5 ms·
Well, I saved a bunch of that art and can view it any time.
by NikolaeVarius 5y ago
Well, I saved a bunch of that art and can view it any time.
- danielvf 5y agoOpen source funding hits art. Anyone can view it and get the benefit of doing so, the artist got paid to create, somebody gets bragging rights. Everybody wins.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoWe already had pateron, github sponsors, etc. for that with significantly less complication and barely any scams.
- paconbork 5y agoDo any of those allow you to resell purely digital art?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoYes, they just don't have any mechanism to assist you in doing so. Not that resale is of any use as regards funding the artist anyway.
- remote-dev 5y agoYes, it is a completely contrived marketplace based on bragging rights. It seems to work, but it is incredibly stupid and eventually people will move on.
- vineyardmike 5y agoWelcome to the art world.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoSo you admit all NFTs are just bragging rights, That is FUCKING STUPID.
- seibelj 5y agoI can get a super zoomed in high-res version of the Mona Lisa, print it out with the highest quality, and mount it on my wall, but I don't own the Mona Lisa.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoThe only reason there is any value at all in owning the Mona Lisa is that it is a physical object that cannot be perfectly duplicated. Even then, only status-wankers would care to. NFTs aren't the Mona Lisa, they're a Certificate of Ownership for a digital Mona Lisa that entitles the owner to nothing. Everyone and their mother can already have an indistinguishable duplicate of digital Mona Lisa for free.
- seibelj 5y agoYou admit that art can be high value - and everyone who believes art can be worth millions is a "status-wanker" apparently - so therefore NFTs can be high value. Or is it only physical art that can have worth, but digital images cannot? This is what drives everyone crazy - the art market itself is irrational. NFTs are the same thing, but digitized and hyper efficient.
- NikolaeVarius 5y agoI can Ctrl-C Ctrl-V bits that will resolve to the exact same MD5. I cant do that with the physical Mona Lisa. I agree the art world is stupid, but using that as a justification for NFTs is also, exactly if not more stupid
- cinntaile 5y agoIt doesn't really matter if it's exact or not. People know that some NFT that cost $$$ can be copied, they don't care. I don't think he meant is as a justification, just that the phenomenon is similar.
- egypturnash 5y agoEverybody wins except for the part where a bunch of people wasted a bunch of energy competing to be the one whose computer confirmed the financial transaction in an absurdly inefficient distributed database. Patreon's been solving the problem of "open source funding" for about a decade without that part.
- meowkit 5y ago> wasted a bunch of energy competing A problem of PoW based consensus, and will not be relevant to PoS/X based consensus. > absurdly inefficient distributed database. A decentralized distributed database with read/append commands available to any participant. > Patreon A centralized company. You're not wrong, but you aren't making any points that people who are interested in crypto don't already know, or care about.
- egypturnash 5y ago> will not be relevant to PoS/X based consensus It's relevant now. "Maybe someday crypto will move off of PoW so you should completely ignore the fact that there the networks exist entirely because PoW is how people get paid" is a bunch of bullshit that does nothing to change the fact that Proof Of Wasting A Lot Of Power On Nothing is how it works right now. Right now I consider crypto finding a way to work that doesn't burn shit-tons of energy to be about as likely as The Year Of Linux On The Desktop finally coming to pass.
