4 ms·

Well, a painting is of one a kind. It can't be replicated with exact fidelity, unlike an abstract sequence of 1s and 0s.

• lalaland1125 5y ago
  NFTs are technically one of a kind too since they have an exact timestamp ordering creation. A second copy would have a different timestamp.
  • lottin 5y ago
    > A second copy would have a different timestamp. No, you can copy the timestamp as well.
• capableweb 5y ago
  NFTs are based around the idea that you create a new cryptocurrency for each object you want to sell on a chain, for example Ethereum. When you do this "creation of a non-fungible token", your token gets an address that is essentially an "ID" for the token you've created. Every token you create gets a unique ID, that only that token has. So with that in mind, a NFT is as unique as a painting in your example, as a NFT is always "one of a kind".
  • lottin 5y ago
    No, the ID is not unique. It might be unique in a particular database, where the software enforces such uniqueness, but that doesn't mean the ID unique. Anyone can make an exact copy of the ID, which will be undistinguishable from the original, or they can copy the entire database, any number of times, at a negligible cost. You can't do that with a physical object.
  • zohch 5y ago
    And what value does this unique NFT have if it has no enforceable or enforced relation to reality?
    • capableweb 5y ago
      Not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Either you think it's valuable, or you don't. I happen to think NFTs are not as valuable as others seemingly think, but they do have some use cases (apparently). What is reality anyway? We have a distributed, decentralized database (Ethereum) that people can set/get data in/from. Now we also have a abstraction on top of that that allows us to have unique data. What can we do with this? Fuck should I know, also I don't really care. Think of it what you want.
      • zohch 5y ago
        > What is reality anyway? Have you not heard of this concept? Seems to be a bit of copout to explaining the value of an NFT given an NFT, by it's mere existence, has no bearing on anything outside of a blockchain. But if you are unclear on the concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
        • capableweb 5y ago
          We seem to differ on the definition as I'd call blockchains and cryptocurrencies real (part of reality), but you somehow don't.
    • DSMan195276 5y ago
      I feel like you're trying to find a more concrete reason than is necessary - the fact that it is unique can be valuable on its own. I can go buy a reproduction Picasso that looks identical to the original and from an art standpoint it's effective equivalent, but it's still worth nothing compared to a "real" one. The fact that the original was painted by Picasso is what provides it so much value, even though who painted a particular piece of art is not a physical part of the art itself. A unique NFT effectively provides value in the same way, it is valuable as long as people care about who/what issued it and thus want to be able to say they own that unique one. And while it's notable that digital art can be duplicated perfectly and physical art cannot, I don't personally think that matters all that much. People who are buying a Picasso aren't doing so just for the art, they're doing it so they can say they own a Picasso. In the same way you're not buying an NFT for the art itself, you're buying it because it's uniquely identifiable in a way you and others care about.
  • professoretc 5y ago
    But the actual image data isn't stored in the token, just its URL (usually). So what you own is not the image, but rather, whatever resource resides at a particular URL, with there being no guarantee that that resource doesn't also live at some other URL.
    • tshaddox 5y ago
      But everyone knows that. No one is claiming that an NFT literally is a digital image.
• danpalmer 5y ago
  You're not even buying the "1s and 0s" with an NFT either. You're buying a record in a proprietary (albeit public) database that says you "own" it. There can be many records in many propriety databases claiming the same thing and none has any more legitimacy than any other technically speaking
  • maxwell 5y ago
    Why the quotes on "own"? You can hold it, trade it, or destroy it—curious what other factors you see as necessary for "full" ownership of a digital token?
    • NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      Right Click -> Save As
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • maxwell 5y ago
        NFTs aren't digital media, they're digital tokens. You own the token as you own an API key for a service, except since decentralized there's no network operator who can revoke your key ("suspend your account") as with, say, centralized SaaS REST APIs. You're not buying the JPEG, you're buying an API key that happens to be linked to the JPEG.
    • Joeboy 5y ago
      You own the token, but only "own" the art.
      • yayitswei 5y ago
        By that logic, you only "own" your house.
        • 5y ago
• tshaddox 5y ago
  It can be replicated in such a way that you cannot apply a test to determine whether it is original, unless you’re one of a very few experts who can distinguish highly skilled forgeries from original paintings. Historically there have been forgeries that have fooled all experts and thus the entire art world for some time. This is a much more difficult and less reliable process than checking a digital signature in a public database.
• DSMan195276 5y ago
  The fact that something is or isn't one of a kind doesn't make it valuable though. If value only came from the art itself then whether something was one of a kind shouldn't matter - especially so if a reproduction is close enough that they are visually identical. For expensive paintings the value of the painting is completely separate from the art itself - I think we can agree that a Picasso would sell for a lot less if you didn't tell people it was painted by Picasso. That's despite the fact that who painted something is not a physical aspect of the painting. An NFT is basically like a 'certificate of authenticity' - whether you think it's BS or not depends entirely on who issued it. A item that includes such a certificate from a known reputable source may be extremely valuable to a collector, where-as the regular item may be practically worthless, and that can be true even if nobody can tell the items apart. At the same time, John Doe down the street signing 'certificates of authenticity' doesn't provide any value because nobody cares who John Doe is, in the same way that some random person signing an NFT doesn't automatically make it worth anything since anybody else can just come along an do the same. But if the author of an artwork came by and produced an NFT of it, that's unique in a way that people may care about.
  • tshaddox 5y ago
    It all comes down to technology. If we had the technology to create an atom-by-atom replica of a painting, then this justification would need to change. People would probably say “but these atoms are still the original ones.” Of course the only way to verify that at this point would be to have evidence of a chain of custody, which would likely be very difficult to establish with any confidence. So paintings just “lucked out” and already had a convenient scarce item that interested parties could agree represents the “original act of creation of the work of art,” because the technology to create an exact copy doesn’t exist, and it’s extremely expensive and difficult to create a convincing forgery.
  • lottin 5y ago
    An NFT cannot be a certificate of authenticity, because the content is hosted by a third party. The third party can replace the supposedly original content with a non-original copy at any time.