4 ms·

> The biggest problem with all of this blockchain stuff is that all the incentives are around publicizing the scams. I think you want to differentiate between

> The biggest problem with all of this blockchain stuff is that all the incentives are around publicizing the scams. I think you want to differentiate between cryptocurrencies and other blockchain applications here, don't you? Everything[0] I've seen that could be characterized as a straight up scam has been someone pump & dumping their new cryptocoin. --- [0]: Except NFTs, at least as they've been used so far. The concept of an immutable, digital record of ownership of a thing seems good to me (think real property deeds, for instance). But, the idea of using them to claim "ownership" of a JPEG or something seems ridiculous to me on its face. Either I don't understand how it's supposed to work, or a lot of people have been very publicly taken for a lot of money via NFTs.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
The best way to think about NFTs for JPEGs is as buying the "original" of a work of art, as opposed to a reproduction. Their value is the status value of rich people being able to say they own it, and their resale value is that some other rich person will want to be able to say that tomorrow. And it's a method of supporting digital artists or causes, e.g.: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22388548/edward-snowden-nft-freedom-of-the-press-stay-free https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22388548/edward-snowden-n... Of course, the hype is stupefying. People expect that some no-name artist with no cause is going to be able to sell their NFT for a billion dollars.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Before I get into my comment, I do want to thank you and note that you're trying to be helpful here. I just don't think you've hit the mark. Regarding the analogy of NFTs to original art, that analogy breaks down almost immediately upon examination. You would compare the NFT to a certificate of ownership of a genuine original versus just copying the JPEG being like a reproduction. The thing is, a genuine original, physical artwork can't be exactly copied and distributed to practically the entire world, over and over again, just by issuing a command inside a computer. I get that an original Picasso is valuable just because it's the only one, and Picasso was a well known and respected artist. I can certainly hang a print or other copy of one of his works on my wall, but, it won't be worth millions of dollars like an original would be. I don't actually have any Picasso reproductions hanging on my wall, but I do own some original artwork, much by no-names, but some by well respected, listed artists [0]. I own these pieces because I have receipts of purchase, but, also, possession being metaphorically 9/10 of the law, because I physically have them in my possession. Because they're physical objects, me having them means nobody else can have them at the same time. Not so with the JPEG. In this scenario, I believe the NFT actually corresponds to my purchase receipts. After all, if someone sent the police to my apartment and claimed my artworks didn't actually belong to me, that's how I'd prove it. And, that seems to be what an NFT is trying to establish: that the holder of the token in some sense owns something essential about the thing it's referencing. Now, maybe I have this all wrong, and the NFT actually corresponds to a certificate of ownership of some kind of rights attached to the artwork. For instance, maybe the NFT is essentially a grant of the right of duplication. To which I say: well, okay... I guess if I don't hold the NFT, I can't duplicate the entirety of the work you own, because the NFT corresponds to ownership of something inherent to the work that can only initially be transferred by the creator of the work under the world's current copyright framework. But, again, I can just copy the bits of the JPEG and do whatever with it. I can take the images and remix them into a mosaic image of a hand right clicking a mouse [1] if I want. But, I can't claim that the resulting work is made up of 10,000 NFTs by whatever artist; because I don't hold the NFTs themselves, I don't hold that right. So, it's not like I "own a JPEG," but, I own a right associated with the JPEG, which is the right to say "I own this NFT associated with this JPEG image," and I can sell or transfer that right. That all to me seems like a distinction without a difference, given that the JPEG itself is, upon creation, a copyrighted work, and the original creator can sell or transfer that right without the associated crypto baggage. TL;DR: ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ --- [0]: For those not familiar with the term, a "listed artist" is just an artist who has a large enough number of public auction records that those records can be used as a basis for valuing / appraising their work. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abnwv/this-powerful-right-click-artwork-is-made-of-10000-nfts https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abnwv/this-powerful-right-c...
