5 ms·

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wines escalates exponentially whilst the extra utility you get from any quality improvements trends towards nothing. Much of what we value is pointless and bordering on delusional. But unless you're a wandering ascetic or superhumanly utilitarian in your consumption (hint - you're probably not even if you think you are) then the difference is one of degree rather than of category.

miguelmurca 6y ago
I've never really seen anyone heavily take issue with the concept of NFTs. Everybody's just taking issue with the PoW.
- andybak 6y ago
  You obviously follow different people on Twitter to me. The entire topic has become very polarized - well beyond the discussions around C02
insert_coin 6y ago
The critic, which you do not address, is that (most) NFTs pretend to give assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset. The problem with NFTs is a conceptual one not a technological or psychological or societal one. The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. Art might be stupid, but you can actually make the claim of having an original insert_coin drawing, despite its value.
- andybak 6y ago
  I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints. A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    Prints are, ahem, "prints", they are not the original. First editions of books are not the manuscript.
    - andybak 6y ago
      That's the point I'm making. I'm not sure I understand what counter-argument you're making?
      - insert_coin 6y ago
        NFTs cannot guarantee the ownership of an original digital asset despite its claims because a digital asset has no original. They cannot even guarantee the ownership of a limited production "edition".
        andybak 6y ago
        I agree. But my point is that this is only a matter of degree more stupid than the concept of limited edition prints. Or $10000 cigars you can't smoke. Or a hotel room that costs similar amounts per night. The list goes on.
        URSpider94 6y ago
        They can guarantee part of a limited edition, if the contract is written such that only x tokens can be issued. If a future contract issues more copies, then that release will be less valuable by nature of it being later/less exclusive, even though it’s the same physical file.
        insert_coin 6y ago
        You don't need contracts to make copies of digital assets.
        kgwgk 6y ago
        The point is that the token only guarantees the ownership of a token from a limited edition of tokens.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset So far, "ownership" has meant "vague association." If people really wanted to own IP, you'd think there'd be a boom in song rights, but there isn't.
  - mypalmike 6y ago
    Kind of an aside but... there actually is a boom in song rights right now. https://globalnews.ca/news/7285773/music-streaming-revenue/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7285773/music-streaming-revenue/
- dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
  > The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. That's the beauty of it. Yes, the digital good by its nature is infinitely replicable [0], but everyone knows and (hopefully) understands that, and that is not what it is being sold with the NFT. The NFT, as I understand it, represents a totally new type of "ownership" that has no analogue in previously established forms of ownership. The closest thing to NFTs are securities, where the value of the security is almost always speculative in nature. NFTs just take this to its teleological end. Yes, an artist or John Cleese can go ahead and mint another Brooklyn Bridge token, but doing this would degrade their reputation and make their future work less valuable and attractive to buyers, just like a company that keeps minting stock indiscriminately is going to have a harder time selling that stock. John Cleese selling a token is actually very cool in my opinion, because he didn't have to call Goldman Sachs to make it happen. I see a future where we have premier blockchains where all the top assets will be traded. Someone selling farts [1] and such will not be on those blockchains (unless those farts become highly regarded, which they might), and the blockchain itself will be a sort of crypto-artistic expression. I think this is just the beginning. [0] https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369 https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369 [1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cashing-in-on-nft-craze/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cash...
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Nonsense. Bitcoin solved this problem 12 years ago. You can't copy and paste a BTC. You can't copy and paste an NFT.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    I can totally copy and paste a bitcoin. I may not be able to put it back in the same blockchain, which is a different issue, but if I only care about the bits that make up the “coin” I can absolutely copy them. I could even copy the entire blockchain. AND the problem is not with the token, you can own all the original tokens for an image you want, you still don’t have anything different than a jpeg.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      > I may not be able to put it back in the same blockchain Look, if you can figure out how to double spend BTC, go for it. There's $1 trillion on that chain right now just waiting for the first genius with a copy-paste button to come along and take it. It's not a different issue at all. A Bitcoin is not a thing you can copy. The UTXOs only exist on the chain and only mean anything in terms of the chain. > you still don’t have anything different than a jpeg. Yes, you do. You have verifiable providence of a unique digital signature (not unlike an autograph). You have a programmable, pluggable, leverageable, tradeable, asset that interacts seamlessly with hundreds of different applications (and rapidly growing).
