3 ms·

I know I will get a lot of negative points for this one, call me old or whatever, I do not get it. Seriously I have not heard anything stupid as this... while o

I know I will get a lot of negative points for this one, call me old or whatever, I do not get it. Seriously I have not heard anything stupid as this... while other starving billionaires acting out, historically is this equal as time when Marie-Antoinette said “Let them eat cake”? Sorry, I just do not get it $2.5 million for someone else Tweet that will stay his. Seriously, WTF is wrong with this world!?

hiimtroymclure 6y ago
I am more into crypto than most and I do not get NFT collectibles...at least pet rocks you could hold lol
- qqii 6y ago
  Sticking specifically to art, NFTs solve a problem with digital art (non fungiblility) and some platforms provide artists with new benifits (tracking ownership, price and commission on sales, etc). I think it's an especially crypto centric mindset to not see their value but if we take crypto aside do you appreciate works of art, collectable cards or limited edition runs as having value above their fungible copies (copy of art, copy of card, same product but regular edition)?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hiimtroymclure 6y ago
    you are completely right and im the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Ive collected all kinds of things throughout my life that many would deem stupid/garbage. To each, their own. I love blockchain for transparency/authenticity aspects. I just struggle with the collector side of it not being physical things for me to hold. It just doesn't feel real to me in the digital world.
    - qqii 6y ago
      That's fair. I also struggle to understand why people buy cosmetic upgrades in games.
garbagetime 6y ago
In an earlier thread about this event [1] a common conclusion was that the only thing NFTs were good for was money laundering. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  Ok but what the fork is Jack Dorsey laundering, he does not have enough money already?! Can you use someone else property and put it for a bid as NFT for that same purpose?
  - qqii 6y ago
    Jack Dorsey is likely not using this to launder money. If Jack Dorsey were to sell a signed piece of his own painting I doubt you'd be thinking the same thing. NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they are ART, their cost intangible and non physical.
- qqii 6y ago
  NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they (most) are art - it's easy to launder money when the value of something can't be concretely measured. As an example if there was a limited run NFT that could be traded for 1 month of runescape membership ($10.99), it wouldn't be very easy to use it to launder money as you couldn't easily write off as an unrelated party purchasing it for $1099.
qqii 6y ago
Genuine question, do you understand the value buying a price of certified art and registering it as yours? To oversimplify, an NFT shares the following properties to art: * creator fame * non-fungible (my copy of your Mona Lisa isn't a Mona Lisa) You can argue about people doing better things with their time and money and I'd probably agree but I can see the value in owning a piece of history.
- NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
  You are trying to rationalize a sadistically lavish display of spending money for something that honestly insults ordinary people intelligence. NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money. Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Jack's net worth according to google is 12.6 billion USD. (12600 million USD) so on top of that you say hey let me get even more ... in way that can be characterized as most idiotic thing I can imagine, why? because, you know we can. All this in time of pandemic when millions lost job. This is exactly type of thing why Nick Hanauer said "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats". Owning history? Seriously? In a 1000 years no one will care about Jack, Bill or Elon or about any other "look how rich and smart I am". What after 10000 years... or 100,000 years? For the universe that period is just a blink of an eye. So, no mate, you do not own anything in this world, you are just here for a moment of time and then you die.
  - qqii 6y ago
    You're making quite a few points, some I agree with and some I don't. > NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money. > Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Like art this is really up to interpretation. As I mentioned in the previous comment NFTs have unique properties and as a result some intrinsic value. I'm not to argue the specific price of this tweet but that it shouldn't be dismissed outright. For me an NFT of Jack's tweet embodies the time and effort spent building twitter the platform. Whether or nor Jack needs money is irrelevant in the same way that an artist's net worth isn't relevant to the value of their art, as is the time period their art was created. Of course compared to the span of the universe ownership is meaningless, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. Twitter, like ethereum will likely remain in ~100 years, and if it doesn't exist be part of history books in ~1000. This is also a unique property of NFTs, as ownership is via asymmetric cryptography until prime factorisation is broken or the blockchain is dead, ownership remains. Once again, I'm not saying that this tweet is worth 2000 Eth, or that he should be selling it. All I'm trying to say is that NFTs have unique properties that don't exist in the digital world and shouldn't be entirely discounted because a millionaire is exchanging money with a billionaire.

