3 ms·

That doesn’t make sense. People can’t own the same NFT, just the same way two people can’t own the same bitcoin. Can a creator make multiple copies, aka a limit

by 40four 5y ago

That doesn’t make sense. People can’t own the same NFT, just the same way two people can’t own the same bitcoin. Can a creator make multiple copies, aka a limited ‘print run’ of the same artwork? Of course, and this is common in the physical the art world as well. It shouldn’t be a surprise they are doing it in the digital at world.

Jensson 5y ago
What is this then? https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/objkt/417332 https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/objkt/417332 It logs all trades here, no sign that any of it are unique stuff. I don't really see how it is related to NFT's etc, but the guy linking the site said it had to do with NFT so I used that language. I assume the site owner call it NFT's as well, but since they take 10% royalties it can't really be, can it? Anyway, at least it isn't a good example of NFT's being functional. It is just a site where you can trade images associated with your profile. NFT's doesn't add any value to being able to trade pictures between profile process, it is just there to make people think this is a new valuable thing. But nobody who cares about images cares about NFT's, they care about the image being associated with their account or that money goes to the author. The whole NFT thing is just nonsense.
- detaro 5y ago
  As the parent told you, same model as limited print runs, allowing the artist to decide how many copies of the same "object" they want there to be.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Ok, so just nonsense then. Thanks for clarifying, if that is what NFT's is then they are even more of a scam than I thought. If they could loosely be tied to image rights it would be something, but this is just nonsense. There are zero reasons for a site to have an NFT tied to what images you display in your profile on that site. Having a market for images for that site is fine. But if there was a huge demand for such sites then they would exist before NFT's. Their massive explosion in popularity thus must be that the space filled with NFT scammers with little to no real demand.
    - detaro 5y ago
      They can be loosely tied to image rights, what does that have to do with this? Some of the platforms have explicit licenses attached detailing what you can do, in other cases the artists have directly declared it, ...
      - Jensson 5y ago
        How is that different from me buying imagines and stuff in Unity store? Or me buying images and packages in other online marketplaces? NFT's added nothing there. The rights comes from the site contract, not the NFT. Site goes down, NFT is worthless, same as if you didn't have an NFT.
        detaro 5y ago
        Licenses don't expire just because the site used to broker them goes away, unless they are worded that way. (E.g. if unity were to close their store, would you loose usage rights for assets bought there? Maybe, but the license wouldn't have to be that way) Also, I don't remember ever seeing a limited edition in asset store, and tracking ownership changes of digital assets is annoying to say the least. NFT folks argue that tracking them on a blockchain works well, isn't reliant on the original creator "approving" the resale unless its setup that way and makes it publicly transparent that the claims about "only one" or "only X" are true. If those differences have any value to you is of course a personal thing. For me personally, the "own a unique digital thing" isn't really something I care about, but I get how the logic works if you do. And selling purely digital artworks has been a problem for artists before, so apparently this "public scarcity" is something some buyers care for that wouldn't just pay to download something from the artists website for whatever reason. (And plenty people who think anything "limited" doesn't have extra value and are just as happy with a unlimited print than with a special limited edition - but clearly there is a large enough market that disagrees, since otherwise more expensive limited editions wouldn't be a thing)
- 40four 5y ago
  No offense, but you are either being purposefully obtuse/ closed minded, or your are ignorant of how the underlying technology works. Look, like many, I thought it was silly at first too. But I think part of the problem is the way it’s been sold to us hasn’t been the best. But I think it’s important to think about why you are so aggressively opposed to this? > ”NFT's doesn't add any value to being able to trade pictures between profile process” I think this is incorrect. And I think ‘profile pictures’ & avatars and such will be the first ‘real’ application of NFT art. In a few years, most likely all the major social media platforms will integrate whatever the few most popular NFT chains are. Then your avatar badge can be whatever cool NFT art you own, and it will be able to be verified on the blockchain. So to your point that you linked to, there are 25 copies. That’s not 25 people owning the same NFT, that’s 25 different NFTs owned by different people. So if you aren’t one of those 25 people, you won’t be able use it as a ‘verified’ avatar on “some_social_media_platform”. Sure, anyone can copy and paste a picture and ‘steal’ it, but if you don’t control a token with that picture in it, then you don’t own it, not really sure why that concept is so hard? Yeah I can put up a print of the Mona Lisa is my living room, but I obviously don’t own the actual Mona Lisa. The same way I could copy and paste a picture of some very popular NFT art, like a CryptoPunk or something. But my copy can’t be verified on chain, and hence I would just be displaying a ‘fake’ on my profile. And everyone would know it. Who knows how this will be implemented, but some have suggested something similar to the ‘verified’ check mark for famous people. If you control a token, then Twitter or whoever can show some indication that is indeed verified, and not a copy.