      - insert_coin 6y ago
        You are confusing value with data. Copying the value is a different question, but I can copy the data all I want. > Yes, you do. You have verifiable providence of a unique digital signature (not unlike an autograph) You have a signature that a token is valid on the chain, cool. As long as it stays on the chain of course. But that’s all it is, it does not make one jpeg the original and another one with the same bits the copy.
vvanders 6y ago
> (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) I don't know how you get to defend something when you're sidestepping the biggest problem with NFTs. I'm fine with stupid and pointless things as long as your stupid and pointless things don't wreck the environment. If someone decides to poison the local water supply because it's an "art project" they still poisoned the fucking water supply.
- andybak 6y ago
  Well - Proof of Stake NFTs are already here: https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/ https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/ So all I'm doing is hoping everyone uses these instead.
  - dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
    Thanks I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production. Will check this out. Do you know any others? I really enjoy NFTs conceptually, much more than crypto in general actually, and I really don't get a lot of the hate. If you remove the emissions aspect (which is the non-starter for me), I think it's so cool that there is a way to create scarcity in the digital world, even if that scarcity is totally "meaningless." Yes, there are some goods with inherent value: food, shelter, heat sources. But NFTs are far from the first type of asset that has no inherent value, and that includes both the cyber and real worlds. Humans like to curate and collect, and NFTs are just an expression of that drive. What I wonder if why NFTs suddenly took off now. I remember hearing about them years ago.
    - dgellow 6y ago
      > I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production Tezos, Cardano, Algorand just to mention a few of them. Example of creating an NFTs using Algorand: https://developer.algorand.org/tutorials/create-and-manage-non-fungible-asa-command-line-using-goal/ https://developer.algorand.org/tutorials/create-and-manage-n...
    - incrudible 6y ago
dehrmann 6y ago
At least I can look at art. That, alone is more utility than an NFT.
- andybak 6y ago
  I can look at the Mona Lisa - either the original or a reproduction. Does that mean "owning the Mona Lisa" is meaningless? How about "owning the copyright on a painting that is on the internet"? Worthless or worth paying for?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I can go to a library to use a computer, does that mean owning a laptop is meaningless? This seems like a very silly comparison.
    - andybak 6y ago
      Your analogy is flawed. The laptop has utility in terms of access and convenience.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        Yes, that's my point.
  - ori_b 6y ago
    Owning an NFT is not the same as owning copyright. It's just owning the right to transfer the NFT. There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as the (edit: anyone) artist feels like producing. [1] https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 [2] https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69million-nft.html https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69mil...
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as anyone feels like producing. We could all mint a different Mona Lisa NFT.
ayngg 6y ago
I think the majority of the value in art nfts will be derived from being part of the provenance, or being part of the history of the beginning of 'owning' digital art, much like owning a famous painting. By extension it could be applied to digital culture, for example the tiktok guy riding his skateboard is selling that meme as an nft. So if collectors are good (and lucky), they are basically able to buy their way into a niche of history by being associated with works that represent periods of cultural significance. Sure that may seem stupid to most people, but most people don't even get why regular art is significant or can be very expensive. Personally I would attribute it to my lack of understanding rather than dismiss it outright.
hellbannedguy 6y ago
I was actually starting to accept NTF’s, until I noticed the price—-$69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat. To all you pumped up to be the next Zuck, I would be coding a NFT site. Oh yea, I heard these companies take your word that the bits are yours. People are ripping off online artists/originators.
- andybak 6y ago
  > $69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat. I've briefly looked into a NFT markets and the cost was a few 10s of cents. Where were you looking?
  - chocolate_ 6y ago
    Ethereum gas fees probably. I've minted several pieces on Rarible and it was like ~$20-30 each time (and gas was relatively "low" at the time).
    - andybak 6y ago
      Well. If anyone needed another reason not to use Ethereum NFTs...

