6 ms·

They could try to sell NFTs of the paintings, or do I still not get NFTs?

jozzy-james 6y ago
nobody does
kibwen 6y ago
They can sell NFTs of them, and you can also sell NFTs of them. Anyone can sell NFTs of anything. They're just an attempt to impose artificial scarcity on a post-scarcity commodity (which is to say, bits in a database).
- jozzy-james 6y ago
  I work in the industry dealing with art/design, and the only thing I really see NFT being useful for is a chain of custody to prove authenticity - but that only applies to newly created works, as with historic pieces you're already at a crapshoot on specialists validating stuff correctly. edit: i use the term 'historic' loosely, i just mean stuff that has been circulating for a while.
  - twhb 6y ago
    That only works if every owner participates, and if you’ve got every owner participating in the same authority then you don’t need NFTs.
    - jozzy-james 6y ago
      sure, i guess the thought is if you break the NFT chain then you essentially devalue your investment. it's an interesting use-case, but don't see it widely adopted in the art market any time soon.
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    What prevents a malicious owner from creating a forgery, selling that with the NFT, and keeping the original for themselves?
    - jozzy-james 6y ago
      well, the way i understand it is that the NFT signature would prevent that. granted, i've only recently been looking at NFT and general blockchain custody stuff at work - so i might be missing some key parts on how it all works. edit: unless you meant the forgery was the first to NFT - which is why i mentioned that i only see it as viable for newly created works that have not already been sold.
      - crooked-v 6y ago
        You can bake a digital signature into an NFT, but that's not going to help you verify a physical painting.
        jozzy-james 6y ago
        how so? again, i'm pretty new into researching this for physical works - but i would assume with the provenance/etc that goes into cataloging a piece, it should be...well, at least better than what we currently have.
        crooked-v 6y ago
        How are you going to map a digital signature to in-depth verification of a physical painting? There are basically no possibilities here that aren't full of holes, because the real world doesn't come in discrete byte values.
        jozzy-james 6y ago
        i see them as a chain of custody that accentuates an already broken system of 'in-depth verification' as you put it. but again, i'm only recently looking into the validity of using such a thing. more accountability should be good, overall.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Is it that, or are they trying to impose fungibility on an inherently infungible asset?
  - TchoBeer 6y ago
    porque no los dos
crooked-v 6y ago
Here's a meme blog post that's been going around that unironically helps with understanding how NFTs work: https://i.imgur.com/NJirDQp.png https://i.imgur.com/NJirDQp.png > imagine if you went up to the mona lisa and you were like "i'd like to own this" and someone nearby went "give me 65 million dollars and i'll burn down an unspecified amount of the amazon rainforest in order to give you this receipt of purchase" so you paid them and they went "here's your receipt, thank you for your purchase" and went to an unmarked supply closet in the back of the museum and posted a handmade label inside it behind the brooms that said "mona lisa currently owned by jacobgalapagos" so if anyone wants to know who owns it they'd have to find this specific closet in this specific hallway and look behind the correct brooms. and you went "can i take the mona lisa home now" and they went "oh god no are you stupid? you only bought the receipt that says you own it, you didn't actually buy the mona lisa itself, you can't take the real mona lisa you idiot. you CAN take this though." and gave you the replica print in a cardboard tube that's sold in the gift shop. also the person selling you the receipt of purchase has at no point in time ever owned the mona lisa. > unfortunately, if this doesnt really make sense or seem like any logical person would be happy about this exchange, then you've understood it perfectly
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  One of the best explanations for NFTs however the NFT typically contains only a link. Thus the slip you own would say "Mona Lisa is at the Louvre" and you can receive an entry in the ledger telling you own that slip :)
- mcguire 6y ago
  I'll just leave this here, then. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article250944639.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article250944639.htm...
TameAntelope 6y ago
Everyone seems pretty excited to tell me that you aren’t buying the item with an NFT but the reason I suggested it is because one of the reasons they cite is sentimental value. The NFT would generate value (you own the NFT of a Bob Ross painting, maybe an entire episode) without the folks who care about the painting itself losing the sentiment, and who would buy the “second” NFT of something anyway? I wasn’t being snide or cracking a joke about NFTs, though I think that’s how I was interpreted.

