3 ms·

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

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.

andybak 6y ago
I think there is a flaw in your reasoning but it's hard to be sure because your last sentence is rather hard to parse. > They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, Can you clarify? > they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values. We're not talking about the value in a piece of art - or even the value of owning an original piece of art. Ownership itself is a social construct. Back to my limited edition print comparison: You own one of a series of 100 prints or a photograph by a famous artist. I "own" a reproduction of the same work that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from your print. Assuming you can prove the authenticity of your print (maybe there's a chain of custody you can verify) - your print is worth thousands and mine is worth simply the cost of making another copy. How is this less silly than NFTs?
- insert_coin 6y ago
  You cannot "authenticate" the bits 001 are different from the bits 001. NFTs claim one is the "original".
  - andybak 6y ago
    You're going to have to elaborate. Sentence 1 is trivially true. Sentence 2 differs from my understanding but more importantly - I don't see how it connects to our previous discussion.

andybak 6y ago

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning but it's hard to be sure because your last sentence is rather hard to parse. > They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, Can you clarify? > they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values. We're not talking about the value in a piece of art - or even the value of owning an original piece of art. Ownership itself is a social construct. Back to my limited edition print comparison: You own one of a series of 100 prints or a photograph by a famous artist. I "own" a reproduction of the same work that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from your print. Assuming you can prove the authenticity of your print (maybe there's a chain of custody you can verify) - your print is worth thousands and mine is worth simply the cost of making another copy. How is this less silly than NFTs?

insert_coin 6y ago
You cannot "authenticate" the bits 001 are different from the bits 001. NFTs claim one is the "original".
- andybak 6y ago
  You're going to have to elaborate. Sentence 1 is trivially true. Sentence 2 differs from my understanding but more importantly - I don't see how it connects to our previous discussion.