3 ms·

the main use case is not an oil or acrylic painting but digital art and digital media. look at highest sales on any platform its memes, gifs, JPGs, digital phot

by web4 4y ago

the main use case is not an oil or acrylic painting but digital art and digital media. look at highest sales on any platform its memes, gifs, JPGs, digital photographs, 3D renderings, videos, generative art. there was no easy way to distribute signed editions of digital media in limited capacity and have it certified by the artist themself, the only option was to make it a signed physical print which is not a digital substrate. the only middleman you requires is blockchain indexer like etherscan or TheGraph or an alternative , and if you do not trust those platforms you can run your own local node as the data is not owned by any single entity.

Juliate 4y ago
That’s a silly bit use case. It’s trying to replicate some medium (world of atoms) properties unto another medium (world of bits) which provides a wild different perspective (scarcity is not the rule). If anyone wants to play the scarcity/exclusivity game, fine. There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already.
- web4 4y ago
  > There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already. lol people like to repeat this without pointing to any solutions. with crypto art an artist can sign their cryptographic key on a transferable and ownable digital asset published on a distributed ledger, set its scarcity and supply, and then use the blockchain as a sales and auction mechanism without requiring an intermediary auction house to handle escrow like sothebys or christies. what is the proposed alternative for these digital media?
  - Juliate 4y ago
    Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? And even the NFT frenzy is a good opportunity to market a « new », « better » Dropbox-like integrated solution, that’s supported in the long run and enables small artists to be as well autonomous on this. Edit: seriously. Selling NFTs as a solution for art certificates sounds like an American coming in France to sell the concepts of bread and cheese.
    - web4 4y ago
      > Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? and they are generally pretty crap? easily lost, forgeable, destroyed, manipulated, unrecognized. typical certs require a centralized "Certificate Provider" who upholds their value, for example a major auction house might distribute a cert when selling a painting. in crypto art there is no centralized authority that maintains the veracity of the tokens as the provenance and ownership lies in the distributed ledger. for those who wish to achieve similar goals as a digital cert but with more cryptographic robustness and less reliance on a centralized actor, NFT is a fine approach. that it has sales and market mechanisms built in is a bonus and probably the reason for its booming success as a new digital art market.
      - Juliate 4y ago
        > easily lost, forgeable, destroyed, manipulated, unrecognized. How are NFTs, or any crypto assets, better in that regard? The independance from a centralized auth (house auction, bank, law court) is rather moot, because that's what you need to have to investigate, solve and guarantee dispute resolutions (lost, stolen, forged, impersonated assets, unfaithful transactions, illegal transactions, etc.). Moreover, cryptos exchanges today _do_ act as few centralized points of control. You still can lose NFTs, lose control on them. You can still have your own artwork being minted by someone else, even against your own will (and to control against that abuse, you will need some sort of central authority somewhere). You can still forge or impersonate artists. You can manipulate people on their actual value versus the value of the thing they represent (that is, owning an NFT on an artwork today provides no guarantee of owning any right on the artwork itself). And that's not even taking into account the energy burnt into it.
        web4 4y ago
        you can forge a cert or a painting by copying it. a good forgery can be very convincing and requires expert investigation. see Salvator Mundi in which the authenticity of the painting is still not clear despite years of investigation by countless art historians and conservationists. if you try to copy a token you will end up with a new cryptographic hash and a new history of transactions associated with it. there are countless clones of crypto punks for example, but the only one that has any real traction is the one that has a clear history of transactions associated with its contract hash. anybody who can tell the difference between two strings of characters can detect whether a token is a forgery or not, it does not take an expert. yes obviously centralized exchanges are centralized, they are not the ones upholding the ledger or crypto art certs. even crypto art platforms like Foundation and opensea do not own or uphold the certs being issued and indexed by their platforms. it is more like the way that google indexes search results, it doesn't own the websites on its search results. yes impersonation is possible but often easy to detect on-chain. if a supposed notable artist is suddenly minting new work from a public key different than the address they've used in the last two years, suspicion would be warranted.

by web4 4y ago

Juliate 4y ago

That’s a silly bit use case. It’s trying to replicate some medium (world of atoms) properties unto another medium (world of bits) which provides a wild different perspective (scarcity is not the rule). If anyone wants to play the scarcity/exclusivity game, fine. There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already.

web4 4y ago
> There are better, more efficient solutions/means than crypto and nft for this already. lol people like to repeat this without pointing to any solutions. with crypto art an artist can sign their cryptographic key on a transferable and ownable digital asset published on a distributed ledger, set its scarcity and supply, and then use the blockchain as a sales and auction mechanism without requiring an intermediary auction house to handle escrow like sothebys or christies. what is the proposed alternative for these digital media?
- Juliate 4y ago
  Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? And even the NFT frenzy is a good opportunity to market a « new », « better » Dropbox-like integrated solution, that’s supported in the long run and enables small artists to be as well autonomous on this. Edit: seriously. Selling NFTs as a solution for art certificates sounds like an American coming in France to sell the concepts of bread and cheese.
  - web4 4y ago
    > Art certificates, both physical and digital have existed for… ages? and they are generally pretty crap? easily lost, forgeable, destroyed, manipulated, unrecognized. typical certs require a centralized "Certificate Provider" who upholds their value, for example a major auction house might distribute a cert when selling a painting. in crypto art there is no centralized authority that maintains the veracity of the tokens as the provenance and ownership lies in the distributed ledger. for those who wish to achieve similar goals as a digital cert but with more cryptographic robustness and less reliance on a centralized actor, NFT is a fine approach. that it has sales and market mechanisms built in is a bonus and probably the reason for its booming success as a new digital art market.
    - Juliate 4y ago
      > easily lost, forgeable, destroyed, manipulated, unrecognized. How are NFTs, or any crypto assets, better in that regard? The independance from a centralized auth (house auction, bank, law court) is rather moot, because that's what you need to have to investigate, solve and guarantee dispute resolutions (lost, stolen, forged, impersonated assets, unfaithful transactions, illegal transactions, etc.). Moreover, cryptos exchanges today _do_ act as few centralized points of control. You still can lose NFTs, lose control on them. You can still have your own artwork being minted by someone else, even against your own will (and to control against that abuse, you will need some sort of central authority somewhere). You can still forge or impersonate artists. You can manipulate people on their actual value versus the value of the thing they represent (that is, owning an NFT on an artwork today provides no guarantee of owning any right on the artwork itself). And that's not even taking into account the energy burnt into it.
      - web4 4y ago
        you can forge a cert or a painting by copying it. a good forgery can be very convincing and requires expert investigation. see Salvator Mundi in which the authenticity of the painting is still not clear despite years of investigation by countless art historians and conservationists. if you try to copy a token you will end up with a new cryptographic hash and a new history of transactions associated with it. there are countless clones of crypto punks for example, but the only one that has any real traction is the one that has a clear history of transactions associated with its contract hash. anybody who can tell the difference between two strings of characters can detect whether a token is a forgery or not, it does not take an expert. yes obviously centralized exchanges are centralized, they are not the ones upholding the ledger or crypto art certs. even crypto art platforms like Foundation and opensea do not own or uphold the certs being issued and indexed by their platforms. it is more like the way that google indexes search results, it doesn't own the websites on its search results. yes impersonation is possible but often easy to detect on-chain. if a supposed notable artist is suddenly minting new work from a public key different than the address they've used in the last two years, suspicion would be warranted.