miguelmurca 6y ago

I've never really seen anyone heavily take issue with the concept of NFTs. Everybody's just taking issue with the PoW.

andybak 6y ago
You obviously follow different people on Twitter to me. The entire topic has become very polarized - well beyond the discussions around C02

insert_coin 6y ago

The critic, which you do not address, is that (most) NFTs pretend to give assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset. The problem with NFTs is a conceptual one not a technological or psychological or societal one. The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. Art might be stupid, but you can actually make the claim of having an original insert_coin drawing, despite its value.

andybak 6y ago
I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints. A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  Prints are, ahem, "prints", they are not the original. First editions of books are not the manuscript.
  - andybak 6y ago
    That's the point I'm making. I'm not sure I understand what counter-argument you're making?
    - insert_coin 6y ago
      NFTs cannot guarantee the ownership of an original digital asset despite its claims because a digital asset has no original. They cannot even guarantee the ownership of a limited production "edition".
      - andybak 6y ago
        I agree. But my point is that this is only a matter of degree more stupid than the concept of limited edition prints. Or $10000 cigars you can't smoke. Or a hotel room that costs similar amounts per night. The list goes on.
      - URSpider94 6y ago
        They can guarantee part of a limited edition, if the contract is written such that only x tokens can be issued. If a future contract issues more copies, then that release will be less valuable by nature of it being later/less exclusive, even though it’s the same physical file.
        insert_coin 6y ago
        You don't need contracts to make copies of digital assets.
        kgwgk 6y ago
        The point is that the token only guarantees the ownership of a token from a limited edition of tokens.
dehrmann 6y ago
> assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset So far, "ownership" has meant "vague association." If people really wanted to own IP, you'd think there'd be a boom in song rights, but there isn't.
- mypalmike 6y ago
  Kind of an aside but... there actually is a boom in song rights right now. https://globalnews.ca/news/7285773/music-streaming-revenue/ https://globalnews.ca/news/7285773/music-streaming-revenue/
dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
> The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. That's the beauty of it. Yes, the digital good by its nature is infinitely replicable [0], but everyone knows and (hopefully) understands that, and that is not what it is being sold with the NFT. The NFT, as I understand it, represents a totally new type of "ownership" that has no analogue in previously established forms of ownership. The closest thing to NFTs are securities, where the value of the security is almost always speculative in nature. NFTs just take this to its teleological end. Yes, an artist or John Cleese can go ahead and mint another Brooklyn Bridge token, but doing this would degrade their reputation and make their future work less valuable and attractive to buyers, just like a company that keeps minting stock indiscriminately is going to have a harder time selling that stock. John Cleese selling a token is actually very cool in my opinion, because he didn't have to call Goldman Sachs to make it happen. I see a future where we have premier blockchains where all the top assets will be traded. Someone selling farts [1] and such will not be on those blockchains (unless those farts become highly regarded, which they might), and the blockchain itself will be a sort of crypto-artistic expression. I think this is just the beginning. [0] https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369 https://twitter.com/_Lord_Enki_/status/1372976176411578369 [1] https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cashing-in-on-nft-craze/ https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/nyc-man-sells-fart-for-85-cash...
chrisco255 6y ago
Nonsense. Bitcoin solved this problem 12 years ago. You can't copy and paste a BTC. You can't copy and paste an NFT.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  I can totally copy and paste a bitcoin. I may not be able to put it back in the same blockchain, which is a different issue, but if I only care about the bits that make up the “coin” I can absolutely copy them. I could even copy the entire blockchain. AND the problem is not with the token, you can own all the original tokens for an image you want, you still don’t have anything different than a jpeg.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    > I may not be able to put it back in the same blockchain Look, if you can figure out how to double spend BTC, go for it. There's $1 trillion on that chain right now just waiting for the first genius with a copy-paste button to come along and take it. It's not a different issue at all. A Bitcoin is not a thing you can copy. The UTXOs only exist on the chain and only mean anything in terms of the chain. > you still don’t have anything different than a jpeg. Yes, you do. You have verifiable providence of a unique digital signature (not unlike an autograph). You have a programmable, pluggable, leverageable, tradeable, asset that interacts seamlessly with hundreds of different applications (and rapidly growing).
    - insert_coin 6y ago
      You are confusing value with data. Copying the value is a different question, but I can copy the data all I want. > Yes, you do. You have verifiable providence of a unique digital signature (not unlike an autograph) You have a signature that a token is valid on the chain, cool. As long as it stays on the chain of course. But that’s all it is, it does not make one jpeg the original and another one with the same bits the copy.

