4 ms·

Right, and the entry in any particular star register's registry is the same thing. They have provenance over their registry, nothing more, nothing less.

chrisco255 5y ago
Clearly not. If an artist with an on-chain reputation such as Beeple creates a digital artwork and mints it on-chain and continues to do so over time and that artist's work becomes sought after, the reputation and history and story of that work being created and minted and transferred is as good as any other form of provenance. What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? Is there something about the virtual nature of NFTs that gets to you in a way that these intangible marketplaces don't? Why does itunes and Kindle not bother you? Because they have an army of lawyers to enforce copyrights and license agreements behind them? Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you?
- zepto 5y ago
  > What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? The music is good, and it’s harder to get them elsewhere. > What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? The books are good, and it’s harder to get them elsewhere. > Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you? Why would anyone be disturbed by this? I see nothing wrong with people trading tokens. What is disturbing are claims that trading these tokens is equivalent to trading in the associated goods.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? The law. Copyright law makes acquiring these works via other means slightly more difficult. Like NFTs they are just a failed attempt to force artificial scarcity into a post-scarcity space. > Why does itunes and Kindle not bother you? They do, but they don't have scammers constantly trying to sell their shit as some kind of revolutionary new future you have to get in on before you get left behind!!1! > Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you? What disturbs me is the shift from people viewing artificial scarcity as a desperate grasping at straws from people who can't deal with information post-scarcity to people touting artificial scarcity as the glorious technological future.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    > The law. Copyright law makes acquiring these works via other means slightly more difficult. Like NFTs they are just a failed attempt to force artificial scarcity into a post-scarcity space. Copyright law does not exclude someone from releasing on an open source blockchain as opposed to a monopoly app store. The only reason these marketplaces exist as monopolies is because direct distribution of creative content for profit has traditionally been difficult to manage. That's all. > They do, but they don't have scammers constantly trying to sell their shit as some kind of revolutionary new future you have to get in on before you get left behind!!1! Only because the dust has already settled from the same thing that happened during the dot com boom and the consumer electronics boom and the mobile app store boom. > What disturbs me is the shift from people viewing artificial scarcity as a desperate grasping at straws from people who can't deal with information post-scarcity to people touting artificial scarcity as the glorious technological future. Copyright enforcement over monopolistic marketplaces is a form of artificial scarcity. Come on, you know this. Napster was leaps and bounds ahead of any distribution method for music back in the 90s. Cost of music redistribution has been near zero for over 20 years. It doesn't cost the band anything to have their music copy pasted on a torrent site. The entire scheme of copyright protection is an archaic method of introducing artificial scarcity for items that are cheap to reproduce (yet sometimes capital intensive to produce). NFTs are no different.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Only because the dust has already settled from the same thing that happened during the dot com boom and the consumer electronics boom and the mobile app store boom. Yes, there were scams at the beginning of those booms, but at the same time, there were obvious real world applications that end users benefited from right from the start, and absolutely no sense of doubt that there was value in them. >The entire scheme of copyright protection is an archaic method of introducing artificial scarcity for items that are cheap to reproduce (yet sometimes capital intensive to produce). True. > NFTs are no different. Obviously false. NFTs don’t have the law preventing you from ignoring them.
capableweb 5y ago
Yes, but you cannot act within their registry as a independent actor, transferring and receiving items in the registry on your and others will. They own that registry, and they chose to give you access. That's the difference between a centralized registry like that star registry, and a blockchain where every actor has equal access to the "registry". No one can stop you from transferring your NFT to someone else, while in a centralized registry, they could.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Sure, but why would anyone want that? Why would I want to buy and sell access to some entry in a registry that ultimately means nothing?
  - capableweb 5y ago
    That's besides the point. Why anything? I'm not gonna pretend to understand high-art, because I don't, but apparently some people see value in it, so who am I to question what they value? To be honest, I don't see much value in the current Images-as-NFTs hype either, but again, who am I to judge what people spend their money on? I also thought the same about Bitcoin initially, but after a while saw value in it myself too. When it comes to NFTs as a concept though, I think they can be applied better than what people are currently doing. SaaS licenses that can be resold for example is one interesting use case.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > That's besides the point. Why anything? I mean, ok, if we're going to engage in some form of economic nihilism then I guess we can say anything is valuable. Q-Ray Bracelets, faith healing, and star registries included. Tulip bulbs really can be "worth" a fortune. But that's not a very useful premise for discussion. What people are arguing over is whether or not there is any non-woo value to be associated with these things. > When it comes to NFTs as a concept though, I think they can be applied better than what people are currently doing. I'm not convinced. I keep hearing people say this but I have yet to hear even one idea that can't be done better by other, older, non-hyped technologies. > SaaS licenses that can be resold for example is one interesting use case. Case in point: we can do this just fine today, but we don't because there's no reason for an SaaS provider to want to do that.

