3 ms·

I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex. With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that th

I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex. With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that the famous painter touched and painted, stroke by stroke, that can never be duplicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

capableweb 6y ago
Let's say we could replicate the painting stroke by stroke. Let's say we also use the same painter. Still, it doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not the same as the first and initial incarnation of that artifact, physical or digital.
- sn_master 6y ago
  If the painter makes countless copies, the painting would lose its value. The value of an object is associated with who made it or who owned it or how unique it is. e.g. Hitler's car wouldn't have had its value if it was owned by someone else, despite it being no technically different from other Mercedes cars of the era.
- manigandham 6y ago
  This is not true. Digital items do not have an original. In fact creating the digital item itself creates multiple copies in the process, and every viewing of it creates infinitely more copies.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > Digital items do not have an original Sure, except in the case of NFTs which is the subject of this discussion. Then there is one original (the NFT that the original creator created) and it has exactly one owner. Anything else is a copy.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      The point is that without an original, an NFT is just a receipt pointing to one of many completely identical - and fungible - items.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  If you can't tell the copy from the original, both would probably halve in value, then quickly rise because of the notability of the situation. Art has its worth because it is difficult to forge, mostly through its proof of provenance, but also through the certification of designated, well-paid experts.

capableweb 6y ago

Let's say we could replicate the painting stroke by stroke. Let's say we also use the same painter. Still, it doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not the same as the first and initial incarnation of that artifact, physical or digital.

sn_master 6y ago
If the painter makes countless copies, the painting would lose its value. The value of an object is associated with who made it or who owned it or how unique it is. e.g. Hitler's car wouldn't have had its value if it was owned by someone else, despite it being no technically different from other Mercedes cars of the era.
manigandham 6y ago
This is not true. Digital items do not have an original. In fact creating the digital item itself creates multiple copies in the process, and every viewing of it creates infinitely more copies.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > Digital items do not have an original Sure, except in the case of NFTs which is the subject of this discussion. Then there is one original (the NFT that the original creator created) and it has exactly one owner. Anything else is a copy.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    The point is that without an original, an NFT is just a receipt pointing to one of many completely identical - and fungible - items.
pessimizer 6y ago
If you can't tell the copy from the original, both would probably halve in value, then quickly rise because of the notability of the situation. Art has its worth because it is difficult to forge, mostly through its proof of provenance, but also through the certification of designated, well-paid experts.