4 ms·

Not smart to compare a nft and the a link to the image the nft represents to a Rolex and a fake Rolex. That gives the ‘believers’ ammunition and it makes no sen

Not smart to compare a nft and the a link to the image the nft represents to a Rolex and a fake Rolex. That gives the ‘believers’ ammunition and it makes no sense. There is nothing fake or different about the 2 images, while fake Rolexes are fake Rolexes.

betwixthewires 4y ago
Not a fan of NFTs, but my understanding is the NFT is the signature, not the art itself. If you're just trying to make your wall pretty you don't buy signed art that costs a lot of money. If you're buying signed art, you're thinking of resale value. That's all the NFT is, is the signature.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  Well, it's some type of digital proof that you 'own' the 'linked' thing. So in case you buy a NFT for a Rolex with serial number 1234, then this NFT proves you own that rolex. And then you can say, if I give you a fake Rolex with serial 1234, it is a problem. So that example would work. But most (by very far) NFT's that are 'proofs' that you own some PNG of an ape or what not and the author of the article was specifically talking about those. And there the example doesn't work; the NFT refers to an digital image, not a physical object and that image you can copy or link and so your ownership means absolutely nothing at all as there is no notion of fake. You could argue (not sure how far that would get in court) that you own the license to that image and if someone uses that image, you can go after them, but still, that's not faking anything.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
Yes, I expected him to at least point out that a real Rolex has intrinsic differences regarding its functionality as a watch in terms of precision, durability, etc. that are superior to those of a fake Rolex. Of course, we all know that the cost a Rolex is not proportional to how good a watch it is, it is a status symbol. But it is also a damn good watch.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  Not the point; a digital asset is not comparable to a physical asset; the image the nft points to is the same bytes as the image he gave that image to others to prove a point. There is nothing at all fake about the second image; it is the same image. And in this case it was even the actual same link from the nft I think which is even better. There is no notion of fake in digital; you copy something and you have it, identical to the what you copied it from. This does not apply to Rolexes and calling it fake makes no sense and it’s a bad example that doesn’t educate people; people who might have ‘invested’ into nfts but don’t know any tech might think ‘but I have the real Rolex, so it does work!’. And that would be a bad and wrong interpretation of the facts.
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    I think you misunderstood my comment as I was emphasising your point. I was saying that a real Rolex is, as a watch, materially different from a fake Rolex regardless of how much of a real Rolex's value comes from its image and recognition. The fact that a "real" NFT is, as a URL on a blockchain, no different from a "fake" NFT was implied.
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      Ah, sorry about that! Thanks for clearing it up ; I read it differently. Then we agree. (it doesn't happen often online!)

betwixthewires 4y ago

Not a fan of NFTs, but my understanding is the NFT is the signature, not the art itself. If you're just trying to make your wall pretty you don't buy signed art that costs a lot of money. If you're buying signed art, you're thinking of resale value. That's all the NFT is, is the signature.

tluyben2 4y ago
Well, it's some type of digital proof that you 'own' the 'linked' thing. So in case you buy a NFT for a Rolex with serial number 1234, then this NFT proves you own that rolex. And then you can say, if I give you a fake Rolex with serial 1234, it is a problem. So that example would work. But most (by very far) NFT's that are 'proofs' that you own some PNG of an ape or what not and the author of the article was specifically talking about those. And there the example doesn't work; the NFT refers to an digital image, not a physical object and that image you can copy or link and so your ownership means absolutely nothing at all as there is no notion of fake. You could argue (not sure how far that would get in court) that you own the license to that image and if someone uses that image, you can go after them, but still, that's not faking anything.

Mordisquitos 4y ago

Yes, I expected him to at least point out that a real Rolex has intrinsic differences regarding its functionality as a watch in terms of precision, durability, etc. that are superior to those of a fake Rolex. Of course, we all know that the cost a Rolex is not proportional to how good a watch it is, it is a status symbol. But it is also a damn good watch.

tluyben2 4y ago
Not the point; a digital asset is not comparable to a physical asset; the image the nft points to is the same bytes as the image he gave that image to others to prove a point. There is nothing at all fake about the second image; it is the same image. And in this case it was even the actual same link from the nft I think which is even better. There is no notion of fake in digital; you copy something and you have it, identical to the what you copied it from. This does not apply to Rolexes and calling it fake makes no sense and it’s a bad example that doesn’t educate people; people who might have ‘invested’ into nfts but don’t know any tech might think ‘but I have the real Rolex, so it does work!’. And that would be a bad and wrong interpretation of the facts.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment as I was emphasising your point. I was saying that a real Rolex is, as a watch, materially different from a fake Rolex regardless of how much of a real Rolex's value comes from its image and recognition. The fact that a "real" NFT is, as a URL on a blockchain, no different from a "fake" NFT was implied.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    Ah, sorry about that! Thanks for clearing it up ; I read it differently. Then we agree. (it doesn't happen often online!)