- danShumway 5y ago
  > The best way to think about NFTs for JPEGs is as buying the "original" of a work of art The word "original" shouldn't really be used here, because original implies a type of uniqueness that NFTs don't confer. Say I'm a famous artist, and I make a piece of artwork. I might mint 3 NFTs that point to that artwork; let's say I even get the transactions all in the same block. In that scenario, which one of them is the original artwork? They all point to the exact some URL, they all point to the exact same content. They're not reproductions, all 3 of them are identical to each other in regards to how and where they display the image, and all 3 are issued by the same artist at the same time. The only thing that's different between them, both technically and socially, is the serial number on the token. The non-fungible part of NFTs refer to the tokens themselves, not the things they're pointing at. The artwork conveys some amount of context around the NFT that may make you want it more (ie, "this is the only NFT issued by the original artist for piece X"). And the artist might choose to only mint one token for a piece of artwork. But it's a mistake to look at the NFTs as being intrinsically linked to the "original" status of the artwork. The context of the NFT is what you are buying, not the artwork. It is questionable whether that context has value, but apparently some people think it does. This problem of original/reproduction becomes even more obvious when NFTs are minted by the authors of existing pieces of artwork that may have already been online for years. In that case, it would make more sense to say that NFT itself points to a replication of the original artwork since it will almost certainly point towards a new URL where the artwork has been replicated over from the original URL. The broader problem here is that "originality" isn't really a concept that makes sense with bits of information. A piece of artwork might get copied and pasted across multiple computers before it's even finished. It might be rendered out to 3 different resolutions and posted to 5 websites simultaneously as part of its initial release. There is no concept of original/copy that stands up to scrutiny with any part of digital art.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    The meatspace art analogy would be prints: many artists make several prints of the same artwork. Originality isn't what's important, but provenance is. If the original author made the print from the plates, the work is "genuine", but if somebody else got the plates and made more copies those are considered less valuable. Copies made from copying the plates themselves would be considered forgeries. NFTs are the same. You can have "geniune" NFTs minted by the original artist (any number can be minted) and "forged" NFTs minted by anyone else. Of course since NFTs don't actually contain the work they're more like certificates of provenance for prints, or forgeries thereof. Personally I find the whole thing ridiculous. Even in the physical art world, why should it matter who made the print if the plates are the originals? NFTs are just like buying certificates of authenticity of prints without buying a copy of the print, which is utterly moronic!
anamax 5y ago
> But, the idea of using them to claim "ownership" of a JPEG or something seems ridiculous to me on its face. IIRC, it's worse than that. You don't "own" a JPEG. A database says that you "own" a URL, but there's nothing about that URL that is owned. You don't have any rights to what's at that URL. Heck, there's no guarantee that the URL even loads now, let alone in six months. And the content can change at any time. > Either I don't understand how it's supposed to work, or a lot of people have been very publicly taken for a lot of money via NFTs. It's a reputation/status thing.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

