11 ms·

Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership, not “you’re the only one that can access the content” (although there are indeed NFTs that can only allow th

by judge2020 5y ago

Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership, not “you’re the only one that can access the content” (although there are indeed NFTs that can only allow the owner to decrypt the content)? It’s like video game cosmetics - many people can have the same skin, but people you want to impress or show off to can see that you own x, y, and z.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> It’s like video game cosmetics Video game cosmetics derive their appeal from people using them while they actually play the game, not from showing off the database flag that activates it for the account. With NFTs, the whole game part of the game cosmetics analogy is missing.
- robot_no_419 5y ago
  You can build games that verify your NFT and allow you to use the art/resource in game. Well, until Steam deplatforms you I guess.
  - cma 5y ago
    They can be couterfeited by changing one bit.
    - robot_no_419 5y ago
      no they cant.
      - cma 5y ago
        What I mean is if an avatar outit hashes to X, change one shade of grey by one LSB and it hashes to Y. You now copied the outgit, and have the earliest hash of your clone on the blockchain. A human has to review if it is the same thing or just had miniscule modifications. Something like neural hashes may eventually solve it somewhat.
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
    > You can build games that verify your NFT and allow you to use the art/resource in game. While true, the only one deciding whether you are granted the ingame usage is still the developer/publisher, so in that scenario you basically just did exactly the same thing as before: a database lookup to check if a player "owns" a particular item. Only this time with a much slower and more inefficient database. Nothing about it being a NFT grants any advantages in that case, the developer can still take it away, ban your account, remove the item from the game etc. because they are still the ones controlling everything. You just decentralized the database entry.
    - robot_no_419 5y ago
      Only this time, the database is global and multiple independent games can all be using a common set of NFT resources that can be unique and transferred from one game to another. COD could release some NFT for a uniform or a gun or something, and an indie developer could incorporate that nft into their game if they wanted.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Sure, but......why? How is that different than just setting 1 instead of 0 on a database for the game somewhere?
    - robot_no_419 5y ago
      Because the nft can be used in any game at any point in the future. It's not just one game with one database. It can be multiple independent games all using the same resources that can be transferred from one game to another.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        Like....what? If the games are by the same publisher then that's trivial to do anyway. If they are not from the same publisher....then what kind of "resource" can you transfer? And why would NFT make it any easier?
        robot_no_419 5y ago
        Idk man, use your imagination. It could literally be anything. NFT just stands for non-fungible-token. It's like a unique ticket sitting on the public blockchain that can be tied to any digital asset sitting on IPFS. Any game or software can verify that you own the NFT without a third centralized party. I don't even play or like video games so this isn't my domain of expertise. Im more interested in seeing NFTs replace ticketing systems and financial systems, where they would represent things like claims to some financial asset.
        gambiting 5y ago
        Well I work in video games, and I can't think of a single thing this could be useful for, that's why I'm asking you for an example.
- motoxpro 5y ago
  I think you could argue that Discord/Twitter is the game, which is a much bigger space than Fortnite or CSGO, meaning that the "skins" cost more. Instead of runing around a 3d character, you just type words on a web page/chat client and get points the more people see it.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    Seems like internet new (maybe last) phase is about "selling everything". sigh
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I don't see anything replacing the internet any time soon it is too entrenched currently, it certainly isn't the "metaverse". People will revolt against that. I've already seen facebook overload the past few years along with other social media.
  - imustbeevil 5y ago
    Except to have some skin in a game, you actually have to have that skin in the game. To put a monkey as your profile picture on Discord or Twitter, you can just do that without owning the monkey. If anything, not owning it is better social proof.
    - 1ark 5y ago
      Correct, but to get access to the "exclusive guilds" on Discord you need to verify your NFT for respective guild.
- cma 5y ago
  Games can load them from ipfs and verify ownership or somehing, but to counterfeit all you have to do is change the shade of pixel by one bit and get a new hash. So then you have to move to a whitelist system where someone centralized (or a DAO) has to manually act as a copyright system, whitelisting hashes, duplicating the work of the existing copyright and legal system.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    My even change 1 bit? Just create a new NFT with the same exact image. Nothing is stopping you.
    - robot_no_419 5y ago
      You can create a smart contract where only a set group of people (ie, the devs) can mint NFTs. You cant just mint arbitrary nfts whenever you want, that's why they are unique.
