5 ms·

The creator of this site seems to have a fairly nuanced take, but there some critics who earnestly seem to think that right-click saving an NFT is owning the cr

The creator of this site seems to have a fairly nuanced take, but there some critics who earnestly seem to think that right-click saving an NFT is owning the crypto-bros, where the latter simply couldn't care less. There is also something off about about the "it's a url" obsession, as if the storage location of the bytes makes a conceptual difference. As if storing bytes on the blockchain (as some NFTs do) would suddenly make critics go "oh, one of copies of the JPEG is stored on the blockchain, now owning arbitrary ledger entries makes total sense".

gzer0 5y ago
I mean, it IS absolutely a valid concern anyone should have if they are buying something dependent on the hosting of a URL. It would be silly to say otherwise.
- sneak 5y ago
  The thing you're buying with an NFT is not the thing to which the URL points. Buying an NFT is not a proxy for buying the data at the target of the URL. Buying an NFT is just buying the NFT. It does not confer any rights or ownership over anything other than the NFT.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  NFTs are about status and belonging. I doubt many NFT owners ever follow the URL to check that their Ape is still there, it doesn't matter. As long as they can claim to be the sole owner.
willhinsa 5y ago
To be fair there is a non-small portion of the crypto-bros I've seen on Twitter who can get quite mad at people right-clicking. It's pretty great trolling to watch when it happens. And has produced some lovely art, too! https://twitter.com/nicodotgay/status/1458891554026930181 https://twitter.com/nicodotgay/status/1458891554026930181
- godot 5y ago
  The general sentiment of crypto-twitter that I do follow seems to have the opinion that right-click-savers actually help drive up value of the NFTs that they do own, since it's essentially free advertisement. I haven't seen many or even anyone at all who's actually upset, but maybe that's just the group I do follow.
ayngg 5y ago
It's free advertising at this point, people are memeing them into relevance.
sedatk 5y ago
> As if storing bytes on the blockchain (as some NFTs do) would suddenly make critics go Disappearing URLs is a real problem with NFTs today, regardless of how much of the concept makes sense. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/25/22349242/nft-metadata-explained-art-crypto-urls-links-ipfs https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/25/22349242/nft-metadata-exp... If NFT is stupid, it's way stupider in its current state.
anonporridge 5y ago
As someone who likes NFTs in theory, the "it's just a url" problem is a real stumbling block for me, because it's a point of fragility for the asset. If the NFT is just a URL, and there's nothing within the NFT itself that provably links it to a specific work of media, and ideally a signature from the original artist, then there's no way to be absolutely certain that the piece of media currently vended by the URL is in fact the same piece of media vended 10 years ago when it was minted. You could have a situation where people mint NFTs as "shell art" that they trade back and forth to create some kind of established history of value, and then stick in some new piece of art at a later date with a false history of value. Or the URL host could go under or get corrupted by bad actors and start vending the wrong data, and still, you'd have no way to prove what the original digital media was. That's honestly a blocker for me. Now, if the NFT actually included a hash of the media AND a digital signature of the artist that could be externally verified, then I might be interested.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  The thing is, the whole thing depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying any of it. If you see someone with a monkey profile picture, you aren't going to download some specialized software and finding it in the blockchain, verifying that the twitter user is in control of the wallet holding the token and finding the artists keys to check the signature is valid and then auditing other chains and other tokens to check that the same picture was not sold multiple times which would involve scraping the URLs and doing image comparisons. All to verify that this twitter user actually did spend this money for a monkey picture.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    The value of an original Picasso depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying it. Most arguments against NFTs could be levied just as effectively against the premium value of original physical art. Or do you hold the view that art as an asset in general is a scam?
    - Gigachad 5y ago

gzer0 5y ago

I mean, it IS absolutely a valid concern anyone should have if they are buying something dependent on the hosting of a URL. It would be silly to say otherwise.

sneak 5y ago
The thing you're buying with an NFT is not the thing to which the URL points. Buying an NFT is not a proxy for buying the data at the target of the URL. Buying an NFT is just buying the NFT. It does not confer any rights or ownership over anything other than the NFT.
Grustaf 5y ago
NFTs are about status and belonging. I doubt many NFT owners ever follow the URL to check that their Ape is still there, it doesn't matter. As long as they can claim to be the sole owner.

willhinsa 5y ago

To be fair there is a non-small portion of the crypto-bros I've seen on Twitter who can get quite mad at people right-clicking. It's pretty great trolling to watch when it happens. And has produced some lovely art, too! https://twitter.com/nicodotgay/status/1458891554026930181 https://twitter.com/nicodotgay/status/1458891554026930181

godot 5y ago
The general sentiment of crypto-twitter that I do follow seems to have the opinion that right-click-savers actually help drive up value of the NFTs that they do own, since it's essentially free advertisement. I haven't seen many or even anyone at all who's actually upset, but maybe that's just the group I do follow.

ayngg 5y ago

It's free advertising at this point, people are memeing them into relevance.

sedatk 5y ago

> As if storing bytes on the blockchain (as some NFTs do) would suddenly make critics go Disappearing URLs is a real problem with NFTs today, regardless of how much of the concept makes sense. https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/25/22349242/nft-metadata-explained-art-crypto-urls-links-ipfs https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/25/22349242/nft-metadata-exp... If NFT is stupid, it's way stupider in its current state.

anonporridge 5y ago

As someone who likes NFTs in theory, the "it's just a url" problem is a real stumbling block for me, because it's a point of fragility for the asset. If the NFT is just a URL, and there's nothing within the NFT itself that provably links it to a specific work of media, and ideally a signature from the original artist, then there's no way to be absolutely certain that the piece of media currently vended by the URL is in fact the same piece of media vended 10 years ago when it was minted. You could have a situation where people mint NFTs as "shell art" that they trade back and forth to create some kind of established history of value, and then stick in some new piece of art at a later date with a false history of value. Or the URL host could go under or get corrupted by bad actors and start vending the wrong data, and still, you'd have no way to prove what the original digital media was. That's honestly a blocker for me. Now, if the NFT actually included a hash of the media AND a digital signature of the artist that could be externally verified, then I might be interested.

Gigachad 5y ago
The thing is, the whole thing depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying any of it. If you see someone with a monkey profile picture, you aren't going to download some specialized software and finding it in the blockchain, verifying that the twitter user is in control of the wallet holding the token and finding the artists keys to check the signature is valid and then auditing other chains and other tokens to check that the same picture was not sold multiple times which would involve scraping the URLs and doing image comparisons. All to verify that this twitter user actually did spend this money for a monkey picture.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  The value of an original Picasso depends on people actually giving a shit about verifying it. Most arguments against NFTs could be levied just as effectively against the premium value of original physical art. Or do you hold the view that art as an asset in general is a scam?
  - Gigachad 5y ago