11 ms·

How is spending $1 000 000 on a "virtual image" (NFT) any different than spending it on a Picasso? There are equivalent/superior copies of both readily availabl

by tomp 5y ago

How is spending $1 000 000 on a "virtual image" (NFT) any different than spending it on a Picasso? There are equivalent/superior copies of both readily available, but some people value provenance...

moron4hire 5y ago
NFTs only prove the first derivative of ownership. There is no mechanism within the blockchain that can prove that the person who minted the NFT owned the media associated with the NFT, e.g. there's nothing stopping you from minting an NFT claiming ownership of an actual Picasso. Which means that we have to fall back to the traditional system of legal contracts and physical possession to prove the ownership, at which point the NFT isn't adding anything. The NFT is also not the work in question. While there are some proof of concept works that have their binary data stored directly in the blockchain, the vast majority are just URLs to some other site, URLs that could die or change at any time. And there is no recourse within the blockchain itself to adjudicate the breach of trust that would represent. Which means, again, we have to fall back on the traditional system of legal contracts and courts to resolve disputes. In other words, the decentralized, "zero-trust" nature of NFTs completely undermines any concept of ownership that isn't a post-hoc rationalization designed to part fools from dollars.
- selestify 5y ago
  All of what you mentioned was never meant to be the value-add of NFTs, which is namely that there's a trustless, verifiable record of transfer from the original creator (which yes, you have to verify is actually the person you think it is) to the current holder. When tied to physical possessions, it's one additional piece of evidence that the thing before you is likely genuine. When tied to digital entities, it's an unforgeable piece of bragging rights. There are a lot of fools in this market that don't understand the tech or its specific guarantees and non-guarantees, sure, but that doesn't mean NFTs aren't bringing anything new at all to the table.
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    So what I hear you saying is that NFT concept only works if everything becomes an NFT, immediately upon creation. Any hold-outs or delays gives room for fraudulent minting, which means you don't have a trustless system. You can't say that NFTs are a trustless system when the origin of the NFT requires trust. You might as well assume the "+ C" term in all integrals equals zero. It's just factually incorrect.
    - selestify 5y ago
      > So what I hear you saying is that NFT concept only works if everything becomes an NFT, immediately upon creation. Any hold-outs or delays gives room for fraudulent minting, which means you don't have a trustless system. No, as long as it's known that the address that created the NFT is owned by whichever public figure created the artwork, you're good to go. > You can't say that NFTs are a trustless system when the origin of the NFT requires trust. That's like saying PGP is not a trustless encryption scheme because you still have to trust that the person you're exchanging encrypted information with is who they say they are. Nobody (who is informed anyway) has made any sort of claim about PGP fixing that problem. It is entirely irrelevant to the value-add. Now, whether you believe the value-add actually matters given the caveats is another topic of discussion, of course.
      - moron4hire 5y ago
        Yes, PGP is not a trustless encryption scheme. What does that have to do with anything? I say, "2 + 2 does not equal 5" and you say, "yeah, well 3 + 3 does not equal 7, but that doesn't prove anything about what's in my pocket". Nobody--who is informed--has given me any coherent description of what value add NFTs provide, period. These ever shifting sands of never-enumerated benefits. What, exactly, did you mean when you said "the value-add of NFTs... is namely that there's a trustless, verifiable record of transfer"? You responded to my assertion that NFT ownership is not trustless by saying that wasn't the value-add, the value-add was that they were trustless.
        5y ago
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
The Picasso is truly scarce. The NFT is artificially scarce.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  idk there are 50,000 Picassos and only 100 stupid pictures of rocks from the first such collection of stupid pictures of rocks on ethereum
- selestify 5y ago
  That is only true at a superficial level. In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-quality that only experts can tell the original apart from the reproduction. Clearly it's no longer the quality of the art that matters, because the reproduction visually looks just as appealing as the originally, but the provenance. There are only so many "original" Picassos because Picasso is dead, but if we consider artwork that looks just as good as Picasso's, then the scarcity is entirely artificial and caused by provenance. NFTs from a particular source will similarly become "truly" scarce once that source is dead. There may be a difference in degree, in how hard it is to recreate a physical work versus a digital one. But it is not a difference in kind.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    If you're buying a $100M painting like Guernica - you should probably be an expert...
    - selestify 5y ago
      No, because you're rich as hell and will hire an actual expert to validate the origin of the painting. Come on, you think art history experts are the ones actually buying these paintings, as opposed to rich folk with too much money?
      - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
marginalia_nu 5y ago
It isn't. The fine art market is a scam, too.
latexr 5y ago
> but some people value provenance... Those people should stay away from NFTs, because theft is rampant[1]. > How is spending $1 000 000 on a "virtual image" (NFT) any different than spending it on a Picasso? You own the Picasso but you don’t own the NFT image. Not in any way that matters. Your “ownership” of the virtual image via an NFT isn’t legally recognised and you have no rights to it. Especially not when the minter stole the image[1]. An NFT isn’t a virtual image, but a reference to it. Anyone else can download the same file for free and your purchase can be gone without recourse[2]. A more apt comparison would be spending $1,000,000 on a Picasso or a document that says you own the Moon. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-art-and-turning-it-into-nfts https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-a... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nft...