hiimtroymclure 6y ago

I am more into crypto than most and I do not get NFT collectibles...at least pet rocks you could hold lol

qqii 6y ago
Sticking specifically to art, NFTs solve a problem with digital art (non fungiblility) and some platforms provide artists with new benifits (tracking ownership, price and commission on sales, etc). I think it's an especially crypto centric mindset to not see their value but if we take crypto aside do you appreciate works of art, collectable cards or limited edition runs as having value above their fungible copies (copy of art, copy of card, same product but regular edition)?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hiimtroymclure 6y ago
  you are completely right and im the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Ive collected all kinds of things throughout my life that many would deem stupid/garbage. To each, their own. I love blockchain for transparency/authenticity aspects. I just struggle with the collector side of it not being physical things for me to hold. It just doesn't feel real to me in the digital world.
  - qqii 6y ago
    That's fair. I also struggle to understand why people buy cosmetic upgrades in games.

garbagetime 6y ago

In an earlier thread about this event [1] a common conclusion was that the only thing NFTs were good for was money laundering. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
Ok but what the fork is Jack Dorsey laundering, he does not have enough money already?! Can you use someone else property and put it for a bid as NFT for that same purpose?
- qqii 6y ago
  Jack Dorsey is likely not using this to launder money. If Jack Dorsey were to sell a signed piece of his own painting I doubt you'd be thinking the same thing. NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they are ART, their cost intangible and non physical.
qqii 6y ago
NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they (most) are art - it's easy to launder money when the value of something can't be concretely measured. As an example if there was a limited run NFT that could be traded for 1 month of runescape membership ($10.99), it wouldn't be very easy to use it to launder money as you couldn't easily write off as an unrelated party purchasing it for $1099.

qqii 6y ago

Genuine question, do you understand the value buying a price of certified art and registering it as yours? To oversimplify, an NFT shares the following properties to art: * creator fame * non-fungible (my copy of your Mona Lisa isn't a Mona Lisa) You can argue about people doing better things with their time and money and I'd probably agree but I can see the value in owning a piece of history.

NiceWayToDoIT 6y ago
You are trying to rationalize a sadistically lavish display of spending money for something that honestly insults ordinary people intelligence. NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money. Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Jack's net worth according to google is 12.6 billion USD. (12600 million USD) so on top of that you say hey let me get even more ... in way that can be characterized as most idiotic thing I can imagine, why? because, you know we can. All this in time of pandemic when millions lost job. This is exactly type of thing why Nick Hanauer said "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats". Owning history? Seriously? In a 1000 years no one will care about Jack, Bill or Elon or about any other "look how rich and smart I am". What after 10000 years... or 100,000 years? For the universe that period is just a blink of an eye. So, no mate, you do not own anything in this world, you are just here for a moment of time and then you die.
- qqii 6y ago
  You're making quite a few points, some I agree with and some I don't. > NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money. > Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Like art this is really up to interpretation. As I mentioned in the previous comment NFTs have unique properties and as a result some intrinsic value. I'm not to argue the specific price of this tweet but that it shouldn't be dismissed outright. For me an NFT of Jack's tweet embodies the time and effort spent building twitter the platform. Whether or nor Jack needs money is irrelevant in the same way that an artist's net worth isn't relevant to the value of their art, as is the time period their art was created. Of course compared to the span of the universe ownership is meaningless, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. Twitter, like ethereum will likely remain in ~100 years, and if it doesn't exist be part of history books in ~1000. This is also a unique property of NFTs, as ownership is via asymmetric cryptography until prime factorisation is broken or the blockchain is dead, ownership remains. Once again, I'm not saying that this tweet is worth 2000 Eth, or that he should be selling it. All I'm trying to say is that NFTs have unique properties that don't exist in the digital world and shouldn't be entirely discounted because a millionaire is exchanging money with a billionaire.