11 ms·

It works fine with actual art but I've yet to see an NFT comparable to say: the Mona Lisa. When I got into the blockchain space ~9 years ago I would have never

It works fine with actual art but I've yet to see an NFT comparable to say: the Mona Lisa. When I got into the blockchain space ~9 years ago I would have never imagined years later people would be going crazy over pictures of jpegs. People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing.

jjtheblunt 4y ago
is that because physical paints can't be immediately copied like a sequence of bits can?
- yawnxyz 4y ago
  but you can order a print of the Mona Lisa very easily for like $15
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    The loss of fidelity between the physical original and a $15 print is comparable to 10,000 generations of jpg decoding and re-encoding.
    - iamacyborg 4y ago
      The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted. Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
      - jjtheblunt 4y ago
        (totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)
      - spapas82 4y ago
        In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...
        iamacyborg 4y ago
        There’s a very good book written about it’s history which was published recently. https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-of-veroneses-feast-9780500252574 https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-...
      - cratermoon 4y ago
        > The original you see today Exactly proving my point. A $15 print of the Mona Lisa makes it look good. In truth, the painting is suffering from deterioration, the poplar panel is warped, the columns that used to frame her are missing, and restoration has obscured some details. A print doesn't convey the physicality of the cracked, rough surface of the paint, the sfumato technique, the almost total lack of visible brushstrokes, the gauzy veil, Mona Lisa's hair, the luminescence of her skin and the overall impression of glowing. Whatever the actual quality and condition of the original, no reproduction will adequately represent it.
        sizzle 4y ago
        Wow do you have an art background, really enjoy how you described design elements in detail.
        cratermoon 4y ago
        A very minor side interest of mine. Enough to know the basics of art history, criticism and conservation. I know terms to use and where to look up details I don't recall off the top of my head. My side gig is photography, using film, and making physical prints. As with painting, a digital image or calendar page can't quite match the experience of seeing say an original Ansel Adams or Robert Frank print in person.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Uptrenda 4y ago
  I think its more because only the greatest artworks have ended up being curated. I'm sure if NFT art were as old as physical art there would be more to choose from. I want to also say that in my view I don't believe an NFT has value by itself unless its being used somewhere that people like. For example: a skin in a (popular) game. Otherwise it really is just a file sitting on a computer. It ought to have an impact somewhere and there ought to be at least some backing promise that such an impact will stay. I really do think digital property has value but only when you do it right.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  No, or at least not entirely. Even if I was to (theoretically) copy the Mona Lisa so perfectly that no existing technology could tell the difference, the original would still be worth more than my copy.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    but that's because it was created by a genius, not someone with Adobe Illustrator?
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      That's my point: the Mona Lisa contains the intangible property of "being the original copy" that cannot be derived from its physical traits. If the Mona Lisa's value was determined purely from physical traits my perfect copy would be worth exactly the same.
hnthrow1010 4y ago
>People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing. It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. If you try to build any of those things on top of a blockchain you will realize quickly that blockchains are bad solution. The only purpose of them is to pump up the value of a casino token which is then used to pay a tax to the operators of the network. It's no surprise that after this nonsense you're only left with irrational actors. And that is only for the average user; for the whales, the purpose of them appears to be mainly profiting off of massive amounts of fraud and criminal activity while maintaining the plausible deniability of being able to say "technically we don't control the blockchain so we're not responsible".
- colinsane 4y ago
  > It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. today we have both of the things which GP mentions as being under development 9 years ago, so this part is seemingly false.
  - hnthrow1010 4y ago
    No, what you're leaving out is that they work just fine without blockchains. The addition of blockchains just makes them worse.
    - colinsane 4y ago
      earlier you said blockchains cannot do these things. now you’re saying that blockchains aren’t the best for these tasks. pick one or the other and stick to it. don’t confuse things by claiming one point and then going on to argue a different point.
      - hnthrow1010 4y ago
        Blockchains indeed cannot do that, those things are added on separately, they exist independently of blockchains, and have uses outside of it. If this is hard to understand, let me illustrate with a more clear example. Some blockchains have smart contracts, and you can technically write a game of chess into a smart contract. This does not mean that it is accurate or meaningful to say "blockchains can play chess" or "chess is a feature of blockchains" or something like that. Even if blockchains became totally unpopular for everything else, and were only used to play chess, it would still not be accurate as the idea of a blockchain still would not actually include the ability to play chess. It is about as accurate as saying "chess is a feature of tables". Also, it would be pretty horrible to play that way and blockchain gaming is a total disaster, so I doubt that would happen.
hkgjjgjfjfjfjf 4y ago

jjtheblunt 4y ago

is that because physical paints can't be immediately copied like a sequence of bits can?