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        You can create your own smart contract though.
    - cma 5y ago
      I'm assuming the idea was games only let the person who owns the NFT (oldest entry of the hash on the chain, or transferred from it, plus however the limited number serial works for "limited edition" vs singular NFTs).
- chanc3e 5y ago
  Totally. Who is going to pay a studio to develop the models, artwork and code required to have a ‘NFT skin’ in a game? Money is made by selling a skin multiple times to return effort. And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA? The whole concept is a nonsense. Influencers + shady finance have collided to *create a climate melting scam. Edit: spelling and errant word
  - Vetch 5y ago
    NFTs are a form of Status or Veblen good. This means being useless or grossly overvalued, exploiting craftspersons, being exclusive, prices defying reason are all good properties to have. A physical world example is the combination of social media marketing, fast fashion and product drops. Items are sold for many multiples of their production cost due to a manufactured air of exclusivity and scarcity. As the items are mass produced from exploited labor, a bottleneck from time consuming highly skilled craftwork cannot be the cause of high prices. There are many examples of conspicuous over consumption and status goods, all of them defying common sense to most. Remember the "I AM RICH" app? The NFT version is the same principle, merely on a different type of datastore. Particularly relevant to NFTs is the art world of artificially inflated prices, donations to manufacture prestige and where fakes are hard to tell to the untrained eye and wealthy buyers bring lawsuits or otherwise buy the silence of those who can prove forgeries. The artifact or artwork is not the goal, instead the ability to take something useless or mundane but somehow demonstrable as unique, prove provenance and flaunt wealth to some peer group considered high status is the goal. I suspect NFTs are currently in a gold rush stage and comparatively more open. When the loose flow of money is over, I expect it will decay back to gated elitism typical of the existing art world. Underlying something like an Ethereum linked IPFS hash artifact are interesting consensus algorithms for persistent data-structures on open distributed networks. That they're being used in this manner is not surprising. It's reflective of humans, not something inherent to the utility of the tech.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    Typically whta is done is that n upper / lower bits of the tokens ID is ignored which allows you to mint 2^n duplicates of a skin. >And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA? Too bad. Most games are not going to put in work to support other game's cosmetics.
- nathias 5y ago
  Think of it as breaking out of the games, imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it.
  - mewse 5y ago
    Gravatar has been a thing since 2007.
    - nathias 5y ago
      Yes, and I have been using it since then, this is quite something else tho.
      - mewse 5y ago
        > this is quite something else In what way, specifically? From your original comment: "imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it." That sounds 100% like Gravatar. We already have exactly that, without any of the problematic aspects of being tied to NFTs or blockchain.
        1ark 5y ago
        Except trading of Gravatars, right?
        nathias 5y ago
        I assume you never used steam in the last years? Games drop avatars as items for steam inventory, and you can trade them and put them in special slots, they aren't just random images, its not just avatars its also frames of avatars, slots of stuff to show on profile, animated backgrounds etc.
rebuilder 5y ago
But does it verify ownership of anything other than the token itself? What are the typical contract terms, if any, related to NFTs? And are those terms enforceable in any given jurisdiction?
- tlrobinson 5y ago
  Any physical jurisdiction? Probably not. Digital “jurisdictions” like Twitter are starting to support displaying “verified” NFTs though: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bragging-rights-twitter-previews-verification-badge-for-nft-profile-pics https://cointelegraph.com/news/bragging-rights-twitter-previ... The next step in the chain is OpenSea, which sounds like they will enforce real world copyrights: https://support.opensea.io/hc/en-us/articles/4404423595667-How-can-I-report-fraudulent-content-on-OpenSea- https://support.opensea.io/hc/en-us/articles/4404423595667-H... So basically Twitter is outsourcing copyright enforcement via NFTs. Which actually doesn’t sound totally useless, but could also be done without a blockchain. Now, when many content displayers (websites, games, multiverses, etc) outsource their copyright enforcement to multiple copyright-enforcers maybe using the blockchain starts making more sense.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    Copyright enforcers are centralized by nature though (if everyone can be one, then there is zero enforcement of copyright…) Blockchain only makes “sense” because it's hype. (And regarding Twitter, it's mostly because @Jack is a total crypto believer).
    - tlrobinson 5y ago
      Sure, if you only trust certain enforcers (which obviously you should) then it’s federated, not fully decentralized. I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems.
      - littlestymaar 5y ago
        > I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems. How so? As soon as you have to trust someone, you've lost the only benefit of blockchains and using one would only give the terrible performance characteristic of those for no benefit. Each trusted enforcer having its own database is a way better architecture.
