7 ms·

My understanding is that John can take a picture/jpg of the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and sell his picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. Jane can also take a

by clpm4j 6y ago

My understanding is that John can take a picture/jpg of the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and sell his picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. Jane can also take a picture/jpg of the Mona Lisa, mint an ERC-20 token and sell her picture/jpg on a NFT marketplace. I think the difference shows up when Jack Dorsey mints a screenshot of his first tweet and sells it, it's worth $2m because it's sold by Jack. Whereas I could screenshot Jack's first tweet, mint it and sell it for $0.01 because it's sold by me. Very happy to be corrected if this is incorrect.

Judgmentality 6y ago
This is also my understanding, and my point was (in this example) Jack Dorsey can just do it a second time, and a third time, and so on. And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity.
- aboodman 6y ago
  Both of these statements are true: - An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work - Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash. However: > And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself has an address and its own history. They are distinguishable. They are orderable. > This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity. The record has a guaranteed longevity - the longevity of the underlying blockchain. The object it points to obviously does not. However that's not really important. Building records in the city clerk office have a guaranteed longevity that is far greater than the buildings themselves. So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. If Jack attached IP rights to those NFTs, courts would presumably only consider the first valid. I personally find NFTs that lack actual legal property rights to be silly and valueless, but I wanted to address confusion about how they actually work.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    > So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to value any of his original "work" highly. I am open to being wrong, but it still boggles my mind anybody could think NFTs are anything other than a scam. At least bitcoin had lots of legitimate theory to be used as an alternative to currency, even if it only ended up being an investment alternative for gold. An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art.
    - miracle2k 6y ago
      > An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art. An NFT of a tweet maybe. But actually artists do create art and sell it as NFTs.
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates of that work later. Unless the author has a legal contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that work again, there's no reason to believe in its authenticity. And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs don't strike me as trustworthy.
        miracle2k 6y ago
        But in the non-NFT world, artists are selling prints of their work, and have been doing so for decades - hardly a fad! Those can be fairly expensive for the top tier, and they work the same way: You trust the artist will not inflate the supply of the same work with additional prints later on.

by clpm4j 6y ago

Judgmentality 6y ago

This is also my understanding, and my point was (in this example) Jack Dorsey can just do it a second time, and a third time, and so on. And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity.

aboodman 6y ago
Both of these statements are true: - An NFT can (should) include a hash of the work - Multiple NFTs can exist pointing to the same hash. However: > And it's not like Monet making more paintings, because each painting is unique. Each NFT is also unique in the sense that each NFT itself has an address and its own history. They are distinguishable. They are orderable. > This is an identical digital copy from the same person, with no guarantee of its longevity. The record has a guaranteed longevity - the longevity of the underlying blockchain. The object it points to obviously does not. However that's not really important. Building records in the city clerk office have a guaranteed longevity that is far greater than the buildings themselves. So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. If Jack attached IP rights to those NFTs, courts would presumably only consider the first valid. I personally find NFTs that lack actual legal property rights to be silly and valueless, but I wanted to address confusion about how they actually work.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  > So for example, if Jack minted multiple NFTs for the same tweet it would be clear to everyone which one was first. Only the first one would presumably be considered valuable. That's not how I see it at all. Once Jack has been shown to be willing to oversell himself just to make a quick buck, it will immediately devalue everything associated with him, including the original NFT. You're buying into the quality/credibility/longevity of the creator here, and once it's shown he's a shill there's not much reason to value any of his original "work" highly. I am open to being wrong, but it still boggles my mind anybody could think NFTs are anything other than a scam. At least bitcoin had lots of legitimate theory to be used as an alternative to currency, even if it only ended up being an investment alternative for gold. An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art.
  - miracle2k 6y ago
    > An NFT is like trying to sell art without actually having to create art. An NFT of a tweet maybe. But actually artists do create art and sell it as NFTs.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      Sure, but there's no guarantee there won't be duplicates of that work later. Unless the author has a legal contract guaranteeing never to make another NFT of that work again, there's no reason to believe in its authenticity. And call me crazy, but the kind of people selling NFTs don't strike me as trustworthy.
      - miracle2k 6y ago
        But in the non-NFT world, artists are selling prints of their work, and have been doing so for decades - hardly a fad! Those can be fairly expensive for the top tier, and they work the same way: You trust the artist will not inflate the supply of the same work with additional prints later on.