by tomp 5y ago

How is spending $1 000 000 on a "virtual image" (NFT) any different than spending it on a Picasso? There are equivalent/superior copies of both readily available, but some people value provenance...

moron4hire 5y ago

NFTs only prove the first derivative of ownership. There is no mechanism within the blockchain that can prove that the person who minted the NFT owned the media associated with the NFT, e.g. there's nothing stopping you from minting an NFT claiming ownership of an actual Picasso. Which means that we have to fall back to the traditional system of legal contracts and physical possession to prove the ownership, at which point the NFT isn't adding anything. The NFT is also not the work in question. While there are some proof of concept works that have their binary data stored directly in the blockchain, the vast majority are just URLs to some other site, URLs that could die or change at any time. And there is no recourse within the blockchain itself to adjudicate the breach of trust that would represent. Which means, again, we have to fall back on the traditional system of legal contracts and courts to resolve disputes. In other words, the decentralized, "zero-trust" nature of NFTs completely undermines any concept of ownership that isn't a post-hoc rationalization designed to part fools from dollars.

selestify 5y ago
All of what you mentioned was never meant to be the value-add of NFTs, which is namely that there's a trustless, verifiable record of transfer from the original creator (which yes, you have to verify is actually the person you think it is) to the current holder. When tied to physical possessions, it's one additional piece of evidence that the thing before you is likely genuine. When tied to digital entities, it's an unforgeable piece of bragging rights. There are a lot of fools in this market that don't understand the tech or its specific guarantees and non-guarantees, sure, but that doesn't mean NFTs aren't bringing anything new at all to the table.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  So what I hear you saying is that NFT concept only works if everything becomes an NFT, immediately upon creation. Any hold-outs or delays gives room for fraudulent minting, which means you don't have a trustless system. You can't say that NFTs are a trustless system when the origin of the NFT requires trust. You might as well assume the "+ C" term in all integrals equals zero. It's just factually incorrect.
  - selestify 5y ago
    > So what I hear you saying is that NFT concept only works if everything becomes an NFT, immediately upon creation. Any hold-outs or delays gives room for fraudulent minting, which means you don't have a trustless system. No, as long as it's known that the address that created the NFT is owned by whichever public figure created the artwork, you're good to go. > You can't say that NFTs are a trustless system when the origin of the NFT requires trust. That's like saying PGP is not a trustless encryption scheme because you still have to trust that the person you're exchanging encrypted information with is who they say they are. Nobody (who is informed anyway) has made any sort of claim about PGP fixing that problem. It is entirely irrelevant to the value-add. Now, whether you believe the value-add actually matters given the caveats is another topic of discussion, of course.
    - moron4hire 5y ago
      Yes, PGP is not a trustless encryption scheme. What does that have to do with anything? I say, "2 + 2 does not equal 5" and you say, "yeah, well 3 + 3 does not equal 7, but that doesn't prove anything about what's in my pocket". Nobody--who is informed--has given me any coherent description of what value add NFTs provide, period. These ever shifting sands of never-enumerated benefits. What, exactly, did you mean when you said "the value-add of NFTs... is namely that there's a trustless, verifiable record of transfer"? You responded to my assertion that NFT ownership is not trustless by saying that wasn't the value-add, the value-add was that they were trustless.
      - 5y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

The Picasso is truly scarce. The NFT is artificially scarce.

anonymoushn 5y ago
idk there are 50,000 Picassos and only 100 stupid pictures of rocks from the first such collection of stupid pictures of rocks on ethereum
selestify 5y ago
That is only true at a superficial level. In terms of high-quality art, the Picasso is artificially scarce in the sense that there are reproductions so high-quality that only experts can tell the original apart from the reproduction. Clearly it's no longer the quality of the art that matters, because the reproduction visually looks just as appealing as the originally, but the provenance. There are only so many "original" Picassos because Picasso is dead, but if we consider artwork that looks just as good as Picasso's, then the scarcity is entirely artificial and caused by provenance. NFTs from a particular source will similarly become "truly" scarce once that source is dead. There may be a difference in degree, in how hard it is to recreate a physical work versus a digital one. But it is not a difference in kind.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  If you're buying a $100M painting like Guernica - you should probably be an expert...
  - selestify 5y ago
    No, because you're rich as hell and will hire an actual expert to validate the origin of the painting. Come on, you think art history experts are the ones actually buying these paintings, as opposed to rich folk with too much money?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

marginalia_nu 5y ago

It isn't. The fine art market is a scam, too.

latexr 5y ago

> but some people value provenance... Those people should stay away from NFTs, because theft is rampant[1]. > How is spending $1 000 000 on a "virtual image" (NFT) any different than spending it on a Picasso? You own the Picasso but you don’t own the NFT image. Not in any way that matters. Your “ownership” of the virtual image via an NFT isn’t legally recognised and you have no rights to it. Especially not when the minter stole the image[1]. An NFT isn’t a virtual image, but a reference to it. Anyone else can download the same file for free and your purchase can be gone without recourse[2]. A more apt comparison would be spending $1,000,000 on a Picasso or a document that says you own the Moon. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-art-and-turning-it-into-nfts https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-a... [2]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nft...