The best way to think about NFTs for JPEGs is as buying the "original" of a work of art, as opposed to a reproduction. Their value is the status value of rich people being able to say they own it, and their resale value is that some other rich person will want to be able to say that tomorrow. And it's a method of supporting digital artists or causes, e.g.: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22388548/edward-snowden-nft-freedom-of-the-press-stay-free https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22388548/edward-snowden-n... Of course, the hype is stupefying. People expect that some no-name artist with no cause is going to be able to sell their NFT for a billion dollars.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Before I get into my comment, I do want to thank you and note that you're trying to be helpful here. I just don't think you've hit the mark. Regarding the analogy of NFTs to original art, that analogy breaks down almost immediately upon examination. You would compare the NFT to a certificate of ownership of a genuine original versus just copying the JPEG being like a reproduction. The thing is, a genuine original, physical artwork can't be exactly copied and distributed to practically the entire world, over and over again, just by issuing a command inside a computer. I get that an original Picasso is valuable just because it's the only one, and Picasso was a well known and respected artist. I can certainly hang a print or other copy of one of his works on my wall, but, it won't be worth millions of dollars like an original would be. I don't actually have any Picasso reproductions hanging on my wall, but I do own some original artwork, much by no-names, but some by well respected, listed artists [0]. I own these pieces because I have receipts of purchase, but, also, possession being metaphorically 9/10 of the law, because I physically have them in my possession. Because they're physical objects, me having them means nobody else can have them at the same time. Not so with the JPEG. In this scenario, I believe the NFT actually corresponds to my purchase receipts. After all, if someone sent the police to my apartment and claimed my artworks didn't actually belong to me, that's how I'd prove it. And, that seems to be what an NFT is trying to establish: that the holder of the token in some sense owns something essential about the thing it's referencing. Now, maybe I have this all wrong, and the NFT actually corresponds to a certificate of ownership of some kind of rights attached to the artwork. For instance, maybe the NFT is essentially a grant of the right of duplication. To which I say: well, okay... I guess if I don't hold the NFT, I can't duplicate the entirety of the work you own, because the NFT corresponds to ownership of something inherent to the work that can only initially be transferred by the creator of the work under the world's current copyright framework. But, again, I can just copy the bits of the JPEG and do whatever with it. I can take the images and remix them into a mosaic image of a hand right clicking a mouse [1] if I want. But, I can't claim that the resulting work is made up of 10,000 NFTs by whatever artist; because I don't hold the NFTs themselves, I don't hold that right. So, it's not like I "own a JPEG," but, I own a right associated with the JPEG, which is the right to say "I own this NFT associated with this JPEG image," and I can sell or transfer that right. That all to me seems like a distinction without a difference, given that the JPEG itself is, upon creation, a copyrighted work, and the original creator can sell or transfer that right without the associated crypto baggage. TL;DR: ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ --- [0]: For those not familiar with the term, a "listed artist" is just an artist who has a large enough number of public auction records that those records can be used as a basis for valuing / appraising their work. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abnwv/this-powerful-right-click-artwork-is-made-of-10000-nfts https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abnwv/this-powerful-right-c...
danShumway 5y ago
> The best way to think about NFTs for JPEGs is as buying the "original" of a work of art The word "original" shouldn't really be used here, because original implies a type of uniqueness that NFTs don't confer. Say I'm a famous artist, and I make a piece of artwork. I might mint 3 NFTs that point to that artwork; let's say I even get the transactions all in the same block. In that scenario, which one of them is the original artwork? They all point to the exact some URL, they all point to the exact same content. They're not reproductions, all 3 of them are identical to each other in regards to how and where they display the image, and all 3 are issued by the same artist at the same time. The only thing that's different between them, both technically and socially, is the serial number on the token. The non-fungible part of NFTs refer to the tokens themselves, not the things they're pointing at. The artwork conveys some amount of context around the NFT that may make you want it more (ie, "this is the only NFT issued by the original artist for piece X"). And the artist might choose to only mint one token for a piece of artwork. But it's a mistake to look at the NFTs as being intrinsically linked to the "original" status of the artwork. The context of the NFT is what you are buying, not the artwork. It is questionable whether that context has value, but apparently some people think it does. This problem of original/reproduction becomes even more obvious when NFTs are minted by the authors of existing pieces of artwork that may have already been online for years. In that case, it would make more sense to say that NFT itself points to a replication of the original artwork since it will almost certainly point towards a new URL where the artwork has been replicated over from the original URL. The broader problem here is that "originality" isn't really a concept that makes sense with bits of information. A piece of artwork might get copied and pasted across multiple computers before it's even finished. It might be rendered out to 3 different resolutions and posted to 5 websites simultaneously as part of its initial release. There is no concept of original/copy that stands up to scrutiny with any part of digital art.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  The meatspace art analogy would be prints: many artists make several prints of the same artwork. Originality isn't what's important, but provenance is. If the original author made the print from the plates, the work is "genuine", but if somebody else got the plates and made more copies those are considered less valuable. Copies made from copying the plates themselves would be considered forgeries. NFTs are the same. You can have "geniune" NFTs minted by the original artist (any number can be minted) and "forged" NFTs minted by anyone else. Of course since NFTs don't actually contain the work they're more like certificates of provenance for prints, or forgeries thereof. Personally I find the whole thing ridiculous. Even in the physical art world, why should it matter who made the print if the plates are the originals? NFTs are just like buying certificates of authenticity of prints without buying a copy of the print, which is utterly moronic!

anamax 5y ago

> But, the idea of using them to claim "ownership" of a JPEG or something seems ridiculous to me on its face. IIRC, it's worse than that. You don't "own" a JPEG. A database says that you "own" a URL, but there's nothing about that URL that is owned. You don't have any rights to what's at that URL. Heck, there's no guarantee that the URL even loads now, let alone in six months. And the content can change at any time. > Either I don't understand how it's supposed to work, or a lot of people have been very publicly taken for a lot of money via NFTs. It's a reputation/status thing.