4 ms·

> Trust me, the judge is the judge of that, not the blockchain. Blockchains only actually work for concepts wholly encapsulated by the blockchain. Art is not th

> Trust me, the judge is the judge of that, not the blockchain. Blockchains only actually work for concepts wholly encapsulated by the blockchain. Art is not that. Art is represented and encapsulated by data. The judge of provenance is society: whatever the buyer deems necessary to prove legitamacy is what sets value. An old rolex with papers is worth more than one without. A rolex that can't be identified as authentic by anyone is worth nothing.

arcticbull 5y ago
Art is represented beyond just the data itself, it's also the legal rights that come alongside it. However, that notwithstanding you're not buying the art. You're not buying the legal rights to the art. You're buying a URL. A signed museum map telling you where you can find art right now. It may in fact just change to different art at some point in the future or disappear entirely, because you bought nothing. An old Rolex with papers is worth more than without, but the papers without the Rolex are worth nothing. In this case you're just buying the papers.
- coralreef 5y ago
  > you're not buying the art. You're not buying the legal rights to the art. You're buying a URL. A signed museum map telling you where you can find art right now. It may in fact just change to different art at some point in the future or disappear entirely, because you bought nothing. Yes, you're starting to get it. You're not buying art, you're not buying legal rights. If the data was written directly to the blockchain, then it is permanent. But even if it points to some temporary host, big deal, the file itself wasn't the valuable part. Data can endlessly be replicated and rehosted. It is the genuine provenance of an artist that was bought and traded. It is proof representing a work, whatever that artist declares it to be. They could simply resell it again for all anyone knows, but that would hurt them and devalue all their future work. All value is abstract. The papers without the Rolex can be worth anything anyone wants to pay for it. Following that rule I suppose fake papers can even be worth something, but most likely not.

arcticbull 5y ago

Art is represented beyond just the data itself, it's also the legal rights that come alongside it. However, that notwithstanding you're not buying the art. You're not buying the legal rights to the art. You're buying a URL. A signed museum map telling you where you can find art right now. It may in fact just change to different art at some point in the future or disappear entirely, because you bought nothing. An old Rolex with papers is worth more than without, but the papers without the Rolex are worth nothing. In this case you're just buying the papers.

coralreef 5y ago
> you're not buying the art. You're not buying the legal rights to the art. You're buying a URL. A signed museum map telling you where you can find art right now. It may in fact just change to different art at some point in the future or disappear entirely, because you bought nothing. Yes, you're starting to get it. You're not buying art, you're not buying legal rights. If the data was written directly to the blockchain, then it is permanent. But even if it points to some temporary host, big deal, the file itself wasn't the valuable part. Data can endlessly be replicated and rehosted. It is the genuine provenance of an artist that was bought and traded. It is proof representing a work, whatever that artist declares it to be. They could simply resell it again for all anyone knows, but that would hurt them and devalue all their future work. All value is abstract. The papers without the Rolex can be worth anything anyone wants to pay for it. Following that rule I suppose fake papers can even be worth something, but most likely not.