5 ms·

Is this just an ad for their $500 gifs? https://opensea.io/assets/0x7eefee2d0b0e23b7ce6b56a9ce9b62a599e6e9da/121 https://opensea.io/assets/0x7eefee2d0b0e23b7ce6

Is this just an ad for their $500 gifs? https://opensea.io/assets/0x7eefee2d0b0e23b7ce6b56a9ce9b62a599e6e9da/121 https://opensea.io/assets/0x7eefee2d0b0e23b7ce6b56a9ce9b62a5...

mplewis 5y ago
Yes.
vmception 5y ago
It is, the main point is that it improves the NFT standard, as one of the valid criticisms about NFTs is that their images are not stored onchain and are either on decentralized storage like IPFS or have completely centralized components via websites that can and will go down. So the more important aspect of this generative art is showcasing how there is enough blockspace for generative onchain dynamic art, as this level of nuance isn't understood well amongst either NFT proponents, speculators, or "right click save as" or "its all money laundering" critics. The price shouldn't be a distraction here, that particular marketplace is pretty much the best place to display NFT art right now and all listings have a price, much like Ebay. The smart contract code can store the inputs to return an SVG or encoded images. The visual platforms can read those functions in the getImage() method and the browser doesn't really care how/where that output is stored as long as it gets the right data to display an image file type it recognizes.
- antihero 5y ago
  Why not just do normal art and sell it if you wish to monetise? Why ruin the planet for some reason when you can just express yourself and make enough to live on? Why participate in the bleak financialisation of every possible human action?
  - vmception 5y ago
    primarily because artists are poor because art pricing is a race to the bottom and the audience for their work doesnt exist outside of nfts as it is oversaturated the secondary reason is that the nft pipeline has royalties built in upon future sales between third parties and the royalties automatically go to the original artist it will likely be a race to the bottom in the nft space as well as it becomes more oversaturated while royalties are unobtainable by almost all artists, and even the ones with the expensive network and resources to get into such licensing arrangements have trouble enforcing the royalties and at great expense and use of energy with the entire legal system collectors like them because they can obtain tertiary valuable benefits to closed communities, being able to prove ownership in ways that “right click save as” cynics cannot with their raster copies of nfts
    - drdeca 5y ago
      > being able to prove ownership I’m skeptical that this holds in a legal sense. Something that may be effectively the same as ownership of something, maybe. Makes sense that a license to do something could be granted which requires the licensee to possess some thing. (E.g. perhaps I could grant someone the license to use a video clip, but only under the condition that they own any red pen while publishing any derivative works?) But I’m skeptical that possessing a token can strictly speaking confer legal ownership of a copyright.
      - vmception 5y ago
        This is about address signing to prove ownership of the NFT on the spot to get access to a physical members only club for example Just signing public private key cryptography Except the clubs are funded by royalties as the nfts are traded for different prices and the address corresponds to the current owner list Thats happening right now The other conversation about copyright or usage licenses is interesting and Id have that discussion elsewhere. We are just talking about proving the possession form of ownership right now
  - mccorrinall 5y ago
