3 ms·

I’m sure you can generate a unique token for a non-unique artwork. I mean, I can just make an NFT now with a screenshot of someone else’s NFT.

mattdesl 5y ago
Yep - I can make an NFT of a CryptoPunk, but since the addressable hash of my contract will be different, probably nobody would see value in acquiring my tokens. Social consensus (and, by extension, tooling and network effects) have built around the original crypto punk contract address, which seems to give it value over any other copy contracts that might be deployed after the fact.
- DitheringIdiot 5y ago
  So the real value of an NFT isn’t in the mechanism at all.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    The mechanism is extremely simple, see [1]. The value lies in the token which - much like art - is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. [1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d11248a72 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d112...
    - lottin 5y ago
      Everything is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
    - DitheringIdiot 5y ago
      So it’s replicating the worst thing about the art market — the speculation and nonsensical pricing. But without the best thing about the art market — actually owning a piece of art. With a thin veil of technobabble.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        That may be one view. Another view is that it allows artists across the globe a digital-first mechanism to distribute and earn revenue on their digital artwork. See Hicetnunc for example.
        lottin 5y ago
        This view is wrong. The NFT isn't the artwork. Distributing an NFT of the artwork achieves nothing in terms of distributing the artwork. Meanwhile getting paid in return for nothing is called "a donation", and you don't need an NFT for that either.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        You can argue the same about a signed print of a digital illustration, photograph, etc. See here: https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gif.html https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gi...
        lottin 5y ago
        The entire premise of this article is that a digital signature is analogous to a handwritten signature on a photograph print, in that it turns a mass-produced print into a unique (i.e. non-fungible) object. This is wrong. Digital signatures are themselves fungible, since they are made of digital information. You cannot attach something fungible to something that is also fungible and expect that the result will be non-fungible. A digital signature is like a rubber stamp, not like a handwritten signature.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        You seem very certain that a cryptographic signature can never replace a handwritten pencil scribble to enable scarcity and provenance (and non-fungibility). Artists using this technology are less certain. We will see what happens over time.

mattdesl 5y ago

Yep - I can make an NFT of a CryptoPunk, but since the addressable hash of my contract will be different, probably nobody would see value in acquiring my tokens. Social consensus (and, by extension, tooling and network effects) have built around the original crypto punk contract address, which seems to give it value over any other copy contracts that might be deployed after the fact.

DitheringIdiot 5y ago
So the real value of an NFT isn’t in the mechanism at all.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  The mechanism is extremely simple, see [1]. The value lies in the token which - much like art - is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. [1] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d11248a72 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/c1eff283039b73a093c7777d112...
  - lottin 5y ago
    Everything is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
  - DitheringIdiot 5y ago
    So it’s replicating the worst thing about the art market — the speculation and nonsensical pricing. But without the best thing about the art market — actually owning a piece of art. With a thin veil of technobabble.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      That may be one view. Another view is that it allows artists across the globe a digital-first mechanism to distribute and earn revenue on their digital artwork. See Hicetnunc for example.
      - lottin 5y ago
        This view is wrong. The NFT isn't the artwork. Distributing an NFT of the artwork achieves nothing in terms of distributing the artwork. Meanwhile getting paid in return for nothing is called "a donation", and you don't need an NFT for that either.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        You can argue the same about a signed print of a digital illustration, photograph, etc. See here: https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gif.html https://jackrusher.com/journal/what-does-it-mean-to-buy-a-gi...
        lottin 5y ago
        The entire premise of this article is that a digital signature is analogous to a handwritten signature on a photograph print, in that it turns a mass-produced print into a unique (i.e. non-fungible) object. This is wrong. Digital signatures are themselves fungible, since they are made of digital information. You cannot attach something fungible to something that is also fungible and expect that the result will be non-fungible. A digital signature is like a rubber stamp, not like a handwritten signature.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        You seem very certain that a cryptographic signature can never replace a handwritten pencil scribble to enable scarcity and provenance (and non-fungibility). Artists using this technology are less certain. We will see what happens over time.