4 ms·

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 con

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.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    How about photographs? Even back in the days of silver chemistry printing, it was fairly straightforward for an artist like Ansel Adams to go into the darkroom and print up more copies of his pieces. Most famous photographers, in fact, hire assistants who do the actual duplication to their formula, and then they sign, date and number the prints. Today, when even fine art photographers print their results via inkjet, it’s incredibly easy to reproduce as many copies as you want. For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition.
    - insert_coin 6y ago
      > For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition. The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable. Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have less value, and a digital jpeg of an Ansel Adams photo has almost no value. I know, I "own" several.
      - andybak 6y ago
        > and the closer to the original the more value they have. Do you see the step you've just taken? It's no longer about authenticity, it's about proximity to authenticity. Would a reproduction from the original negative by someone other than Ansel Adams be more valuable than a different type of reproduction? If so, why?
        insert_coin 6y ago
        Of course, it is closer to the author. I am fully aware of what I am saying: things have value not only because of what they are or what they are made of, they have value for other reasons. NFT people claim things only have value because of what they are, an art piece has value because it is an art piece, because it is beautiful to look at or whatever, and that visual property can be stored on the blockchain. That is where they are failing. They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, and why they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.
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.

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.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  How about photographs? Even back in the days of silver chemistry printing, it was fairly straightforward for an artist like Ansel Adams to go into the darkroom and print up more copies of his pieces. Most famous photographers, in fact, hire assistants who do the actual duplication to their formula, and then they sign, date and number the prints. Today, when even fine art photographers print their results via inkjet, it’s incredibly easy to reproduce as many copies as you want. For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition.
  - insert_coin 6y ago
    > For modern graphic arts, the value has always come from being part of a serialized limited edition. The value to whom? To the artist the actual negative is clearly the most valuable to own. Original Ansel Adams negatives are actually very very valuable. Things, actual things, have value because they are physical, and the closer to the original the more value they have. Negatives have the most value, prints have less value, and a digital jpeg of an Ansel Adams photo has almost no value. I know, I "own" several.
    - andybak 6y ago
      > and the closer to the original the more value they have. Do you see the step you've just taken? It's no longer about authenticity, it's about proximity to authenticity. Would a reproduction from the original negative by someone other than Ansel Adams be more valuable than a different type of reproduction? If so, why?
      - insert_coin 6y ago
        Of course, it is closer to the author. I am fully aware of what I am saying: things have value not only because of what they are or what they are made of, they have value for other reasons. NFT people claim things only have value because of what they are, an art piece has value because it is an art piece, because it is beautiful to look at or whatever, and that visual property can be stored on the blockchain. That is where they are failing. They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, and why they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values.

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.