4 ms·

> all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z", Incorrect. As @saurik says, but I'll just restate: an NFT also tells you the ordering of all

> all an NFT does is state "author X gives ownership of Y to Z", Incorrect. As @saurik says, but I'll just restate: an NFT also tells you the ordering of all such statements within one context (a single blockchain). So you can know whether this was the first such transfer by this owner or a subsequent one. This is the entire purpose of distributed databases, including blockchains.

grey-area 5y ago
Actually you can’t know it was by an ‘owner’ because nfts are not tied to the real world. You own nothing but the digital signature. There are so many problems being skated over here about provenance and ownership and nfts provide nothing of value in that domain, they’re just a get rich quick scheme.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  > because nfts are not tied to the real world. You own nothing but the digital signature. The digital signature is thing that people want to own in the real world!
  - grey-area 5y ago
    And yet all the talk is not about the signature, but the thing it refers to. Why is that distinction constantly elided? Is it because the digital signature has no value on its own?
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      It's because there is no other meaningful way to "own" the thing the signature refers to, if you apply a concept of ownership as you would to a physical piece of art. Being in physical possession of the bytes to a JPEG is not what gives people the sense that they own this piece of art in the way they might own a painting, because the bytes are so cheaply copied. Owning the intellectual property behind a JPEG is an entirely different kind of ownership; the value is in the commercial exploitation of those rights, and the buyer is now taking over from the creator in being responsible for said exploitation to get their money's worth. This is not what artists or art collectors want. The whole point is to artificially recreate the traditional experience of ownership, but for immaterial/digital goods. People talk about owning the work (or an edition of it), not the signature, because that is the whole point of the exercise. Immaterial artworks such as video art, performances etc. are already being sold in the art market; what you get is a piece of paper stating that you own the work. It's exactly the same as an NFT. It may seem utterly useless for people who don't care about owning editions of immaterial works of art, but there is nothing scammy about it. It is done entirely in earnest.
      - grey-area 5y ago
        Of course there are other ways to meaningfully own the digital artwork, you listed some in your response: You created the image. You own the copyright to the image (which has legal weight). You may restrict distribution or reproduction in those situations. These are all more meaningfully ownership than owning a digital receipt on the blockchain pointing to a url on a 3rd party site, which is more akin to buying a star or a piece of the moon from somebody who sets up a website and purports to be selling these ineffable things. I disagree with you about the point of NFTs, the point of them IMO is to provide cover for ponzi schemes and convince marks parting with their cash that they are buying into a get rich quick scheme in which they'll get rich and someone else will be left holding the bag when they sell their receipt for digital art to someone else. The references to art markets, asset tracking, provenance, new technology etc etc are just indirection used to distract from the fundamental transaction - give me money (including really high transaction fees for the marketplace) for this worthless receipt which says you own* this digital lion pic, unique amongst thousands of other similar lion pics because it has a cigar or an eye patch. No wonder companies like Nike, Games companies and football clubs and are rushing to take part too and sell fans NFTs, they can't lose! * For certain values of own not conferring any rights over the image whatsoever.
        miracle2k 5y ago
        > Of course there are other ways to meaningfully own the digital artwork, you listed some in your response: By my count you listed just one - owning the copyright. But as I said, while owning intellectual property is certainly meaningful (and can be valuable), it is not art collecting. There is a reason why there exists no art market where people are trading copyright claims. As a collector, I don't want to be in the business of managing an intellectual property licensing enterprise. Yet, I want the artwork I own to become a well-known, celebrated cultural object; the artist also wants this, and thankfully - incentivised and empowered by still owning the copyright - will try to manage their career to achieve this. We can all agree that crypto lends itself to rampant and unrestricted speculation / gambling, which attracts all kinds of people looking for a cash grab or get-rich scheme. Those speculative bubbles have been going on for years, and in all likelihood will continue. It's an issue that artists and collectors in this space are struggling to deal with; people don't like that new releases are sold out in minutes, because flippers and their bots think they can make a profit (this is not dissimilar to event ticketing issues). However, artists who have experimented with blockchain 10 years ago, were not looking for marks to scam. While pics of lions will go up and down in price, and people who bought even respectable art at the height of the bubble will be looking at a loss in resale value, this market will not disappear; it provides a product that artists and collectors find useful. I am not of the opinion that this will be as world-changing and all-encompassing as web3 proponents proclaim. Art collection is a niche in the real world, and it will be a slightly larger niche in the digital realm.