nobody does

They can sell NFTs of them, and you can also sell NFTs of them. Anyone can sell NFTs of anything. They're just an attempt to impose artificial scarcity on a post-scarcity commodity (which is to say, bits in a database).

jozzy-james 6y ago
I work in the industry dealing with art/design, and the only thing I really see NFT being useful for is a chain of custody to prove authenticity - but that only applies to newly created works, as with historic pieces you're already at a crapshoot on specialists validating stuff correctly. edit: i use the term 'historic' loosely, i just mean stuff that has been circulating for a while.
- twhb 6y ago
  That only works if every owner participates, and if you’ve got every owner participating in the same authority then you don’t need NFTs.
  - jozzy-james 6y ago
    sure, i guess the thought is if you break the NFT chain then you essentially devalue your investment. it's an interesting use-case, but don't see it widely adopted in the art market any time soon.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  What prevents a malicious owner from creating a forgery, selling that with the NFT, and keeping the original for themselves?
  - jozzy-james 6y ago
    well, the way i understand it is that the NFT signature would prevent that. granted, i've only recently been looking at NFT and general blockchain custody stuff at work - so i might be missing some key parts on how it all works. edit: unless you meant the forgery was the first to NFT - which is why i mentioned that i only see it as viable for newly created works that have not already been sold.
    - crooked-v 6y ago
      You can bake a digital signature into an NFT, but that's not going to help you verify a physical painting.
      - jozzy-james 6y ago
        how so? again, i'm pretty new into researching this for physical works - but i would assume with the provenance/etc that goes into cataloging a piece, it should be...well, at least better than what we currently have.
        crooked-v 6y ago
        How are you going to map a digital signature to in-depth verification of a physical painting? There are basically no possibilities here that aren't full of holes, because the real world doesn't come in discrete byte values.
        jozzy-james 6y ago
        i see them as a chain of custody that accentuates an already broken system of 'in-depth verification' as you put it. but again, i'm only recently looking into the validity of using such a thing. more accountability should be good, overall.
mcguire 6y ago
Is it that, or are they trying to impose fungibility on an inherently infungible asset?
- TchoBeer 6y ago
  porque no los dos

crooked-v 6y ago

Here's a meme blog post that's been going around that unironically helps with understanding how NFTs work: https://i.imgur.com/NJirDQp.png https://i.imgur.com/NJirDQp.png > imagine if you went up to the mona lisa and you were like "i'd like to own this" and someone nearby went "give me 65 million dollars and i'll burn down an unspecified amount of the amazon rainforest in order to give you this receipt of purchase" so you paid them and they went "here's your receipt, thank you for your purchase" and went to an unmarked supply closet in the back of the museum and posted a handmade label inside it behind the brooms that said "mona lisa currently owned by jacobgalapagos" so if anyone wants to know who owns it they'd have to find this specific closet in this specific hallway and look behind the correct brooms. and you went "can i take the mona lisa home now" and they went "oh god no are you stupid? you only bought the receipt that says you own it, you didn't actually buy the mona lisa itself, you can't take the real mona lisa you idiot. you CAN take this though." and gave you the replica print in a cardboard tube that's sold in the gift shop. also the person selling you the receipt of purchase has at no point in time ever owned the mona lisa. > unfortunately, if this doesnt really make sense or seem like any logical person would be happy about this exchange, then you've understood it perfectly

johannes1234321 6y ago
One of the best explanations for NFTs however the NFT typically contains only a link. Thus the slip you own would say "Mona Lisa is at the Louvre" and you can receive an entry in the ledger telling you own that slip :)
mcguire 6y ago
I'll just leave this here, then. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article250944639.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article250944639.htm...

TameAntelope 6y ago

Everyone seems pretty excited to tell me that you aren’t buying the item with an NFT but the reason I suggested it is because one of the reasons they cite is sentimental value. The NFT would generate value (you own the NFT of a Bob Ross painting, maybe an entire episode) without the folks who care about the painting itself losing the sentiment, and who would buy the “second” NFT of something anyway? I wasn’t being snide or cracking a joke about NFTs, though I think that’s how I was interpreted.