8 ms·

Here is one thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around, and how I think it is fundamentally different from something like a painting: The thing that is "

Here is one thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around, and how I think it is fundamentally different from something like a painting: The thing that is "non-fungible" is the token, not the actual art. The underlying digital asset is actually fungible with copies of it. With a painting, there are prints and reproductions of the Mona Lisa, but they are all fundamentally different in some way - the exact brush stroke texture, etc. NFTs have this feeling of valuing the receipt, not the art. As if I walked into a gift shop at The Louvre and bought a Mona Lisa slick poster print, but then valued the gift store receipt more than the more-or-less completely replaceable poster.

nerdponx 6y ago
It's like buying a piece of land. You don't physically take the land home, you just acquire new and specific rights depending on your legal jurisdiction. Are you buying the property, or just the deed to the property?
- mejutoco 6y ago
  Acquiring the land makes you the legal owner of it, backed by the law of the country and its military. Owning the nft has no legal consequence at the moment. Who will enforce any right on your behalf?
  - miracle2k 6y ago
    Which rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, the ownership of the token is enforced by the blockchain, and that ownership token is the thing people value.
    - sneak 6y ago
      > Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. For the first sale. I'm not sure current contract law permits any legal rights to follow the token in subsequent sales.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        Contract law can require you to hop on one foot. But what rights would you need to go to court for? The point of an NFT is that the provided rights are exercisable without further permission. Also, if the author wanted to control the NFT they'd just code it that way, for instance to prevent sales, or prevent more than one sale per decade, etc.
        sneak 6y ago
        Sure, but the subsequent buyer of the NFT is (potentially/likely) not a party to any contract.
        Rule35 6y ago
        Sure they are, the original contract was that the blockchain asset was authoritative. If you buy that asset then you obviously share that view. If the asset has limited transferability, well you agreed to that. It was in the code for you to test for, if not read.
        sneak 6y ago
        Engaging with a smart contract is not an action that binds you to a legal contract. Nothing about the first sale contract can be legally binding on the person who buys the NFT when resold. You can end up with an NFT without having been party to any legal agreement whatsoever.
        Rule35 6y ago
        No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim. If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially. If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.
    - lottin 6y ago
      From what I gather a blockchain doesn't enforce anything. It simply states who owns what. Anybody can create a blockchain and own the world's entire supply of gold according to that blockchain. But can they enforce that ownership? No, they can't.
      - joosters 6y ago
        It doesn’t even do that. You can easily have one unique NFT claiming it represents ownership of the Mona Lisa, and another, unique and distinct NFT, also claiming ownership of the Mona Lisa. Besides ownership being unenforced, uniqueness is also unenforced.
        Rule35 6y ago
        But that's not how NFTs are being used now. For one, who would issue the Mona Lisa NFT, the Louvre, or Leonardo's family, or the family of his patron at the time? An NFT can't clear up a murky issue anymore than me writing you a paper receipt would. But, a paper receipt is all that differentiates print #1 from #1005, and #1 is usually more prestigious. And even if those prints came off the machine in the other order, the actual artist is still attaching significance to one of them over the others. NFTs are a way of saying that my identical print (file) is really the special one. Or that I'm special for having it. Or whatever.
        joosters 6y ago
        It’s just like you having a paper receipt with #1 on it, and me also having a receipt with #1 on it. Both can be on the same blockchain at the same time, issued by different NFT ‘creators’. Or maybe on different blockchain... Which one is the ‘real’ one? No-one can say.
        Rule35 6y ago
        Do you not crypto? It's clear which address mints an NFT, and that address can be provably linked to the party with the keys. And they can put that proof on their website. You do know your favorite artists website, right? So yeah, by looking at both NFTs we can clearly determine which is authentic. If they're supposed to be unique, as opposed to 'we both sponsored the same art', then there are easy ways to ensure that.
- benreesman 6y ago
  If you have the deed to a piece of land that’s (usually, in stable-ish jurisdictions) backed by the police and ultimately, military, of the government. You can stand on it, build on it, possible mine it, and the cops will stop anyone from interfering.
- pitaj 6y ago
  Land can't be copied. Land is rivalrous. Digital art is not, in any meaningful way.
  - programmarchy 6y ago
    Try telling that to the MPAA.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  No it's more like the opposite of buying land. Land is non-fungible, "digital art" is exceedingly fungible. A land deed is perhaps not fungible, but it is reproducible, unlike an NFT. I heard the bozos on the A16Z podcast (I think it was) compare NFTs to land deeds, but they very seldom know what they're talking about.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I have no idea what A16Z is. The point is not that land is somehow fungible, but that we have plenty of precedent for "owning" a thing without taking physical transfer of that thing.
    - notahacker 6y ago
      When you buy land you gain a right to physically use (or charge others to physically use) the land you didn't previously have. Exceptions include the Brooklyn Bridge scam, where you actually gain no control over the use of the land whatsoever, no matter how verifiably unique the vendor promises the token they're giving you as proof is, and the people selling certificates with parts of the moon and your name on it. A token which grants you legal control of distribution of a piece of digital art so you can charge others to look at or listen to it might be like a real land deed, but a token giving you a nominal association with something already in the public domain is much more like the latter examples.
      - nerdponx 6y ago
        Of course, but I don't understand the issue here. Everyone involved knows that, and buyers don't care. What's the problem?
        Grustaf 6y ago
        The problem is that supposedly knowledgeable people hype the concept as something new and clever, they claim it solves a real problem. I don’t feel sorry at all for the clown that paid 69 mill for the url to a jpg, I just think the hype is stupid. Not that we can be sure the buyer was real and distinct from the seller.

