5 ms·

Open 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 ago
We already had pateron, github sponsors, etc. for that with significantly less complication and barely any scams.
- paconbork 5y ago
  Do any of those allow you to resell purely digital art?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Yes, 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  Welcome to the art world.
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
So you admit all NFTs are just bragging rights, That is FUCKING STUPID.
- seibelj 5y ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        It 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.
      - 5y ago
egypturnash 5y ago
Everybody 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 ago
this 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"

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

We already had pateron, github sponsors, etc. for that with significantly less complication and barely any scams.

paconbork 5y ago
Do any of those allow you to resell purely digital art?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Yes, 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 ago

Yes, 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 ago
Welcome to the art world.

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

So you admit all NFTs are just bragging rights, That is FUCKING STUPID.

seibelj 5y ago
I 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        It 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.
    - 5y ago

egypturnash 5y ago

Everybody 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 ago

this 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"