3 ms·
Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.
by dannyw 5y ago
Jack Dorsey sold it; it's not like some random made a jpeg and tried to sell it.
- manholio 5y ago> Jack Dorsey sold it So what? If Jack Dorsey took a dump, preserved in resin and sold it as an abstract representation of his first tweet, how would that be different, more genuine or less genuine than this NFT?
- maerF0x0 5y agowell for one, you could have exclusive access to that specific dump. Ironically there's more scarcity in what you described than an entirely publicly accessible NFT Pointer to a file with unrestricted access on the open internet.
- otikik 5y agoEverything old is new again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
- danielmarkbruce 5y agoI think he's asking what the "it" is. Usually when you sell something, there are a bunch of legal rights that go along with the sale. What exactly did this guy buy? The right to look at the tweet? The right to restrict others from looking at it? The copyright? Any advertising dollars which flow because of that tweet? What?
- MartinCron 5y agoNope, nope, nope, and nope. He bought the bragging rights to say "that URL of that image of that tweet, if you look at this particular public ledger, you'll see that the ledger says that I own it!"
- danielmarkbruce 5y agoIt is a compelling proposition..... If the NFT craze has shown anything, it's that too many people don't have any understanding of the law. They don't seem to know what "own a thing" means - neither the "own" part or the "thing" part...
- throw_m239339 5y agoJack Dorsey sold a token with a link to a jpeg, the point being, that token with a link to a jpeg (we all know what a token is, we generate tokens all the time) is worthless. There is no jpeg in the token itself, just the link to the gallery that hosts the jpeg. By the way, the token could contain any sort of short information, the address to a C++ pointer in the memory of my computer for instance.