3 ms·
It's apparent more and more that the image or digital deliverable itself is worthless, it's just the semi-"public" key while the private crypto signature is the
by doggodaddo78 6y ago
It's apparent more and more that the image or digital deliverable itself is worthless, it's just the semi-"public" key while the private crypto signature is the crypto-backed part that is an exchange of actual currency. So, it doesn't matter what's exchanged, so long as it's sufficiently unique. I mean, you could auction a dick pic and it would still work.
- proc0 6y agoAgreed, but it implies that piece of digital work has inherent value of some kind, otherwise it's just a vector for sending or storing money. I guess the question why would someone think it's worth that much? It seems equivalent to buying a house for some ridiculous amount and then "donate" it to someone. It's really the fact that it amounts to a picture of someone... I think it follows all celebrities can now NFT all their pictures and movie screenshots... something that by itself seems worthless since actors perform in a film, and the story is the central piece of artwork I think (in most movies). Anyway, it's interesting regardless.