by 40four 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago

What is this then? https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/objkt/417332 https://www.hicetnunc.xyz/objkt/417332 It logs all trades here, no sign that any of it are unique stuff. I don't really see how it is related to NFT's etc, but the guy linking the site said it had to do with NFT so I used that language. I assume the site owner call it NFT's as well, but since they take 10% royalties it can't really be, can it? Anyway, at least it isn't a good example of NFT's being functional. It is just a site where you can trade images associated with your profile. NFT's doesn't add any value to being able to trade pictures between profile process, it is just there to make people think this is a new valuable thing. But nobody who cares about images cares about NFT's, they care about the image being associated with their account or that money goes to the author. The whole NFT thing is just nonsense.

detaro 5y ago
As the parent told you, same model as limited print runs, allowing the artist to decide how many copies of the same "object" they want there to be.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Ok, so just nonsense then. Thanks for clarifying, if that is what NFT's is then they are even more of a scam than I thought. If they could loosely be tied to image rights it would be something, but this is just nonsense. There are zero reasons for a site to have an NFT tied to what images you display in your profile on that site. Having a market for images for that site is fine. But if there was a huge demand for such sites then they would exist before NFT's. Their massive explosion in popularity thus must be that the space filled with NFT scammers with little to no real demand.
  - detaro 5y ago
    They can be loosely tied to image rights, what does that have to do with this? Some of the platforms have explicit licenses attached detailing what you can do, in other cases the artists have directly declared it, ...
    - Jensson 5y ago
      How is that different from me buying imagines and stuff in Unity store? Or me buying images and packages in other online marketplaces? NFT's added nothing there. The rights comes from the site contract, not the NFT. Site goes down, NFT is worthless, same as if you didn't have an NFT.
      - detaro 5y ago
        Licenses don't expire just because the site used to broker them goes away, unless they are worded that way. (E.g. if unity were to close their store, would you loose usage rights for assets bought there? Maybe, but the license wouldn't have to be that way) Also, I don't remember ever seeing a limited edition in asset store, and tracking ownership changes of digital assets is annoying to say the least. NFT folks argue that tracking them on a blockchain works well, isn't reliant on the original creator "approving" the resale unless its setup that way and makes it publicly transparent that the claims about "only one" or "only X" are true. If those differences have any value to you is of course a personal thing. For me personally, the "own a unique digital thing" isn't really something I care about, but I get how the logic works if you do. And selling purely digital artworks has been a problem for artists before, so apparently this "public scarcity" is something some buyers care for that wouldn't just pay to download something from the artists website for whatever reason. (And plenty people who think anything "limited" doesn't have extra value and are just as happy with a unlimited print than with a special limited edition - but clearly there is a large enough market that disagrees, since otherwise more expensive limited editions wouldn't be a thing)
40four 5y ago
No offense, but you are either being purposefully obtuse/ closed minded, or your are ignorant of how the underlying technology works. Look, like many, I thought it was silly at first too. But I think part of the problem is the way it’s been sold to us hasn’t been the best. But I think it’s important to think about why you are so aggressively opposed to this? > ”NFT's doesn't add any value to being able to trade pictures between profile process” I think this is incorrect. And I think ‘profile pictures’ & avatars and such will be the first ‘real’ application of NFT art. In a few years, most likely all the major social media platforms will integrate whatever the few most popular NFT chains are. Then your avatar badge can be whatever cool NFT art you own, and it will be able to be verified on the blockchain. So to your point that you linked to, there are 25 copies. That’s not 25 people owning the same NFT, that’s 25 different NFTs owned by different people. So if you aren’t one of those 25 people, you won’t be able use it as a ‘verified’ avatar on “some_social_media_platform”. Sure, anyone can copy and paste a picture and ‘steal’ it, but if you don’t control a token with that picture in it, then you don’t own it, not really sure why that concept is so hard? Yeah I can put up a print of the Mona Lisa is my living room, but I obviously don’t own the actual Mona Lisa. The same way I could copy and paste a picture of some very popular NFT art, like a CryptoPunk or something. But my copy can’t be verified on chain, and hence I would just be displaying a ‘fake’ on my profile. And everyone would know it. Who knows how this will be implemented, but some have suggested something similar to the ‘verified’ check mark for famous people. If you control a token, then Twitter or whoever can show some indication that is indeed verified, and not a copy.