4 ms·

The irony is that there's no actual difference between a fake NFT (token pointed to a URL) and a real one (token pointed to the same URL). In this case, the au

by smt88 5y ago

The irony is that there's no actual difference between a fake NFT (token pointed to a URL) and a real one (token pointed to the same URL). In this case, the authenticity seems to be tied to whether the artist said this is real or not. I wouldn't be surprised if this were a performance art stunt designed to show how unbelievably gullible NFT buyers are.

yodsanklai 5y ago
> In this case, the authenticity seems to be tied to whether the artist said this is real or not. It's the case for a lot of collectible objects. They need to be authenticated in some way. NFTs are mostly the same thing. An item that some people are willing to pay money for (either for speculation or emotional attachement) but otherwise worthless.
tshaddox 5y ago
> The irony is that there's no actual difference between a fake NFT (token pointed to a URL) and a real one (token pointed to the same URL). I'm not sure what you mean. The difference is precisely the same as the difference between a real Picasso painting and a skilled counterfeit of a Picasso painting.
- croes 5y ago
  I don't think so because you don't buy the painting but just the token that points to the painting. Everybody could sell it without having the picture or the rights. It could even be the correct URL. It's like selling the real world address of the Mona Lisa.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    The question is whether the claim "this NFT was issued by Bob" is true. There could be other NFTs issued by Bob, or other NFTs issued by other people, but those are other questions that aren't relevant to this question. This is simply a factual claim that is either true or false.
    - bscphil 5y ago
      I think what both your replies are trying to point out is that "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. The reason that the talented art counterfeiter doesn't bear that same relation is that they are not the person we have immense respect for the artistic talents of. True artists gain notoriety precisely by the fact that they first conceive of their works, because they are original. That is (in part, in addition to the inherent artistic value) what gives works by these artists such value. A counterfeiter only produces copies (by definition), not originals, and so what you are seeing is not the output of the strikingly creative mind that we cherish as human beings. With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. But this fact is uninteresting precisely because there's no artistic value in the creation of meaningless interchangeable bits of technical data (there is no "conceiving" step to distinguish between original and counterfeit). At best it ought to have the value of an autograph, which most celebrities already give away for free.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        > "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. I'm not making any points about "value" and certainly not about "innate value." I'm only talking about whether basic claims about the origin of a thing are true or false. It's up to everyone to determine how much they value the thing. I am trying to make precise points without devolving into "well I don't think NFTs have any value at all." That's a perfectly fine opinion, but it's totally independent from claims about the origin of something. > With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. Okay, since you do seem very interested in theories of why people value certain things, I'll address this. I think that the vast majority of the value of very expensive paintings by famous painters has very little to do with the "inherent" beauty of the work, and almost everything to do with facts about the actual origin of the object. I think that very skilled counterfeits deliver the overwhelming majority of aesthetic value, and I would argue this is provably the case for anyone except the very tiny group of people who are skilled enough to determine the authenticity of the painting.
- dundarious 5y ago
  Not really. Creating an NFT is a mundane administrative task, not a creative one. I’m sure most big name NFT “creators” have their assistant contract out the work in literally the exact same way as a “counterfeit”. Every NFT is at best like a work from Andy Warhol’s Factory, but in my view, is substantially inferior even to that. “Warhol’s” Factory output has value in the art world of course.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > Creating an NFT is a mundane administrative task, not a creative one. That's true, but I'm certainly not comparing the magnitude of difficulty or creativity involved in the production of the thing.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  No, it's more the difference between a fake certificate of authenticity for a real Picasso, and a real certificate of authenticity for a real Picasso. An NFT is no more an artwork than a certificate of authenticity is an artwork. The artwork in this case isn't what got sold, the NFT (certificate of authenticity) is. The artwork isn't fake, the NFT is, though since it's of a real artwork the distinction between a "fake" NFT and a "real" NFT is pretty much meaningless.
vmception 5y ago
Although NFT buyers can be unbelievably gullible, I don't think it applies to all circumstances, including this one. I would say the NFT creators are more gullible, as its actually quite crowded at the bottom with the majority of works ignored, and they are the ones paying hundreds of dollars in transaction fees to release their NFTs, after spending time on it. Basically, for this, the artist's words are just icing on the cake. The story is good enough, and it also inherits a provenance that is lightyears beyond anything outside of the NFT space, which alone has value, simply because it was first and predates anything Banksy subsequently releases. What is actually happening in the NFT space is community building. Where certain NFTs convey a belonging to a community. If you had transparent information from other surrogates for the same thing, you would see similar or greater values of transactions over the last 30 years. How many people spent time and energy evolving a Charizard? How many communities were made around that? What if the Charizard had global-state enforced scarcity? Are they gullible? Replace with any other coveted item. For now, these are the kinds of NFTs actually making the headlines.

