT will be the same. Eventually we might put real estate on it and do something useful, just as eBay has become much more than a place to trade Beanie Babies.

Or copyrights! https://news.bitcoin.com/italian-copyright-agency-selects-al...

Re: NFT Canon

#93

Post by chrisco255 »

MR4D wrote: post #91
chrisco255 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course we remember CryptoKitties. The makers of CryptoKitties went on to build NBA Top Shots, which is selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of merchandise: https://nbatopshot.com/ And even CryptoKitties is still around. Early generation CryptoKitties are still considered collectibles, but of course there's an infinite supply of Kitties, so the rarity is less than say, CryptoPunks (which pre-date Kitties)…

Same was true for Beanie Babies. eBay grew huge because of them. Today, eBay is around, but not Beanie Babies, at least not in any significant sense. I think NFT will be the same. Eventually we might put real estate on it and do something useful, just as eBay has become much more than a place to trade Beanie Babies.

Right, but while you can knock on Beanie Babies, how long have other collectibles held up over decades or centuries? Art works from the 15th century are extremely valuable today. If the blockchain is still around in 500 years, is it conceivable that an early gen Crypto Kitty could have a lot of value by then? Of course it is. Video games were looked at as toys for kids, but now have evolved until a multi hundred billion dollar industry, and an early generation video game cartridge or console in good condition is quite valuable (depending on rarity).

Anyways, there will be hits and misses with regards to digital collectibles on the blockchain, but the value of the space as a whole will grow tremendously (multiple hundreds of billions).

Re: NFT Canon

#94

Post by jancsika »

gnopgnip wrote: post #67
jakemauer wrote: post #60

The only way that NFTs make sense to me is in some sort of impossible to implement DRM-like system where ONLY the current owners of the media can display it or utilize it. If buying an NFT of a piece of art meant that I could digitally display the file in full resolution, or if it otherwise afforded me some tangible benefit during the period of ownership, I could see it making sense. As of right now NFTs are basicall…

The utility of art or collectibles is a very small portion of the value. A game worn Michael Jordan jersey you paid $100k for has essentially the same utility as a <$100 jersey. It is valuable because it is scarce, and the provenance

Sure.

But suppose you ripped that jersey into a thousand pieces, and sold each separately. People might still buy it, because those pieces as a whole were in fact a Michael Jordan jersey at some point. A piece of that history is cheaper to own than the entire thing.

Now suppose you rip it into 100 million pieces and create non-fungible tokens where each tiny piece could be scanned with a phone, identified, and associated with an arbitrary blob of data.

Now it's a race of a savvy PR team against the public's hazy and soon-to-be waning interest in what-- if anything-- is the value of one of those microscopic jersey specs. "Something something Michael Jordan," got you to distract a captive audience from Candy Crush for five seconds. What happens next has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Jordan, and everything to do with P.T. Barnum.

Edit: clarification

Re: NFT Canon

#95

Post by spurdoman77 »

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…

NFTs are pretty useful for money laundering.

Re: NFT Canon

#96

Post by Hedepig »

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…

> _proof of ownership makes no sense in digital context?_

Why?

> _There's nothing of value here_

Objectively there is, as people are spending money on it.

But I understand your meaning, which is to say "there will be no value to these given time". I'm interested to hear what you would consider to be failure conditions (and thus for this not to appear on r/agedlikemilk). Despite what you say Cryptokitties are still being actively traded despite the fact "no one remembers them" and they had recognition that was orders of magnitude less than NFTs now, but yet you consider it a failure.

Re: NFT Canon

#97

Post by spinchange »

jsutton wrote: post #87
hobs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same one you'd have with any proof of ownership in a society with laws.

Meaning on good ole' paper, or in a government database somewhere that you have no visibility or access to. Is this preferable to an ownership record that you, the gov, or anyone else can verify from your phone?

Things like deeds and titles aren't necessarily locked away without visibility but are necessary to prove ownership in a court of law, the venue where doing that is most consequential. Technologically, it's redundant and unecessary to maintain shared ownership records of everyone else's assets. Practically, if you don't trust the state / your representative government to maintain & adjudicate property ownership rights or contract law disputes, it's a little silly to think conveniences like checking ubiquitous apps on mobiles or the internet itself will still work and that we won't be experiencing the complete breakdown of society by that point.

Re: NFT Canon

#98

Post by beiller »

okareaman wrote: post #38
notahacker wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sod going to an art gallery to look the actual paint committed to canvas by the legendary artist over 500 years ago, we can queue up to look at this PNG copy and admire the uniqueness of the cryptographic token some anonymous programmer attached to it recently" said literally nobody ever. Rollercoasters and Mickey Mouse make pastiches of common things more interesting; creating an inferior copy of a famous thing and…

What if you had a human model (or robot) who looked liked Mona Lisa, dressed like Mona Lisa and was certified as the only recognized copy of Mona Lisa and by purchasing the NFT you were the only one who could have s.e.x with her?

How do you prevent two people from claiming the same nft? Wallet? What if two people have the key to the wallet? I'm not sure how that part works.

Re: NFT Canon

#99

Post by beiller »

gnopgnip wrote: post #65
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.

An NFT on the blockchain can be verifired crytographically that it is the "original", it can't be duplicated, and you can transfer it to anyone if you have the private key and the gas. A token off the blockchain controlled by a centralized group could transfer ownership without a key at all. They could issue the same one to more than one party and duplicate it. Someone else could claim to own the record and they coul…

What if two people have access to the private key? How do we prove who owns it?

Re: NFT Canon

#100

Post by oleganza »

inthewoods wrote: post #54
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…

VCs are geared to take big swings and bets. Makes total sense that they would buy into anything that has the potential to be a billion dollar idea, even if the likelihood of success is 1-5%. What's interesting about NFTs to me is that an org like the NBA is one of the most successful - but I guess that makes sense because, as others have posted, they generate all the NFTs and can validate them. So it seems to me that…

Don't confuse VC's position to have more capital, closer to action, so even if their bet is shit, they'll be able to exit with profit because they entered on lows and pumped it to everyone else.
Post reply on HN