tomp 5y ago
Reminds me of Moon Shares from like 20 years ago. You could buy property on the moon and the company would verify ownership for you. Although this is totally different, because it’s blockchain.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership over particular tokens on that blockchain. Those are valuable so long as there are enough people that agree they are valuable and are willing to exchange other goods and services for them. Oh yeah, kind of like fiat money.
  - tomp 5y ago
    Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      The JPEG is incidental. What you own is the token. You don't need the legal system to enforce your ownership of it because it is essentially impossible for anyone else to assert ownership of it without your private keys. But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
      - tomp 5y ago
        Owning the token representing a claim on a JPEG is equivalent to owning the token representing a claim on moon land. In 1995 most of the uses of the internet were stupid. Eventually, they became useful. Hopefully the same happens with crypto
addicted 5y ago
Yes, but NFT “owners” get real mad if you right click > Download Image the art they “own”.
- detaro 5y ago
  as in, there's been a few examples on Twitter maybe and people love to pretend that everyone thinks like that because they like to feel superior.
- tofurocks 5y ago
  Nobody cares if you download their NFT, it is a joke on crypto twitter
  - FridgeSeal 5y ago
    The people getting angry if you tweet at them using their “special” NFT profile picture suggest otherwise.
    - SoupNoSalad 5y ago
      NFT's are for the metaverse. Content will have to be authenticated via the blockchain. Anyone angry doesn't understand what they bought.
    - neilsense 5y ago
      *the minority of people
- clippablematt 5y ago
  Nobody cares. There is more value in being the owner of the thing everyone has, than the thing no one has. Keep right clicking, we love it. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/ https://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    The “owner” part is the issue though. The NFT owner's is just that: they own the NFT and nothing else. There can be infinitely many NFT pointing to the same art asset.
lottin 5y ago
Ownership implies some kind of exclusive rights. If everybody has the same rights over the content as the supposed owner, it means they're not the owner.
- detaro 5y ago
  But just because you have the ability to download something from the internet doesn't mean you have the same rights to it as someone who has given some kind of license to it (which is often attached to NFT sales).
  - GDC7 5y ago
    And how is the licence enforced? Is it recognized by the law? Can people sue those who fail to comply with it? You can do all the circular reasoning you want but at the end of the day everything is backed by violence and coercitive power. That's why nations have army/navy , to make other countries know that what they say carries weight because they can back it up with bullets and bombs, not just words.
    - detaro 5y ago
      ... yes, licenses still rely on copyright law, well spotted. Is that supposed to be surprising or a novel insight?
      - GDC7 5y ago
        How can you enforce copyright law when I right click an NFT piece of art, then print it and hang it in my home? You can't. Besides, NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not. Just think about how many people you know that have a painting in their home. And no, the IKEA type paintings do not count. I mean a genuine painting.
        detaro 5y ago
        > How can you enforce copyright law when I right click an NFT piece of art, then print it and hang it in my home? Yep, same as any other licensed thing. Because copyright law is still just copyright law. NFTs don't magically add universal enforcement, and aren't supposed to. > NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not. Yes, there is a lot of crazy hype and over-expectations around, and sadly getting most of the attention.
m1sta_ 5y ago
"ownership" of a copy of something infinitely reproducable.
da39a3ee 5y ago
I’ve tried but failed to understand NFTs. One thing I don’t understand is —- couldn’t you change one pixel in an image and register your ownership of the slightly different image in the blockchain? Then how would it be adjudicated which is the authentic version?
solarkraft 5y ago
Yeah. But both NFT fans and haters seem to not quite get that.
bonestamp2 5y ago
> Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership A lot of people think that, but I would consider that more of a requirement than the purpose. The point of NFTs is to allow the original artist to share some of the financial rewards that the art dealers and collectors get each time they resell a piece of artwork in the future. The goal is to help restore some balance and fairness to the financial side of the art trade, particularly for new artists, who often can't earn a living wage on the original sales alone. And of course, being able to verify "ownership" of the "original" work is necessary to get the artist a piece of the pie whenever that NFT is sold. Yes, you're right about access to the work... as an observer, anyone can enjoy looking at the art just the same as the person who owns the rights to it. Just like any other image on the internet, making a copy of it doesn't give you the rights to that image. So, I don't understand the point of this archive unless it's truly just to archive the data incase the blockchain goes down.
m1sta_ 5y ago
Ownership is managed through the chain of copyright. Not the blockchain.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago

> It’s like video game cosmetics Video game cosmetics derive their appeal from people using them while they actually play the game, not from showing off the database flag that activates it for the account. With NFTs, the whole game part of the game cosmetics analogy is missing.

robot_no_419 5y ago
You can build games that verify your NFT and allow you to use the art/resource in game. Well, until Steam deplatforms you I guess.
- cma 5y ago
  They can be couterfeited by changing one bit.
  - robot_no_419 5y ago
    no they cant.
    - cma 5y ago
      What I mean is if an avatar outit hashes to X, change one shade of grey by one LSB and it hashes to Y. You now copied the outgit, and have the earliest hash of your clone on the blockchain. A human has to review if it is the same thing or just had miniscule modifications. Something like neural hashes may eventually solve it somewhat.
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  > You can build games that verify your NFT and allow you to use the art/resource in game. While true, the only one deciding whether you are granted the ingame usage is still the developer/publisher, so in that scenario you basically just did exactly the same thing as before: a database lookup to check if a player "owns" a particular item. Only this time with a much slower and more inefficient database. Nothing about it being a NFT grants any advantages in that case, the developer can still take it away, ban your account, remove the item from the game etc. because they are still the ones controlling everything. You just decentralized the database entry.
  - robot_no_419 5y ago
    Only this time, the database is global and multiple independent games can all be using a common set of NFT resources that can be unique and transferred from one game to another. COD could release some NFT for a uniform or a gun or something, and an indie developer could incorporate that nft into their game if they wanted.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Sure, but......why? How is that different than just setting 1 instead of 0 on a database for the game somewhere?
  - robot_no_419 5y ago
    Because the nft can be used in any game at any point in the future. It's not just one game with one database. It can be multiple independent games all using the same resources that can be transferred from one game to another.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      Like....what? If the games are by the same publisher then that's trivial to do anyway. If they are not from the same publisher....then what kind of "resource" can you transfer? And why would NFT make it any easier?
      - robot_no_419 5y ago
        Idk man, use your imagination. It could literally be anything. NFT just stands for non-fungible-token. It's like a unique ticket sitting on the public blockchain that can be tied to any digital asset sitting on IPFS. Any game or software can verify that you own the NFT without a third centralized party. I don't even play or like video games so this isn't my domain of expertise. Im more interested in seeing NFTs replace ticketing systems and financial systems, where they would represent things like claims to some financial asset.
        gambiting 5y ago
        Well I work in video games, and I can't think of a single thing this could be useful for, that's why I'm asking you for an example.
motoxpro 5y ago
I think you could argue that Discord/Twitter is the game, which is a much bigger space than Fortnite or CSGO, meaning that the "skins" cost more. Instead of runing around a 3d character, you just type words on a web page/chat client and get points the more people see it.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Seems like internet new (maybe last) phase is about "selling everything". sigh
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    I don't see anything replacing the internet any time soon it is too entrenched currently, it certainly isn't the "metaverse". People will revolt against that. I've already seen facebook overload the past few years along with other social media.
- imustbeevil 5y ago
  Except to have some skin in a game, you actually have to have that skin in the game. To put a monkey as your profile picture on Discord or Twitter, you can just do that without owning the monkey. If anything, not owning it is better social proof.
  - 1ark 5y ago
    Correct, but to get access to the "exclusive guilds" on Discord you need to verify your NFT for respective guild.
cma 5y ago
Games can load them from ipfs and verify ownership or somehing, but to counterfeit all you have to do is change the shade of pixel by one bit and get a new hash. So then you have to move to a whitelist system where someone centralized (or a DAO) has to manually act as a copyright system, whitelisting hashes, duplicating the work of the existing copyright and legal system.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  My even change 1 bit? Just create a new NFT with the same exact image. Nothing is stopping you.
  - robot_no_419 5y ago
    You can create a smart contract where only a set group of people (ie, the devs) can mint NFTs. You cant just mint arbitrary nfts whenever you want, that's why they are unique.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      You can create your own smart contract though.
  - cma 5y ago
    I'm assuming the idea was games only let the person who owns the NFT (oldest entry of the hash on the chain, or transferred from it, plus however the limited number serial works for "limited edition" vs singular NFTs).
chanc3e 5y ago
Totally. Who is going to pay a studio to develop the models, artwork and code required to have a ‘NFT skin’ in a game? Money is made by selling a skin multiple times to return effort. And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA? The whole concept is a nonsense. Influencers + shady finance have collided to *create a climate melting scam. Edit: spelling and errant word
- Vetch 5y ago
  NFTs are a form of Status or Veblen good. This means being useless or grossly overvalued, exploiting craftspersons, being exclusive, prices defying reason are all good properties to have. A physical world example is the combination of social media marketing, fast fashion and product drops. Items are sold for many multiples of their production cost due to a manufactured air of exclusivity and scarcity. As the items are mass produced from exploited labor, a bottleneck from time consuming highly skilled craftwork cannot be the cause of high prices. There are many examples of conspicuous over consumption and status goods, all of them defying common sense to most. Remember the "I AM RICH" app? The NFT version is the same principle, merely on a different type of datastore. Particularly relevant to NFTs is the art world of artificially inflated prices, donations to manufacture prestige and where fakes are hard to tell to the untrained eye and wealthy buyers bring lawsuits or otherwise buy the silence of those who can prove forgeries. The artifact or artwork is not the goal, instead the ability to take something useless or mundane but somehow demonstrable as unique, prove provenance and flaunt wealth to some peer group considered high status is the goal. I suspect NFTs are currently in a gold rush stage and comparatively more open. When the loose flow of money is over, I expect it will decay back to gated elitism typical of the existing art world. Underlying something like an Ethereum linked IPFS hash artifact are interesting consensus algorithms for persistent data-structures on open distributed networks. That they're being used in this manner is not surprising. It's reflective of humans, not something inherent to the utility of the tech.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Typically whta is done is that n upper / lower bits of the tokens ID is ignored which allows you to mint 2^n duplicates of a skin. >And what if I want that skin in League, rather than GTA? Too bad. Most games are not going to put in work to support other game's cosmetics.
nathias 5y ago
Think of it as breaking out of the games, imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it.
- mewse 5y ago
  Gravatar has been a thing since 2007.
  - nathias 5y ago
    Yes, and I have been using it since then, this is quite something else tho.
    - mewse 5y ago
      > this is quite something else In what way, specifically? From your original comment: "imagine something like steam profile avatars/pictures etc. tied to your identity that you can use on any page that implements it." That sounds 100% like Gravatar. We already have exactly that, without any of the problematic aspects of being tied to NFTs or blockchain.
      - 1ark 5y ago
        Except trading of Gravatars, right?
      - nathias 5y ago
        I assume you never used steam in the last years? Games drop avatars as items for steam inventory, and you can trade them and put them in special slots, they aren't just random images, its not just avatars its also frames of avatars, slots of stuff to show on profile, animated backgrounds etc.