    Ethereum would be mined, regardless whether NFTs exist or not. It was early, and grew quickly to become the number 2 coin in terms of market cap. It’s heavily leveraged. The price is high enough to not care about everything else. As long as people play the liquidity game on exchanges (pure TA trading), other parties will continue to mine.
  - uiopqq 5y ago
    Its all new so the carbon footprint of these is likley to go down as they find new ways to work with these. I've done traditional art for over a decade. I've sold a lot but it's not enough to live on nor is it easy to find buyers especially in areas like where I live. I'm guessing you've never heard the term starving artist. Most traditional artists aren't able to sell their work for much or at all no matter how good it is. In areas like mine, no one can afford it. Could sell it online but it's costly to ship and depending on the distance and considering the packing material, and waste created making it, not much greener than making an nft, if it is at all. A lot of people make digital art that isn't an nft and sell it online. It's easily stolen and never paid for or the amount paid is a few cents for each download.You either need to be good at selling and advertising or pay a lot to have it done. Most the NFTs I find are extremely different from traditional art. People are buying and selling crypto currencies regardless of nfts, artists just found a way to use it that profits them. If you consider someone could make a living selling these, it means they probably won't need to drive to work daily saving fuel there so it may balance out to the same as driving to a job while doing art as a hobby or side job. This opened up possibilities of remote work for more than just artist since people are needed to run it all too. In an area like where I live, you have 100 mile round trip to work each day. In fuel alone that's a decent carbon footprint. Now add the fact those kinds of miles mean more oil and tires are needed. I feel like the amount of remote work these opened up probably makes up for the waste they produce. There's a lot there to consider before I'd say it does or doesn't but the average NFT has a carbon footprint of about 90 kilograms whole a 32 mile drive to work is 3200 a year (about 9 kilograms a day). An artist wouldn't need to make or sell one each day. Some only need to sell a few in one year maybe just one to no longer need a daily commute. Since that only considering 32 miles and here the daily drive it 3X that, it seems like a good way to cut a carbon footprint too. Opensea is starting to use polygon for nfts, a more eco-friendly option, so they are trying to cut that area back to.From the look of it, another nft marketplace may have found a way to make and sell these with a lot less of an impact. Nfts are a small percent to blame for emissions. Buying anything at all has a carbon footprint. It had to get there somehow right. Why destroy the the planet to buy clothes that serve no real function other than looking nice? Why destroy the planet to buy anything that isn't vital to survival? It's odd how people call it destroying the planet when it's something they don't enjoy but don't look at their own carbon footprint for things they enjoy. I've cut my carbon footprint in so many ways for so long that if I sold a few nfts it wouldn't come close to what I cut. The lack of new clothes alone would likley make up for it x1000 alone. If I sold any it would be for the same reason I'd need to drive 100 miles a day. People participate to make money where it's being made like they always have. It's a source of income to pay for the things we need to survive and its not really much different than other more traditional jobs other than its more accessible for those if us in remote areas with few options for work.

