4 ms·

I'm big into Bitcoin, but I genuinely don't get the NFT craze. My understanding is that your ownership of the item is recorded forever on the blockchain, but th

I'm big into Bitcoin, but I genuinely don't get the NFT craze. My understanding is that your ownership of the item is recorded forever on the blockchain, but there's nothing stopping someone from just copying the image. The real value is that you are the immutable owner? But okay, what difference does that actually make for a digital image?

lowercase1 6y ago
It's bragging rights like owning a original painting when copies/replicas exist. Real question is how mucg is preventing a second competing NFT from existing for the same item via and alternative design or chain or currency?
- nemo44x 6y ago
  The thing is, with a painting, the copies can never be the authentic original. Andy Warhol in particular explored this (art as a mechanical process), possibly inadvertently, as well. With a digital asset there is no such thing as an original. Even the original file isn't original after the OS moves things around or it's loaded into RAM, etc. Does originality matter? Possibly it always was just bragging rights after replication became reasonably accessible and of high quality? I'm not completely dismissing NFT's conceptually (this is as hyper modern as we've even seen) even though I don't get it entirely (and I DO get crypto). And I'm happy to see a somewhat practical use for crypto and smart contracts here. I feel like we can conceptualize it enough to trick ourselves into something profound.
NtGuy25 6y ago
This woman I play video games with is into this thing which is exactly the same for over a decade. People make these "Characters" and then sell them and people pay to "Adopt" them. It's a bunch of rich housewives spending hundreds or thousands on each character to brag about owning it. Genuinely really weird, and I don't get it either. But some people are really into it. I think it's called "Adopts" or something. Might provide some more insight into this type of thing, since it's been going on far longer.

lowercase1 6y ago

It's bragging rights like owning a original painting when copies/replicas exist. Real question is how mucg is preventing a second competing NFT from existing for the same item via and alternative design or chain or currency?

nemo44x 6y ago
The thing is, with a painting, the copies can never be the authentic original. Andy Warhol in particular explored this (art as a mechanical process), possibly inadvertently, as well. With a digital asset there is no such thing as an original. Even the original file isn't original after the OS moves things around or it's loaded into RAM, etc. Does originality matter? Possibly it always was just bragging rights after replication became reasonably accessible and of high quality? I'm not completely dismissing NFT's conceptually (this is as hyper modern as we've even seen) even though I don't get it entirely (and I DO get crypto). And I'm happy to see a somewhat practical use for crypto and smart contracts here. I feel like we can conceptualize it enough to trick ourselves into something profound.

NtGuy25 6y ago

This woman I play video games with is into this thing which is exactly the same for over a decade. People make these "Characters" and then sell them and people pay to "Adopt" them. It's a bunch of rich housewives spending hundreds or thousands on each character to brag about owning it. Genuinely really weird, and I don't get it either. But some people are really into it. I think it's called "Adopts" or something. Might provide some more insight into this type of thing, since it's been going on far longer.