5 ms·

> "Information doesn't want to be free anymore" “Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive....That tension will not go away” - Stua

by casi18 5y ago

> "Information doesn't want to be free anymore" “Information Wants To Be Free. Information also wants to be expensive....That tension will not go away” - Stuart Brand Think about the whole quote and NFTs will make more sense to you. NFT != DRM go wild, right click and torrent. i'll send you my nft images myself if you want them. the signatures and the economic security of that signature taking place is valuable. there is no scarcity of information in NFTs. these takes are getting so bad, misunderstanding the point so much im not sure how we get people aligned in the discussion at this point. but in the words of satoshi “If you don’t believe it or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.”

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> the signatures and the economic security of that signature taking place is valuable Except, it isn't. What is the point in having a certificate of ownership of a resource so un-scare that it is practically free? We have achieved post-scarcity of information, and people are desperately trying to cram scarcity-based economics back into it because that's all our society knows how to deal with. We should instead be working to remake society around the new reality, in my opinion. > but in the words of satoshi “If you don’t believe it or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.” Yeah, that's what scam artists say. Tell everybody you have a miracle, instill some FOMO, and when people poke at the holes tell them you don't have time to explain it to them or it is too complicated, but trust me it's great.
- casi18 5y ago
  People need to be paid to do the work, so they can eat and pay rent. We dont actually live in a post scarcity star trek world. So we find a way that people can be paid yet the information and content can remain free to everyone. It seems like lots of people like this. For some reason some people really really hate that other people are willing to pay to make content freely available to them. The people buying NFTs are footing the bill for you to have that free information. Sure thats a social/cultural status game with a side of speculation, but in turn we have art that is permeating culture rapidly. As he is quoting a distortion of Stuart Brand, maybe we should see what he would think? well here he is at the ethereum devcon in 2018 talking about this stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGZdLpHl1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGZdLpHl1w Open minded, interested, exploring, doing what he has done for decades and has been admired by people for, being a hacker!
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    'people buying NFTs are footing the bill for you to have that free information' Where? All I see is people paying for works after the fact, that no one would pay for -except- buying into the idea of an NFT. Where are the NFTs being sold for desirable creative works -prior- to their creation and distribution? Show me a movie being shot, by names good enough that they could otherwise sell tickets, that will release freely to everyone that was funded by selling an NFT to it, say.
    - casi18 5y ago
      Retroactive sales have long been the way most art (and most stuff in general) is funded. Art is made and then sold, then the artist can keep making things. Someone makes them then sells them then they can keep making more. There is also the smaller market of commissioned work, which is popular in illustration and graphic design, but not so much in fine arts as it strips agency from the artist (you are asking them to make a particular thing). Alongside that there is funding applications via arts councils and crowdfunding, the closest for that would be projects on https://mirror.xyz/ https://mirror.xyz/ Here is a crowdfund for a musician who is releasing records on catalog: https://haleek.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x8B38a9cbabC067ddEA968445681292f5d66E0C9D https://haleek.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x8B38a9cbabC067ddEA968... Also as he was mentioned before, here is the crowdfund for the documentary about Stuart Brand too that played with these ideas of free/expensive/public/private https://weareasgods.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x69DdE2e4d81720AEfdb50Bc7439EDd32565d21f2 https://weareasgods.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x69DdE2e4d81720AE...