by smt88 5y ago

yodsanklai 5y ago

> In this case, the authenticity seems to be tied to whether the artist said this is real or not. It's the case for a lot of collectible objects. They need to be authenticated in some way. NFTs are mostly the same thing. An item that some people are willing to pay money for (either for speculation or emotional attachement) but otherwise worthless.

tshaddox 5y ago

> The irony is that there's no actual difference between a fake NFT (token pointed to a URL) and a real one (token pointed to the same URL). I'm not sure what you mean. The difference is precisely the same as the difference between a real Picasso painting and a skilled counterfeit of a Picasso painting.

croes 5y ago
I don't think so because you don't buy the painting but just the token that points to the painting. Everybody could sell it without having the picture or the rights. It could even be the correct URL. It's like selling the real world address of the Mona Lisa.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  The question is whether the claim "this NFT was issued by Bob" is true. There could be other NFTs issued by Bob, or other NFTs issued by other people, but those are other questions that aren't relevant to this question. This is simply a factual claim that is either true or false.
  - bscphil 5y ago
    I think what both your replies are trying to point out is that "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. The reason that the talented art counterfeiter doesn't bear that same relation is that they are not the person we have immense respect for the artistic talents of. True artists gain notoriety precisely by the fact that they first conceive of their works, because they are original. That is (in part, in addition to the inherent artistic value) what gives works by these artists such value. A counterfeiter only produces copies (by definition), not originals, and so what you are seeing is not the output of the strikingly creative mind that we cherish as human beings. With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. But this fact is uninteresting precisely because there's no artistic value in the creation of meaningless interchangeable bits of technical data (there is no "conceiving" step to distinguish between original and counterfeit). At best it ought to have the value of an autograph, which most celebrities already give away for free.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      > "X conceived, produced, and realized Y" where Y is something of innate value is a vastly more interesting, useful, and value-holding relation than "X gave approval to the creation of Y" where Y is something that is the mere result of a technical process that can be recreated easily by anyone. I'm not making any points about "value" and certainly not about "innate value." I'm only talking about whether basic claims about the origin of a thing are true or false. It's up to everyone to determine how much they value the thing. I am trying to make precise points without devolving into "well I don't think NFTs have any value at all." That's a perfectly fine opinion, but it's totally independent from claims about the origin of something. > With an NFT you don't get any of that. The work has no inherent beauty (it's a piece of data), so the only thing that could give it value is the fact that its creation had the approval of creator X. Okay, since you do seem very interested in theories of why people value certain things, I'll address this. I think that the vast majority of the value of very expensive paintings by famous painters has very little to do with the "inherent" beauty of the work, and almost everything to do with facts about the actual origin of the object. I think that very skilled counterfeits deliver the overwhelming majority of aesthetic value, and I would argue this is provably the case for anyone except the very tiny group of people who are skilled enough to determine the authenticity of the painting.
dundarious 5y ago
Not really. Creating an NFT is a mundane administrative task, not a creative one. I’m sure most big name NFT “creators” have their assistant contract out the work in literally the exact same way as a “counterfeit”. Every NFT is at best like a work from Andy Warhol’s Factory, but in my view, is substantially inferior even to that. “Warhol’s” Factory output has value in the art world of course.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > Creating an NFT is a mundane administrative task, not a creative one. That's true, but I'm certainly not comparing the magnitude of difficulty or creativity involved in the production of the thing.
SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
No, it's more the difference between a fake certificate of authenticity for a real Picasso, and a real certificate of authenticity for a real Picasso. An NFT is no more an artwork than a certificate of authenticity is an artwork. The artwork in this case isn't what got sold, the NFT (certificate of authenticity) is. The artwork isn't fake, the NFT is, though since it's of a real artwork the distinction between a "fake" NFT and a "real" NFT is pretty much meaningless.

vmception 5y ago

Although NFT buyers can be unbelievably gullible, I don't think it applies to all circumstances, including this one. I would say the NFT creators are more gullible, as its actually quite crowded at the bottom with the majority of works ignored, and they are the ones paying hundreds of dollars in transaction fees to release their NFTs, after spending time on it. Basically, for this, the artist's words are just icing on the cake. The story is good enough, and it also inherits a provenance that is lightyears beyond anything outside of the NFT space, which alone has value, simply because it was first and predates anything Banksy subsequently releases. What is actually happening in the NFT space is community building. Where certain NFTs convey a belonging to a community. If you had transparent information from other surrogates for the same thing, you would see similar or greater values of transactions over the last 30 years. How many people spent time and energy evolving a Charizard? How many communities were made around that? What if the Charizard had global-state enforced scarcity? Are they gullible? Replace with any other coveted item. For now, these are the kinds of NFTs actually making the headlines.