rebuilder 5y ago

But does it verify ownership of anything other than the token itself? What are the typical contract terms, if any, related to NFTs? And are those terms enforceable in any given jurisdiction?

tlrobinson 5y ago
Any physical jurisdiction? Probably not. Digital “jurisdictions” like Twitter are starting to support displaying “verified” NFTs though: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bragging-rights-twitter-previews-verification-badge-for-nft-profile-pics https://cointelegraph.com/news/bragging-rights-twitter-previ... The next step in the chain is OpenSea, which sounds like they will enforce real world copyrights: https://support.opensea.io/hc/en-us/articles/4404423595667-How-can-I-report-fraudulent-content-on-OpenSea- https://support.opensea.io/hc/en-us/articles/4404423595667-H... So basically Twitter is outsourcing copyright enforcement via NFTs. Which actually doesn’t sound totally useless, but could also be done without a blockchain. Now, when many content displayers (websites, games, multiverses, etc) outsource their copyright enforcement to multiple copyright-enforcers maybe using the blockchain starts making more sense.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Copyright enforcers are centralized by nature though (if everyone can be one, then there is zero enforcement of copyright…) Blockchain only makes “sense” because it's hype. (And regarding Twitter, it's mostly because @Jack is a total crypto believer).
  - tlrobinson 5y ago
    Sure, if you only trust certain enforcers (which obviously you should) then it’s federated, not fully decentralized. I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      > I think a blockchain can still be useful in federated systems. How so? As soon as you have to trust someone, you've lost the only benefit of blockchains and using one would only give the terrible performance characteristic of those for no benefit. Each trusted enforcer having its own database is a way better architecture.

tomp 5y ago

Reminds me of Moon Shares from like 20 years ago. You could buy property on the moon and the company would verify ownership for you. Although this is totally different, because it’s blockchain.