Is this just an ad for their $500 gifs? https://opensea.io/assets/0x7eefee2d0b0e23b7ce6b56a9ce9b62a599e6e9da/121 https://opensea.io/assets/0x7eefee2d0b0e23b7ce6b56a9ce9b62a5...

mplewis 5y ago

Yes.

vmception 5y ago

It is, the main point is that it improves the NFT standard, as one of the valid criticisms about NFTs is that their images are not stored onchain and are either on decentralized storage like IPFS or have completely centralized components via websites that can and will go down. So the more important aspect of this generative art is showcasing how there is enough blockspace for generative onchain dynamic art, as this level of nuance isn't understood well amongst either NFT proponents, speculators, or "right click save as" or "its all money laundering" critics. The price shouldn't be a distraction here, that particular marketplace is pretty much the best place to display NFT art right now and all listings have a price, much like Ebay. The smart contract code can store the inputs to return an SVG or encoded images. The visual platforms can read those functions in the getImage() method and the browser doesn't really care how/where that output is stored as long as it gets the right data to display an image file type it recognizes.

antihero 5y ago
Why not just do normal art and sell it if you wish to monetise? Why ruin the planet for some reason when you can just express yourself and make enough to live on? Why participate in the bleak financialisation of every possible human action?
- vmception 5y ago
  primarily because artists are poor because art pricing is a race to the bottom and the audience for their work doesnt exist outside of nfts as it is oversaturated the secondary reason is that the nft pipeline has royalties built in upon future sales between third parties and the royalties automatically go to the original artist it will likely be a race to the bottom in the nft space as well as it becomes more oversaturated while royalties are unobtainable by almost all artists, and even the ones with the expensive network and resources to get into such licensing arrangements have trouble enforcing the royalties and at great expense and use of energy with the entire legal system collectors like them because they can obtain tertiary valuable benefits to closed communities, being able to prove ownership in ways that “right click save as” cynics cannot with their raster copies of nfts
  - drdeca 5y ago
    > being able to prove ownership I’m skeptical that this holds in a legal sense. Something that may be effectively the same as ownership of something, maybe. Makes sense that a license to do something could be granted which requires the licensee to possess some thing. (E.g. perhaps I could grant someone the license to use a video clip, but only under the condition that they own any red pen while publishing any derivative works?) But I’m skeptical that possessing a token can strictly speaking confer legal ownership of a copyright.
    - vmception 5y ago
      This is about address signing to prove ownership of the NFT on the spot to get access to a physical members only club for example Just signing public private key cryptography Except the clubs are funded by royalties as the nfts are traded for different prices and the address corresponds to the current owner list Thats happening right now The other conversation about copyright or usage licenses is interesting and Id have that discussion elsewhere. We are just talking about proving the possession form of ownership right now
- mccorrinall 5y ago
  Ethereum would be mined, regardless whether NFTs exist or not. It was early, and grew quickly to become the number 2 coin in terms of market cap. It’s heavily leveraged. The price is high enough to not care about everything else. As long as people play the liquidity game on exchanges (pure TA trading), other parties will continue to mine.
- uiopqq 5y ago
  Its all new so the carbon footprint of these is likley to go down as they find new ways to work with these. I've done traditional art for over a decade. I've sold a lot but it's not enough to live on nor is it easy to find buyers especially in areas like where I live. I'm guessing you've never heard the term starving artist. Most traditional artists aren't able to sell their work for much or at all no matter how good it is. In areas like mine, no one can afford it. Could sell it online but it's costly to ship and depending on the distance and considering the packing material, and waste created making it, not much greener than making an nft, if it is at all. A lot of people make digital art that isn't an nft and sell it online. It's easily stolen and never paid for or the amount paid is a few cents for each download.You either need to be good at selling and advertising or pay a lot to have it done. Most the NFTs I find are extremely different from traditional art. People are buying and selling crypto currencies regardless of nfts, artists just found a way to use it that profits them. If you consider someone could make a living selling these, it means they probably won't need to drive to work daily saving fuel there so it may balance out to the same as driving to a job while doing art as a hobby or side job. This opened up possibilities of remote work for more than just artist since people are needed to run it all too. In an area like where I live, you have 100 mile round trip to work each day. In fuel alone that's a decent carbon footprint. Now add the fact those kinds of miles mean more oil and tires are needed. I feel like the amount of remote work these opened up probably makes up for the waste they produce. There's a lot there to consider before I'd say it does or doesn't but the average NFT has a carbon footprint of about 90 kilograms whole a 32 mile drive to work is 3200 a year (about 9 kilograms a day). An artist wouldn't need to make or sell one each day. Some only need to sell a few in one year maybe just one to no longer need a daily commute. Since that only considering 32 miles and here the daily drive it 3X that, it seems like a good way to cut a carbon footprint too. Opensea is starting to use polygon for nfts, a more eco-friendly option, so they are trying to cut that area back to.From the look of it, another nft marketplace may have found a way to make and sell these with a lot less of an impact. Nfts are a small percent to blame for emissions. Buying anything at all has a carbon footprint. It had to get there somehow right. Why destroy the the planet to buy clothes that serve no real function other than looking nice? Why destroy the planet to buy anything that isn't vital to survival? It's odd how people call it destroying the planet when it's something they don't enjoy but don't look at their own carbon footprint for things they enjoy. I've cut my carbon footprint in so many ways for so long that if I sold a few nfts it wouldn't come close to what I cut. The lack of new clothes alone would likley make up for it x1000 alone. If I sold any it would be for the same reason I'd need to drive 100 miles a day. People participate to make money where it's being made like they always have. It's a source of income to pay for the things we need to survive and its not really much different than other more traditional jobs other than its more accessible for those if us in remote areas with few options for work.