9 ms·

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, w

by lloeki 6y ago

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 perfectly duplicate it and massively redistribute it (not the token, the distributed supposedly high quality file) for a fraction of $$$ and turn a profit (because since it had such a high price it must be in high demand)? The question is not about the legal consequences but about the thing you own: of you have one original painting you have only one, it's quite hard to exactly duplicate it for resale. I may be naive (the dropbox-is-just-rsync kind) but I've yet to see a tangible explanation of a use† of CryptoArt/NFT that could not be done with `xxd -l 128 -p /dev/random` and PGP[0]. † No. "being in the blockchain" brings absolutely nothing (except burning watts). If the author wants to reissue anything he readily can. You. Just. Own. A. Number. I also hear some picture the author getting a cut of resales of the token, which is even more crazy when you manage to entertain the thought while trying to keep a straight face. [0]: https://twitter.com/lloeki/status/1366804865943556106 https://twitter.com/lloeki/status/1366804865943556106

detaro 6y ago
> 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?
- lottin 6y ago
  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 https://twitter.com/jack/status/20
  - sp332 6y ago
    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.
    - lottin 6y ago
      Everybody who wants a copy already has one for free, that's what "publicly accessible" means.
  - jameshart 6y ago
    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 having someone write down a rights assignment on a piece of paper, sign it and hand it over to you in exchange for some consideration?
    - lottin 6y ago
      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.
      - cachvico 6y ago
        It certifies two things: 1. That you paid a certain amount for the certificate. 2. That there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). Pretty much exactly like owning a baseball card, then.
        SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
        > it certifies ... that there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). How many "brand of certificates" are there now, and what is the barrier to entry? I suspect 1) several and 2) low. Also, how is "there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates" technically enforced?
- gruez 6y ago
  Why do people pay extra for signed books? A signed copy is literally identical to a non-signed copy aside from the signature ink.
  - detaro 6y ago
    I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question of reselling stuff?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruez 6y ago
      My prior response was at the "why would someone pay for a NFT when you can download an identical version for free" question of the parent comment.
qqii 6y ago
> "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". Which the ARTIST has decided is a digital certificate for the price of art. Just I could make a duplicate of the supreme brick, my duplicate wouldn't have as nearly much value if I tell people it is a duplicate. Supreme could sell bricks again but they probably won't. There's nothing physical that's stops them but there's still an implicit agreement between artist and buyer. I may not wish to buy own a supreme brick, but I can at least understand why people find it valuable.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  The all-caps "artist" brought this to my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    A can of old shit sold for €275,000??? Jesus Christ Mary and Joesph, what is the name of all things pure and holy... Look, I get it outside of the money laundering scheme to modern art, throwing around how rich you are by buying "stuff". I get it. Tiny pecker syndrome. But let's stop and remember that Rockefeller and Carnegie, the OG capitalist titans, were dick measuring by donating their money. Sure "to the arts"... at least they were building halls and museums. They participated in some solid currency velocity that helped pay the wages to construction contractors. Still, they were assholes, but a lot better than just shoveling money between other rich cunts as a form of showing off.
bakatubas 6y ago
Personally I think these should have a legal license associated with them. Like if the author transfers NFT it transfers the creative license as well (so the purchaser actually owns the art). For instance, Nayan Cat beanie babies can now only be manufactured by owner of said token, and whenever the new owner transfers the token the license goes with it. Etc. Basically, if Token == Intellectual Property ownership then it makes sense. This would mean if a creator, say a musician wrote a song and transferred the NFT and it became a wild success in the future, the owner would earn profits from the investment, but so too would the content creator receive the mentioned dividends proportional to the value.

by lloeki 6y ago

detaro 6y ago

> 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?

lottin 6y ago
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 https://twitter.com/jack/status/20
- sp332 6y ago
  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.
  - lottin 6y ago
    Everybody who wants a copy already has one for free, that's what "publicly accessible" means.
- jameshart 6y ago
  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 having someone write down a rights assignment on a piece of paper, sign it and hand it over to you in exchange for some consideration?
  - lottin 6y ago
    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.
    - cachvico 6y ago
      It certifies two things: 1. That you paid a certain amount for the certificate. 2. That there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). Pretty much exactly like owning a baseball card, then.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
        > it certifies ... that there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). How many "brand of certificates" are there now, and what is the barrier to entry? I suspect 1) several and 2) low. Also, how is "there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates" technically enforced?
gruez 6y ago
Why do people pay extra for signed books? A signed copy is literally identical to a non-signed copy aside from the signature ink.
- detaro 6y ago
  I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question of reselling stuff?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 6y ago
    My prior response was at the "why would someone pay for a NFT when you can download an identical version for free" question of the parent comment.

qqii 6y ago

> "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". Which the ARTIST has decided is a digital certificate for the price of art. Just I could make a duplicate of the supreme brick, my duplicate wouldn't have as nearly much value if I tell people it is a duplicate. Supreme could sell bricks again but they probably won't. There's nothing physical that's stops them but there's still an implicit agreement between artist and buyer. I may not wish to buy own a supreme brick, but I can at least understand why people find it valuable.

kgwgk 6y ago
The all-caps "artist" brought this to my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  A can of old shit sold for €275,000??? Jesus Christ Mary and Joesph, what is the name of all things pure and holy... Look, I get it outside of the money laundering scheme to modern art, throwing around how rich you are by buying "stuff". I get it. Tiny pecker syndrome. But let's stop and remember that Rockefeller and Carnegie, the OG capitalist titans, were dick measuring by donating their money. Sure "to the arts"... at least they were building halls and museums. They participated in some solid currency velocity that helped pay the wages to construction contractors. Still, they were assholes, but a lot better than just shoveling money between other rich cunts as a form of showing off.

bakatubas 6y ago

Personally I think these should have a legal license associated with them. Like if the author transfers NFT it transfers the creative license as well (so the purchaser actually owns the art). For instance, Nayan Cat beanie babies can now only be manufactured by owner of said token, and whenever the new owner transfers the token the license goes with it. Etc. Basically, if Token == Intellectual Property ownership then it makes sense. This would mean if a creator, say a musician wrote a song and transferred the NFT and it became a wild success in the future, the owner would earn profits from the investment, but so too would the content creator receive the mentioned dividends proportional to the value.