imgabe 5y ago
Except the company that sold Moon shares had no authority to offer ownership over any part of the moon. The blockchain does have authority to offer ownership over particular tokens on that blockchain. Those are valuable so long as there are enough people that agree they are valuable and are willing to exchange other goods and services for them. Oh yeah, kind of like fiat money.
- tomp 5y ago
  Moon Shares were legal ownership over particular tokens that signified (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of land on the moon. Just like NFTs are legal ownership over particular tokens that signify (but not enforce in any legal way) ownership of JPEGs.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    The JPEG is incidental. What you own is the token. You don't need the legal system to enforce your ownership of it because it is essentially impossible for anyone else to assert ownership of it without your private keys. But whatever, think whatever you want. Just know that you're the guy in 1995 ranting about how this silly Internet fad is just something nerds waste time with.
    - tomp 5y ago
      Owning the token representing a claim on a JPEG is equivalent to owning the token representing a claim on moon land. In 1995 most of the uses of the internet were stupid. Eventually, they became useful. Hopefully the same happens with crypto

addicted 5y ago

Yes, but NFT “owners” get real mad if you right click > Download Image the art they “own”.

detaro 5y ago
as in, there's been a few examples on Twitter maybe and people love to pretend that everyone thinks like that because they like to feel superior.
tofurocks 5y ago
Nobody cares if you download their NFT, it is a joke on crypto twitter
- FridgeSeal 5y ago
  The people getting angry if you tweet at them using their “special” NFT profile picture suggest otherwise.
  - SoupNoSalad 5y ago
    NFT's are for the metaverse. Content will have to be authenticated via the blockchain. Anyone angry doesn't understand what they bought.
  - neilsense 5y ago
    *the minority of people
clippablematt 5y ago
Nobody cares. There is more value in being the owner of the thing everyone has, than the thing no one has. Keep right clicking, we love it. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/ https://www.e-flux.com/journal/85/156418/my-collectible-ass/
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  The “owner” part is the issue though. The NFT owner's is just that: they own the NFT and nothing else. There can be infinitely many NFT pointing to the same art asset.

lottin 5y ago

Ownership implies some kind of exclusive rights. If everybody has the same rights over the content as the supposed owner, it means they're not the owner.

detaro 5y ago
But just because you have the ability to download something from the internet doesn't mean you have the same rights to it as someone who has given some kind of license to it (which is often attached to NFT sales).
- GDC7 5y ago
  And how is the licence enforced? Is it recognized by the law? Can people sue those who fail to comply with it? You can do all the circular reasoning you want but at the end of the day everything is backed by violence and coercitive power. That's why nations have army/navy , to make other countries know that what they say carries weight because they can back it up with bullets and bombs, not just words.
  - detaro 5y ago
    ... yes, licenses still rely on copyright law, well spotted. Is that supposed to be surprising or a novel insight?
    - GDC7 5y ago
      How can you enforce copyright law when I right click an NFT piece of art, then print it and hang it in my home? You can't. Besides, NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not. Just think about how many people you know that have a painting in their home. And no, the IKEA type paintings do not count. I mean a genuine painting.
      - detaro 5y ago
        > How can you enforce copyright law when I right click an NFT piece of art, then print it and hang it in my home? Yep, same as any other licensed thing. Because copyright law is still just copyright law. NFTs don't magically add universal enforcement, and aren't supposed to. > NFT enthusiasts have the illusion that the graphic art market is big. It's not. Yes, there is a lot of crazy hype and over-expectations around, and sadly getting most of the attention.

m1sta_ 5y ago

"ownership" of a copy of something infinitely reproducable.

da39a3ee 5y ago

I’ve tried but failed to understand NFTs. One thing I don’t understand is —- couldn’t you change one pixel in an image and register your ownership of the slightly different image in the blockchain? Then how would it be adjudicated which is the authentic version?

solarkraft 5y ago

Yeah. But both NFT fans and haters seem to not quite get that.

bonestamp2 5y ago

> Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership A lot of people think that, but I would consider that more of a requirement than the purpose. The point of NFTs is to allow the original artist to share some of the financial rewards that the art dealers and collectors get each time they resell a piece of artwork in the future. The goal is to help restore some balance and fairness to the financial side of the art trade, particularly for new artists, who often can't earn a living wage on the original sales alone. And of course, being able to verify "ownership" of the "original" work is necessary to get the artist a piece of the pie whenever that NFT is sold. Yes, you're right about access to the work... as an observer, anyone can enjoy looking at the art just the same as the person who owns the rights to it. Just like any other image on the internet, making a copy of it doesn't give you the rights to that image. So, I don't understand the point of this archive unless it's truly just to archive the data incase the blockchain goes down.

m1sta_ 5y ago

Ownership is managed through the chain of copyright. Not the blockchain.