      - lostcolony 5y ago
        Not really answering the question there, which was specifically in reference to "People need to be paid to do the work". Clearly, they don't. They do the work first. Maybe if they were not paid they'd not do -further- work (though "starving artist" being a thing tends to imply people create because of a desire to create, not because of how lucrative it is), but with NFTs...no one is actually paying them to do the work. There could be an NFT with no artwork attached (in fact, there is no artwork attached; there's just a link, pointing somewhere on the internet, that can be changed out at any time by the creator).
lostcolony 5y ago
If NFTs get the economics right, then there is literally no need for any sort of IP law when it comes to digital assets. After all, the profitable thing is proof of ownership, not the good. And yet, no one is paying (to grab a software company out of a hat) Oracle for the Oracle "name". They're paying for the software. The closest we have is paying for "proof of authenticity", because that belied a level of quality, but if we can trivially make a perfect copy, even that loses all merit.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  What can you do with the proof of ownership of a digital asset if everyone else can copy it and ignore that proof of ownership? It's like starting with DRM and saying, "Oh yeah, we don't encrypt it, we just trust you not to violate our terms. Now pay up."
  - nlarew 5y ago
    What would Taylor Swift do right now? I can rip all of her audio off of Spotify and use it in my movie without her permission even though she owns the music. She would try to stop me - maybe send a cease and desist, sue, or otherwise seek remuneration for unauthorized use of her work. Her proof of ownership is a signed contract with her recording company and any US copyright filings. Your proof of ownership is an unambiguous cryptographic scheme (NFT), which you could use to secure a US copyright.
phillipcarter 5y ago
> I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry. I'm willing to bet you do :)
- casi18 5y ago
  lol maybe today on a friday afternoon i do haha :) but in general the conversations are getting exhausting and distracting. I feel like it is at a point where we will just keep building the things we find useful for ourselves and our communities, maybe others will join in. hopefully he people with such extreme anti-crypto views recognise that we are human; we'll try and we'll fail and maybe we'll make some cool stuff too. maybe they dont share the same values and maybe theyre scared of what might happen, but the continual insults and accusations of everyone being scammers/scammed because we linked some metadata with some signatures is absurd and weird. if theyre so worried about culture and society maybe they should take a moment to think of what energy they are putting out into the world and if its at all healthy.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> but in the words of satoshi “If you don’t believe it or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.” This quote is funny, because the technology and cryptography is pretty understandable and doesn't require faith. What I have a qualm with is the economics. And the problem with the economics is that it's not value neutral. Sure, we could have a system where signed hyperlinks to jpegs have value, but do we want that? Who does such a system benefit? Are the incentives of such a system aligned with continued human prosperity? Edit: > there is no scarcity of information in NFTs. This is contradicted by the hype around NFT gaming and "pay to earn". Every NFT gaming proposal I've seen seems geared around using NFTs to enforce artificial scarcity of digital items.