vvanders 6y ago

> (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) I don't know how you get to defend something when you're sidestepping the biggest problem with NFTs. I'm fine with stupid and pointless things as long as your stupid and pointless things don't wreck the environment. If someone decides to poison the local water supply because it's an "art project" they still poisoned the fucking water supply.

andybak 6y ago
Well - Proof of Stake NFTs are already here: https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/ https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/ So all I'm doing is hoping everyone uses these instead.
- dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
  Thanks I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production. Will check this out. Do you know any others? I really enjoy NFTs conceptually, much more than crypto in general actually, and I really don't get a lot of the hate. If you remove the emissions aspect (which is the non-starter for me), I think it's so cool that there is a way to create scarcity in the digital world, even if that scarcity is totally "meaningless." Yes, there are some goods with inherent value: food, shelter, heat sources. But NFTs are far from the first type of asset that has no inherent value, and that includes both the cyber and real worlds. Humans like to curate and collect, and NFTs are just an expression of that drive. What I wonder if why NFTs suddenly took off now. I remember hearing about them years ago.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    > I've been looking for a PoS blockchain in production Tezos, Cardano, Algorand just to mention a few of them. Example of creating an NFTs using Algorand: https://developer.algorand.org/tutorials/create-and-manage-non-fungible-asa-command-line-using-goal/ https://developer.algorand.org/tutorials/create-and-manage-n...
  - incrudible 6y ago

dehrmann 6y ago

At least I can look at art. That, alone is more utility than an NFT.

andybak 6y ago
I can look at the Mona Lisa - either the original or a reproduction. Does that mean "owning the Mona Lisa" is meaningless? How about "owning the copyright on a painting that is on the internet"? Worthless or worth paying for?
- bawolff 6y ago
  I can go to a library to use a computer, does that mean owning a laptop is meaningless? This seems like a very silly comparison.
  - andybak 6y ago
    Your analogy is flawed. The laptop has utility in terms of access and convenience.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      Yes, that's my point.
- ori_b 6y ago
  Owning an NFT is not the same as owning copyright. It's just owning the right to transfer the NFT. There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as the (edit: anyone) artist feels like producing. [1] https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 https://nitter.eu/joshmillard/status/1370088760663179266 [2] https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69million-nft.html https://blog.erratasec.com/2021/03/deconstructing-that-69mil...
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    There can be as many NFTs for the same thing as anyone feels like producing. We could all mint a different Mona Lisa NFT.

ayngg 6y ago

I think the majority of the value in art nfts will be derived from being part of the provenance, or being part of the history of the beginning of 'owning' digital art, much like owning a famous painting. By extension it could be applied to digital culture, for example the tiktok guy riding his skateboard is selling that meme as an nft. So if collectors are good (and lucky), they are basically able to buy their way into a niche of history by being associated with works that represent periods of cultural significance. Sure that may seem stupid to most people, but most people don't even get why regular art is significant or can be very expensive. Personally I would attribute it to my lack of understanding rather than dismiss it outright.

hellbannedguy 6y ago

I was actually starting to accept NTF’s, until I noticed the price—-$69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat. To all you pumped up to be the next Zuck, I would be coding a NFT site. Oh yea, I heard these companies take your word that the bits are yours. People are ripping off online artists/originators.

andybak 6y ago
> $69 to register your bits. This stopped me flat. I've briefly looked into a NFT markets and the cost was a few 10s of cents. Where were you looking?
- chocolate_ 6y ago
  Ethereum gas fees probably. I've minted several pieces on Rarible and it was like ~$20-30 each time (and gas was relatively "low" at the time).
  - andybak 6y ago
    Well. If anyone needed another reason not to use Ethereum NFTs...