4 ms·
Many signed prints I own do not even include a verification document (not all artists distribute this). NFTs do not need to limit duplication; the tokens are a
by mattdesl 5y ago
Many signed prints I own do not even include a verification document (not all artists distribute this).
NFTs do not need to limit duplication; the tokens are already unique, as each is addressable to a different contract hash. This is why, although there are many copies of the CryptoPunks contract for example, there is only one CryptoPunks token that tends to have a market around it[1]. Those tokens are linked with a contract address that has become widely recognized as stemming from the original project.
[1] - https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865de6e193bbb#readContract https://etherscan.io/token/0xb47e3cd837ddf8e4c57f05d70ab865d...
- threeseed 5y agoI am not talking about the NFT but about the artwork. If you had an image file format that embedded an NFT and every device would refuse to allow copies then that would be something. But right now NFTs seem pointless to me because I can always just copy the underlying image once I see it online.
- mattdesl 5y agoI answered a similar question here[1]. The economic value of art has historically been tied to the scarcity of access to its media. NFT presents an alternative paradigm that separates the signature (artist-signed token) from the artistic media (image, GIF, conceptual art project, etc), allowing the former to remain scarce & uniquely transferable while the latter remains abundant & widely accessible. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29160090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29160090