3 ms·

You are trying to rationalize a sadistically lavish display of spending money for something that honestly insults ordinary people intelligence. NFTs are just li

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.

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.