chrisco255 5y ago

Clearly not. If an artist with an on-chain reputation such as Beeple creates a digital artwork and mints it on-chain and continues to do so over time and that artist's work becomes sought after, the reputation and history and story of that work being created and minted and transferred is as good as any other form of provenance. What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? Is there something about the virtual nature of NFTs that gets to you in a way that these intangible marketplaces don't? Why does itunes and Kindle not bother you? Because they have an army of lawyers to enforce copyrights and license agreements behind them? Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you?

zepto 5y ago
> What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? The music is good, and it’s harder to get them elsewhere. > What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? The books are good, and it’s harder to get them elsewhere. > Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you? Why would anyone be disturbed by this? I see nothing wrong with people trading tokens. What is disturbing are claims that trading these tokens is equivalent to trading in the associated goods.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> What makes the iTunes MP3 marketplace valuable? What makes the Amazon Kindle text file marketplace valuable? The law. Copyright law makes acquiring these works via other means slightly more difficult. Like NFTs they are just a failed attempt to force artificial scarcity into a post-scarcity space. > Why does itunes and Kindle not bother you? They do, but they don't have scammers constantly trying to sell their shit as some kind of revolutionary new future you have to get in on before you get left behind!!1! > Does the convention and reputation-based open source nature of Web3 disturb you? What disturbs me is the shift from people viewing artificial scarcity as a desperate grasping at straws from people who can't deal with information post-scarcity to people touting artificial scarcity as the glorious technological future.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  > The law. Copyright law makes acquiring these works via other means slightly more difficult. Like NFTs they are just a failed attempt to force artificial scarcity into a post-scarcity space. Copyright law does not exclude someone from releasing on an open source blockchain as opposed to a monopoly app store. The only reason these marketplaces exist as monopolies is because direct distribution of creative content for profit has traditionally been difficult to manage. That's all. > They do, but they don't have scammers constantly trying to sell their shit as some kind of revolutionary new future you have to get in on before you get left behind!!1! Only because the dust has already settled from the same thing that happened during the dot com boom and the consumer electronics boom and the mobile app store boom. > What disturbs me is the shift from people viewing artificial scarcity as a desperate grasping at straws from people who can't deal with information post-scarcity to people touting artificial scarcity as the glorious technological future. Copyright enforcement over monopolistic marketplaces is a form of artificial scarcity. Come on, you know this. Napster was leaps and bounds ahead of any distribution method for music back in the 90s. Cost of music redistribution has been near zero for over 20 years. It doesn't cost the band anything to have their music copy pasted on a torrent site. The entire scheme of copyright protection is an archaic method of introducing artificial scarcity for items that are cheap to reproduce (yet sometimes capital intensive to produce). NFTs are no different.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Only because the dust has already settled from the same thing that happened during the dot com boom and the consumer electronics boom and the mobile app store boom. Yes, there were scams at the beginning of those booms, but at the same time, there were obvious real world applications that end users benefited from right from the start, and absolutely no sense of doubt that there was value in them. >The entire scheme of copyright protection is an archaic method of introducing artificial scarcity for items that are cheap to reproduce (yet sometimes capital intensive to produce). True. > NFTs are no different. Obviously false. NFTs don’t have the law preventing you from ignoring them.

capableweb 5y ago

Yes, but you cannot act within their registry as a independent actor, transferring and receiving items in the registry on your and others will. They own that registry, and they chose to give you access. That's the difference between a centralized registry like that star registry, and a blockchain where every actor has equal access to the "registry". No one can stop you from transferring your NFT to someone else, while in a centralized registry, they could.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Sure, but why would anyone want that? Why would I want to buy and sell access to some entry in a registry that ultimately means nothing?
- capableweb 5y ago
  That's besides the point. Why anything? I'm not gonna pretend to understand high-art, because I don't, but apparently some people see value in it, so who am I to question what they value? To be honest, I don't see much value in the current Images-as-NFTs hype either, but again, who am I to judge what people spend their money on? I also thought the same about Bitcoin initially, but after a while saw value in it myself too. When it comes to NFTs as a concept though, I think they can be applied better than what people are currently doing. SaaS licenses that can be resold for example is one interesting use case.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > That's besides the point. Why anything? I mean, ok, if we're going to engage in some form of economic nihilism then I guess we can say anything is valuable. Q-Ray Bracelets, faith healing, and star registries included. Tulip bulbs really can be "worth" a fortune. But that's not a very useful premise for discussion. What people are arguing over is whether or not there is any non-woo value to be associated with these things. > When it comes to NFTs as a concept though, I think they can be applied better than what people are currently doing. I'm not convinced. I keep hearing people say this but I have yet to hear even one idea that can't be done better by other, older, non-hyped technologies. > SaaS licenses that can be resold for example is one interesting use case. Case in point: we can do this just fine today, but we don't because there's no reason for an SaaS provider to want to do that.