grey-area 5y ago

Actually you can’t know it was by an ‘owner’ because nfts are not tied to the real world. You own nothing but the digital signature. There are so many problems being skated over here about provenance and ownership and nfts provide nothing of value in that domain, they’re just a get rich quick scheme.

miracle2k 5y ago
> because nfts are not tied to the real world. You own nothing but the digital signature. The digital signature is thing that people want to own in the real world!
- grey-area 5y ago
  And yet all the talk is not about the signature, but the thing it refers to. Why is that distinction constantly elided? Is it because the digital signature has no value on its own?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    It's because there is no other meaningful way to "own" the thing the signature refers to, if you apply a concept of ownership as you would to a physical piece of art. Being in physical possession of the bytes to a JPEG is not what gives people the sense that they own this piece of art in the way they might own a painting, because the bytes are so cheaply copied. Owning the intellectual property behind a JPEG is an entirely different kind of ownership; the value is in the commercial exploitation of those rights, and the buyer is now taking over from the creator in being responsible for said exploitation to get their money's worth. This is not what artists or art collectors want. The whole point is to artificially recreate the traditional experience of ownership, but for immaterial/digital goods. People talk about owning the work (or an edition of it), not the signature, because that is the whole point of the exercise. Immaterial artworks such as video art, performances etc. are already being sold in the art market; what you get is a piece of paper stating that you own the work. It's exactly the same as an NFT. It may seem utterly useless for people who don't care about owning editions of immaterial works of art, but there is nothing scammy about it. It is done entirely in earnest.
    - grey-area 5y ago
      Of course there are other ways to meaningfully own the digital artwork, you listed some in your response: You created the image. You own the copyright to the image (which has legal weight). You may restrict distribution or reproduction in those situations. These are all more meaningfully ownership than owning a digital receipt on the blockchain pointing to a url on a 3rd party site, which is more akin to buying a star or a piece of the moon from somebody who sets up a website and purports to be selling these ineffable things. I disagree with you about the point of NFTs, the point of them IMO is to provide cover for ponzi schemes and convince marks parting with their cash that they are buying into a get rich quick scheme in which they'll get rich and someone else will be left holding the bag when they sell their receipt for digital art to someone else. The references to art markets, asset tracking, provenance, new technology etc etc are just indirection used to distract from the fundamental transaction - give me money (including really high transaction fees for the marketplace) for this worthless receipt which says you own* this digital lion pic, unique amongst thousands of other similar lion pics because it has a cigar or an eye patch. No wonder companies like Nike, Games companies and football clubs and are rushing to take part too and sell fans NFTs, they can't lose! * For certain values of own not conferring any rights over the image whatsoever.
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        > Of course there are other ways to meaningfully own the digital artwork, you listed some in your response: By my count you listed just one - owning the copyright. But as I said, while owning intellectual property is certainly meaningful (and can be valuable), it is not art collecting. There is a reason why there exists no art market where people are trading copyright claims. As a collector, I don't want to be in the business of managing an intellectual property licensing enterprise. Yet, I want the artwork I own to become a well-known, celebrated cultural object; the artist also wants this, and thankfully - incentivised and empowered by still owning the copyright - will try to manage their career to achieve this. We can all agree that crypto lends itself to rampant and unrestricted speculation / gambling, which attracts all kinds of people looking for a cash grab or get-rich scheme. Those speculative bubbles have been going on for years, and in all likelihood will continue. It's an issue that artists and collectors in this space are struggling to deal with; people don't like that new releases are sold out in minutes, because flippers and their bots think they can make a profit (this is not dissimilar to event ticketing issues). However, artists who have experimented with blockchain 10 years ago, were not looking for marks to scam. While pics of lions will go up and down in price, and people who bought even respectable art at the height of the bubble will be looking at a loss in resale value, this market will not disappear; it provides a product that artists and collectors find useful. I am not of the opinion that this will be as world-changing and all-encompassing as web3 proponents proclaim. Art collection is a niche in the real world, and it will be a slightly larger niche in the digital realm.