4 ms·

You should consider an NFT to be something like a certificate. Some entity has issued you a certificate saying, e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn

by wan23 6y ago

You should consider an NFT to be something like a certificate. Some entity has issued you a certificate saying, e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. The value of certificates in NFT form is that they are difficult to forge and easy to verify. However, like a paper certificate that you might hang on your wall, the actual certificate is worthless. It is representative of something that may have value, e.g. proof that someone who owns the Brooklyn Bridge has transferred ownership to you. What matters is if other people believe the underlying item is worth something and accept control of the token as being sufficient to authenticate you as the owner. Obviously, in this case no one will accept this token in place of a deed for the bridge, but on the other hand if a government did issue tokens this way and recognized them in court then it might work out pretty well (until someone steals your crypto keys).

freetime2 6y ago
He isn’t actually selling the Brooklyn Bridge, but a (comically poor) drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321d6701d07/1021 https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321... So this is not really a scam, but rather a legitimate satire of recent NFT sales.
- mbg721 6y ago
  In this case, I think of it as a sort of performance art, where by buying it you're participating in the performance.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yes, and John Cleese has made quite a lucrative career out of legitimate satire. This is not unlike how Weird Al would sell more copies of his satirical music than the music he satired.
gerdesj 6y ago
"e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge." I note that this whole NFT thing is bollocks but you are only buying an image of the Brooklyn Bridge not the bridge itself. This is not the same as a bloke pretending to flog the real bridge to you. That is why John Cleese picked that bridge because it was famously "sold" several times to victims of fraud. When I say bollocks, that is too trite as well. NFT means non fungible token and yet it clearly is "fungible" in some way. I generate one and sell it to you. The blockchain "proves" the transfer of ownership. Fiat (let it be) money is on pretty shaky ground as well and yet we live with the fibs and outright lies and get on with trade. If you look at the recent GME trading stuff and break it down into the various components - start with "what on earth is a USD?", it all rapidly gets a bit mad. Work your way up through what a short is or even what a simple stock trade actually means and then perhaps look at how the trades are trued up every few days and other weirdness. Calling out NFTs as bollocks is a bit off. Fiat money and stocks n that are basically a game with a lot of rules, a lot of rules. It is possible that some of those rules are made up on the fly by the banker and the banker may not be who you think they are. That said, I don't see myself using crypto coins. I mined over one BT back in the day and lost the wallet on my Pentium II when I dumped err recycled it. At the time it was worth a few quid - the BT that is. I really won't buy a NFT unless I suddenly find my NW in the millions and I get bored. Now Mr Cleese's piccy of the bridge does look quite tasty ... copy, paste .... delete. 8)
s1artibartfast 6y ago
The same is true for basically all NFTs. You own the token, not the original object. The purchaser of a tweet not does not have power to delete or modify it. Similarly, the purchaser of Beeples NFT did not get exclusive rights to the original works.

by wan23 6y ago

freetime2 6y ago

He isn’t actually selling the Brooklyn Bridge, but a (comically poor) drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321d6701d07/1021 https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321... So this is not really a scam, but rather a legitimate satire of recent NFT sales.

mbg721 6y ago
In this case, I think of it as a sort of performance art, where by buying it you're participating in the performance.
chrisco255 6y ago
Yes, and John Cleese has made quite a lucrative career out of legitimate satire. This is not unlike how Weird Al would sell more copies of his satirical music than the music he satired.

gerdesj 6y ago

"e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge." I note that this whole NFT thing is bollocks but you are only buying an image of the Brooklyn Bridge not the bridge itself. This is not the same as a bloke pretending to flog the real bridge to you. That is why John Cleese picked that bridge because it was famously "sold" several times to victims of fraud. When I say bollocks, that is too trite as well. NFT means non fungible token and yet it clearly is "fungible" in some way. I generate one and sell it to you. The blockchain "proves" the transfer of ownership. Fiat (let it be) money is on pretty shaky ground as well and yet we live with the fibs and outright lies and get on with trade. If you look at the recent GME trading stuff and break it down into the various components - start with "what on earth is a USD?", it all rapidly gets a bit mad. Work your way up through what a short is or even what a simple stock trade actually means and then perhaps look at how the trades are trued up every few days and other weirdness. Calling out NFTs as bollocks is a bit off. Fiat money and stocks n that are basically a game with a lot of rules, a lot of rules. It is possible that some of those rules are made up on the fly by the banker and the banker may not be who you think they are. That said, I don't see myself using crypto coins. I mined over one BT back in the day and lost the wallet on my Pentium II when I dumped err recycled it. At the time it was worth a few quid - the BT that is. I really won't buy a NFT unless I suddenly find my NW in the millions and I get bored. Now Mr Cleese's piccy of the bridge does look quite tasty ... copy, paste .... delete. 8)

s1artibartfast 6y ago

The same is true for basically all NFTs. You own the token, not the original object. The purchaser of a tweet not does not have power to delete or modify it. Similarly, the purchaser of Beeples NFT did not get exclusive rights to the original works.