by casi18 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> the signatures and the economic security of that signature taking place is valuable Except, it isn't. What is the point in having a certificate of ownership of a resource so un-scare that it is practically free? We have achieved post-scarcity of information, and people are desperately trying to cram scarcity-based economics back into it because that's all our society knows how to deal with. We should instead be working to remake society around the new reality, in my opinion. > but in the words of satoshi “If you don’t believe it or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.” Yeah, that's what scam artists say. Tell everybody you have a miracle, instill some FOMO, and when people poke at the holes tell them you don't have time to explain it to them or it is too complicated, but trust me it's great.

casi18 5y ago
People need to be paid to do the work, so they can eat and pay rent. We dont actually live in a post scarcity star trek world. So we find a way that people can be paid yet the information and content can remain free to everyone. It seems like lots of people like this. For some reason some people really really hate that other people are willing to pay to make content freely available to them. The people buying NFTs are footing the bill for you to have that free information. Sure thats a social/cultural status game with a side of speculation, but in turn we have art that is permeating culture rapidly. As he is quoting a distortion of Stuart Brand, maybe we should see what he would think? well here he is at the ethereum devcon in 2018 talking about this stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGZdLpHl1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGZdLpHl1w Open minded, interested, exploring, doing what he has done for decades and has been admired by people for, being a hacker!
- lostcolony 5y ago
  'people buying NFTs are footing the bill for you to have that free information' Where? All I see is people paying for works after the fact, that no one would pay for -except- buying into the idea of an NFT. Where are the NFTs being sold for desirable creative works -prior- to their creation and distribution? Show me a movie being shot, by names good enough that they could otherwise sell tickets, that will release freely to everyone that was funded by selling an NFT to it, say.
  - casi18 5y ago
    Retroactive sales have long been the way most art (and most stuff in general) is funded. Art is made and then sold, then the artist can keep making things. Someone makes them then sells them then they can keep making more. There is also the smaller market of commissioned work, which is popular in illustration and graphic design, but not so much in fine arts as it strips agency from the artist (you are asking them to make a particular thing). Alongside that there is funding applications via arts councils and crowdfunding, the closest for that would be projects on https://mirror.xyz/ https://mirror.xyz/ Here is a crowdfund for a musician who is releasing records on catalog: https://haleek.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x8B38a9cbabC067ddEA968445681292f5d66E0C9D https://haleek.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x8B38a9cbabC067ddEA968... Also as he was mentioned before, here is the crowdfund for the documentary about Stuart Brand too that played with these ideas of free/expensive/public/private https://weareasgods.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x69DdE2e4d81720AEfdb50Bc7439EDd32565d21f2 https://weareasgods.mirror.xyz/crowdfunds/0x69DdE2e4d81720AE...
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      Not really answering the question there, which was specifically in reference to "People need to be paid to do the work". Clearly, they don't. They do the work first. Maybe if they were not paid they'd not do -further- work (though "starving artist" being a thing tends to imply people create because of a desire to create, not because of how lucrative it is), but with NFTs...no one is actually paying them to do the work. There could be an NFT with no artwork attached (in fact, there is no artwork attached; there's just a link, pointing somewhere on the internet, that can be changed out at any time by the creator).

lostcolony 5y ago

If NFTs get the economics right, then there is literally no need for any sort of IP law when it comes to digital assets. After all, the profitable thing is proof of ownership, not the good. And yet, no one is paying (to grab a software company out of a hat) Oracle for the Oracle "name". They're paying for the software. The closest we have is paying for "proof of authenticity", because that belied a level of quality, but if we can trivially make a perfect copy, even that loses all merit.

Jtsummers 5y ago
What can you do with the proof of ownership of a digital asset if everyone else can copy it and ignore that proof of ownership? It's like starting with DRM and saying, "Oh yeah, we don't encrypt it, we just trust you not to violate our terms. Now pay up."
- nlarew 5y ago
  What would Taylor Swift do right now? I can rip all of her audio off of Spotify and use it in my movie without her permission even though she owns the music. She would try to stop me - maybe send a cease and desist, sue, or otherwise seek remuneration for unauthorized use of her work. Her proof of ownership is a signed contract with her recording company and any US copyright filings. Your proof of ownership is an unambiguous cryptographic scheme (NFT), which you could use to secure a US copyright.

phillipcarter 5y ago

> I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry. I'm willing to bet you do :)

casi18 5y ago
lol maybe today on a friday afternoon i do haha :) but in general the conversations are getting exhausting and distracting. I feel like it is at a point where we will just keep building the things we find useful for ourselves and our communities, maybe others will join in. hopefully he people with such extreme anti-crypto views recognise that we are human; we'll try and we'll fail and maybe we'll make some cool stuff too. maybe they dont share the same values and maybe theyre scared of what might happen, but the continual insults and accusations of everyone being scammers/scammed because we linked some metadata with some signatures is absurd and weird. if theyre so worried about culture and society maybe they should take a moment to think of what energy they are putting out into the world and if its at all healthy.

AlexandrB 5y ago

> but in the words of satoshi “If you don’t believe it or don’t get it, I don’t have the time to try to convince you, sorry.” This quote is funny, because the technology and cryptography is pretty understandable and doesn't require faith. What I have a qualm with is the economics. And the problem with the economics is that it's not value neutral. Sure, we could have a system where signed hyperlinks to jpegs have value, but do we want that? Who does such a system benefit? Are the incentives of such a system aligned with continued human prosperity? Edit: > there is no scarcity of information in NFTs. This is contradicted by the hype around NFT gaming and "pay to earn". Every NFT gaming proposal I've seen seems geared around using NFTs to enforce artificial scarcity of digital items.