5 ms·

“Collectors might be confused … you're not auctioning the [320x200] originals”

• ChrisArchitect 5y ago
  Great thread/teardown. I don't know how it's not detrimental/embarrassing to Christie's reputation and legitimacy to be parading out these claims/this stuff
• Grustaf 5y ago
  If I had paid big bucks for non-exclusive access to a public URL of a jpg, the resolution would be the least of my worries. And not to nitpick, but Amiga 1000 could go up to 640x512i, 320x200 was not the maximum resolution.
• domano 5y ago
  "An authorized third party is auctioning an entry on a blockchain for a URL that points to an authorized copy of a scaled up version of a born-digital Warhol image." I can barely wrap my head around it and i work in software. How do non-tech people understand what the auction is actually about?
  • Grustaf 5y ago
    They don’t, obviously, that’s the whole purpose. If they did they wouldn’t bid on it. Nobody would pay a cent for “the url of a jpg of a painting”.
    • dTal 5y ago
      You're not paying for the url of a jpg of a painting. Everyone already knows the url. You're paying for someone to put an entry in a random database with a public URL next to your name.
      • Grustaf 5y ago
        Sure. But still.
  • himinlomax 5y ago
    Same here. The more I read about NFT, the more stupid it looks. It's asymptotically retarded.
    • cyanydeez 5y ago
      however, is it any more abstractly different than cryptocurrency?
  • duped 5y ago
    "Money laundering"