- Vetch 5y ago> in an absurdly inefficient distributed database Suppose you wanted a distributed system where arbitrary nodes can enter without vetting. You'd need to be robust to adversarial nodes that lie and collude. Distributed consensus under asynchrony and adversaries seriously ramps up the difficulty of already challenging problems typically solved by Paxos derived algorithms. The first moderately scalable solution to consensus within such a hostile environment and with relatively few moving parts was built on a proof of work scheme inspired by hashcash. It's not inefficient, it's just a complex domain. It should be noted that NFTs run on Ethereum which has been in the process of moving to the vastly more efficient proof of stake scheme. > Patreon's been solving the problem of "open source funding" for about a decade without that part. There are a number of developing nations whose citizens cannot participate on Patreon. For others, there are workarounds that involve hurdles like navigating providers with worse customer service rep than paypal, giving out sensitive identification, high fees, high withdrawal friction and chaining various third parties who themselves might disappear or be indirectly connected to fraudulent banks.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ausbah 5y agothis is another instance of the phenomenon in tech and startup culture where someone claims to solve an already solved problem with a needlessly overly complicated technical "solution"
- thatguy0900 5y agoTypical right clicker mentality /s
- shrimp_emoji 5y agoNFTs are like a combat mech the size of the Solar System. Someone can use it to have a really ironclad DRM implementation, guarding the art you saved and to make sure only its approved owner can view it (mimicking the tyranny of physical scarcity of meatspace for cyberspace goods). The reason you saved it and can view it is that nobody's doing that yet. And because there are way easier and cheaper ways to implement DRM than Solar System-sized mechs, nobody probably ever will use NFTs for that. : p
- jimbob45 5y agoWhy couldn't you just have a SQL DB where you store the ownership of these assets though? There's no reason to use an NFT - it's overkill.
- cool_dude85 5y agoWhat, and trust the central planners at Sotheby's to not steal my apes and slimers? They'll sell off half the pixels to the government because of my back taxes.
- jimbob45 5y agoIs that different from how crypto operates though? Cryptocurrency exchanges already have to report to the IRS/government and they'll still come after you if you have unpaid taxes. If NFTs get big enough, there's no reason to believe that the NFT exchanges wouldn't have to register with the government/IRS.
- whateveracct 5y agoA simple example: You wouldn't trust your NBA Topshot ownership to .. the NBA? Of course you would - SQL DB strictly better.
- TigeriusKirk 5y agoSounds like a business opportunity.
- 5y ago
- iskander 5y agoThat's kinda the point. The "collector" can feel like they own it -- using an idiosyncratic new definition of ownership that you don't really have to agree with but other collectors/speculators/crypto peoplke also feel is real. The artist gets paid (kinda rare for art, much less digital art), everyone else can enjoy their artistic output. System working as designed.
- Cederfjard 5y agoI’m curious if anyone actually feels like it’s real, or if it’s 99% speculation. I tend to think it’s the latter.
- iskander 5y agoSome people really feel it, I know a few long-term collectors. Some people are into the VR galleries they assemble, others buy non-standard sized displays fit for specific NFTs to display in their homes. It's definitely an odd little community of rich people collecting digital art. And more broadly people feel attachment to their Twitter PFPs and feel like they can't truly use it unless they own it. It's a new social convention that's very unevenly distributed.
- majormajor 5y agoHow can anyone possibly be considered a "long-term" collector of something so new yet?
- iskander 5y agoIt's essentially a state of intention: people buying art to appreciate having it rather than with an intention of selling. Most people in the NFT space are flippers riding bubbles, but a few actual collectors really do exist.
- Cederfjard 5y agoBut what is it really that they own? Bragging rights, that they paid for the artist to proclaim them the first (or subsequent) person to own a hash on one of multiple blockchains, that contains a link pointing to an image file of an artwork hosted on a CDN? And the artist can create infinitely more? And the image file might be taken down at any time? And while you can trace the provenance on the blockchain easily enough, linking the originating address with the actual artist needs some external evidence off blockchain that might not be around forever? And the blockchain it’s on might well lose popularity at some point and be forgotten? Etc? I just can’t see why it’d be valuable to anyone, unless they’re just caught up in the hype and don’t think too hard about it. I can however see people taking advantage of the many, many people who feel like they missed out on, say, Bitcoin and want to get in on ”crypto”.
- 0x1062 5y agoOriginal copies of (popular) physical art is expensive. Unknown imitations of (popular) physical art is also expensive. Known imitations of (popular) physical art is generally never expensive. Art isn't some magic phenomenon. Many many people know that it has value! They pay a lot of money to exclusively own something that can almost always be trivially copied, not because they care it can be trivially copied, but because they _don't_ care.
- Talanes 5y agoMost physical art can't be perfectly imitated though. A print is not a perfectly accurate rendition of a painting, or even of a physical drawing.