nerdponx 6y ago

It's like buying a piece of land. You don't physically take the land home, you just acquire new and specific rights depending on your legal jurisdiction. Are you buying the property, or just the deed to the property?

mejutoco 6y ago
Acquiring the land makes you the legal owner of it, backed by the law of the country and its military. Owning the nft has no legal consequence at the moment. Who will enforce any right on your behalf?
- miracle2k 6y ago
  Which rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, the ownership of the token is enforced by the blockchain, and that ownership token is the thing people value.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside the token can be legally enforced. For the first sale. I'm not sure current contract law permits any legal rights to follow the token in subsequent sales.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      Contract law can require you to hop on one foot. But what rights would you need to go to court for? The point of an NFT is that the provided rights are exercisable without further permission. Also, if the author wanted to control the NFT they'd just code it that way, for instance to prevent sales, or prevent more than one sale per decade, etc.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Sure, but the subsequent buyer of the NFT is (potentially/likely) not a party to any contract.
        Rule35 6y ago
        Sure they are, the original contract was that the blockchain asset was authoritative. If you buy that asset then you obviously share that view. If the asset has limited transferability, well you agreed to that. It was in the code for you to test for, if not read.
        sneak 6y ago
        Engaging with a smart contract is not an action that binds you to a legal contract. Nothing about the first sale contract can be legally binding on the person who buys the NFT when resold. You can end up with an NFT without having been party to any legal agreement whatsoever.
        Rule35 6y ago
        No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim. If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially. If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.
  - lottin 6y ago
    From what I gather a blockchain doesn't enforce anything. It simply states who owns what. Anybody can create a blockchain and own the world's entire supply of gold according to that blockchain. But can they enforce that ownership? No, they can't.
    - joosters 6y ago
      It doesn’t even do that. You can easily have one unique NFT claiming it represents ownership of the Mona Lisa, and another, unique and distinct NFT, also claiming ownership of the Mona Lisa. Besides ownership being unenforced, uniqueness is also unenforced.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        But that's not how NFTs are being used now. For one, who would issue the Mona Lisa NFT, the Louvre, or Leonardo's family, or the family of his patron at the time? An NFT can't clear up a murky issue anymore than me writing you a paper receipt would. But, a paper receipt is all that differentiates print #1 from #1005, and #1 is usually more prestigious. And even if those prints came off the machine in the other order, the actual artist is still attaching significance to one of them over the others. NFTs are a way of saying that my identical print (file) is really the special one. Or that I'm special for having it. Or whatever.
        joosters 6y ago
        It’s just like you having a paper receipt with #1 on it, and me also having a receipt with #1 on it. Both can be on the same blockchain at the same time, issued by different NFT ‘creators’. Or maybe on different blockchain... Which one is the ‘real’ one? No-one can say.
        Rule35 6y ago
        Do you not crypto? It's clear which address mints an NFT, and that address can be provably linked to the party with the keys. And they can put that proof on their website. You do know your favorite artists website, right? So yeah, by looking at both NFTs we can clearly determine which is authentic. If they're supposed to be unique, as opposed to 'we both sponsored the same art', then there are easy ways to ensure that.
benreesman 6y ago
If you have the deed to a piece of land that’s (usually, in stable-ish jurisdictions) backed by the police and ultimately, military, of the government. You can stand on it, build on it, possible mine it, and the cops will stop anyone from interfering.
pitaj 6y ago
Land can't be copied. Land is rivalrous. Digital art is not, in any meaningful way.
- programmarchy 6y ago
  Try telling that to the MPAA.
Grustaf 6y ago
No it's more like the opposite of buying land. Land is non-fungible, "digital art" is exceedingly fungible. A land deed is perhaps not fungible, but it is reproducible, unlike an NFT. I heard the bozos on the A16Z podcast (I think it was) compare NFTs to land deeds, but they very seldom know what they're talking about.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I have no idea what A16Z is. The point is not that land is somehow fungible, but that we have plenty of precedent for "owning" a thing without taking physical transfer of that thing.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    When you buy land you gain a right to physically use (or charge others to physically use) the land you didn't previously have. Exceptions include the Brooklyn Bridge scam, where you actually gain no control over the use of the land whatsoever, no matter how verifiably unique the vendor promises the token they're giving you as proof is, and the people selling certificates with parts of the moon and your name on it. A token which grants you legal control of distribution of a piece of digital art so you can charge others to look at or listen to it might be like a real land deed, but a token giving you a nominal association with something already in the public domain is much more like the latter examples.
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      Of course, but I don't understand the issue here. Everyone involved knows that, and buyers don't care. What's the problem?
      - Grustaf 6y ago
        The problem is that supposedly knowledgeable people hype the concept as something new and clever, they claim it solves a real problem. I don’t feel sorry at all for the clown that paid 69 mill for the url to a jpg, I just think the hype is stupid. Not that we can be sure the buyer was real and distinct from the seller.