6 ms·

Like any other coins, it's simply a note useful to figure out who owns what within the framework of the community. NFT's connection to art is just a way to put

by mrtksn 5y ago

Like any other coins, it's simply a note useful to figure out who owns what within the framework of the community. NFT's connection to art is just a way to put a face on new coins. Instead of creating a sum of a coin brand and trade those(HN coin with total of 100K coins), you create a new coin brand each time(The most upvoted post, the post that made something famous etc.) and trade those with each other. It looks like a solution to the problem of early adopters having all the wealth. BTC up %10 or even %100 doesn't mean much, the crypto wealth was created by investments having %1,000,000 returns. Memecoins, NFT etc. serve the purpose of being able to bet like it's the early days of the BTC. The misconception of "selling JPG's for millions" appears to be as a result of thinking with the pre-blockchain mental models. I know a few people trading and chasing NFT's and none of them are into the art part, they are into the trade part and they are trying to buy NFTs that they expect to sell for a better price later. Their criteria for buying NFTs revolve around things like size of the community interested in it, promoters having the blue badge on Twitter, the age group etc.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> it's simply a note useful to figure out who owns what within the framework of the community Owning an NFT does not mean you own the underlying asset.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Define owning. Depending on your definition, it may mean or may not mean owning. In the NFT circles, the record on the chain indicating that you own something means you own something because ownership transfer will happen within the exact same framework. NFT is not a media to purchase rights of an artwork to print it t-shirts or something like that. These things happen within the legal framework of a jurisdiction that has legislated stuff like copyright. Blockchain is not a jurisdiction, it's simply a list record and those records are valid for those accepting the blockchain as the authoritative record.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    If you have to have some odd local definition of ownership you’ve already lost and know it! Compare it to physical art. If you buy physical art you take control of the object and can do what you like with it including keeping it locked up in a customs warehouse. If you buy a token you own the token not anything it points to. You can do what you like with the token but not what it points to. You own a link.
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      The stuff you describe about physical art is only valid within a jurisdiction that has legislated ownership of physical items. You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse. You can be custodian of it if the legal framework allows for that, it still can be yours of someone takes ot from you physically. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible that despite you paid to own the physical art piece, you are still not allowed to take photos of it in purpose to reproduce the images of it. You may own it but maybe you can't break it down or take it away from its place. These are all constructs that societies had it differently and it's all matter of legal and political processes. There's no inartistic ownership, it is a social construct that happens within a community. The blockchain doesn't operate within the traditional legislations, ownership within a blockchain means people who use it accept the record as true. If it says that you own it, you own it(within the community of people who use blockchain).
      - meheleventyone 5y ago
        Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction. All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who don’t know you have a peculiar definition. This happens a lot in blockchain communities where ownership, trust, decentralisation and other terms end up being a lot more local in definition because the whole house of cards gets exposed if you actually look at things more neutrally. It’s a bit cult like in that respect and interestingly a lot of cults have odd ideas about ownership as well.

by mrtksn 5y ago

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> it's simply a note useful to figure out who owns what within the framework of the community Owning an NFT does not mean you own the underlying asset.

mrtksn 5y ago
Define owning. Depending on your definition, it may mean or may not mean owning. In the NFT circles, the record on the chain indicating that you own something means you own something because ownership transfer will happen within the exact same framework. NFT is not a media to purchase rights of an artwork to print it t-shirts or something like that. These things happen within the legal framework of a jurisdiction that has legislated stuff like copyright. Blockchain is not a jurisdiction, it's simply a list record and those records are valid for those accepting the blockchain as the authoritative record.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  If you have to have some odd local definition of ownership you’ve already lost and know it! Compare it to physical art. If you buy physical art you take control of the object and can do what you like with it including keeping it locked up in a customs warehouse. If you buy a token you own the token not anything it points to. You can do what you like with the token but not what it points to. You own a link.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    The stuff you describe about physical art is only valid within a jurisdiction that has legislated ownership of physical items. You can very well take control of an object without owning it and lock it up in a custom warehouse. You can be custodian of it if the legal framework allows for that, it still can be yours of someone takes ot from you physically. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is possible that despite you paid to own the physical art piece, you are still not allowed to take photos of it in purpose to reproduce the images of it. You may own it but maybe you can't break it down or take it away from its place. These are all constructs that societies had it differently and it's all matter of legal and political processes. There's no inartistic ownership, it is a social construct that happens within a community. The blockchain doesn't operate within the traditional legislations, ownership within a blockchain means people who use it accept the record as true. If it says that you own it, you own it(within the community of people who use blockchain).
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      Things being a social construct doesn’t mean their definitions lack solidity. Particularly when defended by force through mutually agreed frameworks like governments and legal systems with their own mutual agreements inter-jurisdiction. All you do when you use a local definition is note that you’re going against the established definition by society, enjoy none of the protections and muddy the waters for people who don’t know you have a peculiar definition. This happens a lot in blockchain communities where ownership, trust, decentralisation and other terms end up being a lot more local in definition because the whole house of cards gets exposed if you actually look at things more neutrally. It’s a bit cult like in that respect and interestingly a lot of cults have odd ideas about ownership as well.