yawnxyz 4y ago
but you can order a print of the Mona Lisa very easily for like $15
- cratermoon 4y ago
  The loss of fidelity between the physical original and a $15 print is comparable to 10,000 generations of jpg decoding and re-encoding.
  - iamacyborg 4y ago
    The original you see today isn’t the original that would have been seen immediately after it was painted. Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      (totally agree, and found myself laughing reading this)
    - spapas82 4y ago
      In case anyone wonders which is the painting... http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/painting/6/ http://www.worldsbestpaintings.net/artistsandpaintings/paint...
      - iamacyborg 4y ago
        There’s a very good book written about it’s history which was published recently. https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-of-veroneses-feast-9780500252574 https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-...
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      > The original you see today Exactly proving my point. A $15 print of the Mona Lisa makes it look good. In truth, the painting is suffering from deterioration, the poplar panel is warped, the columns that used to frame her are missing, and restoration has obscured some details. A print doesn't convey the physicality of the cracked, rough surface of the paint, the sfumato technique, the almost total lack of visible brushstrokes, the gauzy veil, Mona Lisa's hair, the luminescence of her skin and the overall impression of glowing. Whatever the actual quality and condition of the original, no reproduction will adequately represent it.
      - sizzle 4y ago
        Wow do you have an art background, really enjoy how you described design elements in detail.
        cratermoon 4y ago
        A very minor side interest of mine. Enough to know the basics of art history, criticism and conservation. I know terms to use and where to look up details I don't recall off the top of my head. My side gig is photography, using film, and making physical prints. As with painting, a digital image or calendar page can't quite match the experience of seeing say an original Ansel Adams or Robert Frank print in person.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Uptrenda 4y ago
I think its more because only the greatest artworks have ended up being curated. I'm sure if NFT art were as old as physical art there would be more to choose from. I want to also say that in my view I don't believe an NFT has value by itself unless its being used somewhere that people like. For example: a skin in a (popular) game. Otherwise it really is just a file sitting on a computer. It ought to have an impact somewhere and there ought to be at least some backing promise that such an impact will stay. I really do think digital property has value but only when you do it right.
cmeacham98 4y ago
No, or at least not entirely. Even if I was to (theoretically) copy the Mona Lisa so perfectly that no existing technology could tell the difference, the original would still be worth more than my copy.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  but that's because it was created by a genius, not someone with Adobe Illustrator?
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    That's my point: the Mona Lisa contains the intangible property of "being the original copy" that cannot be derived from its physical traits. If the Mona Lisa's value was determined purely from physical traits my perfect copy would be worth exactly the same.

hnthrow1010 4y ago

>People used to discuss amazingly cool tech stuff: like SSL oracles or privacy-preserving payment protocols. Now it's all about what the price is and moronic NFTs. It's embarrassing. It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. If you try to build any of those things on top of a blockchain you will realize quickly that blockchains are bad solution. The only purpose of them is to pump up the value of a casino token which is then used to pay a tax to the operators of the network. It's no surprise that after this nonsense you're only left with irrational actors. And that is only for the average user; for the whales, the purpose of them appears to be mainly profiting off of massive amounts of fraud and criminal activity while maintaining the plausible deniability of being able to say "technically we don't control the blockchain so we're not responsible".

colinsane 4y ago
> It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. today we have both of the things which GP mentions as being under development 9 years ago, so this part is seemingly false.
- hnthrow1010 4y ago
  No, what you're leaving out is that they work just fine without blockchains. The addition of blockchains just makes them worse.
  - colinsane 4y ago
    earlier you said blockchains cannot do these things. now you’re saying that blockchains aren’t the best for these tasks. pick one or the other and stick to it. don’t confuse things by claiming one point and then going on to argue a different point.
    - hnthrow1010 4y ago
      Blockchains indeed cannot do that, those things are added on separately, they exist independently of blockchains, and have uses outside of it. If this is hard to understand, let me illustrate with a more clear example. Some blockchains have smart contracts, and you can technically write a game of chess into a smart contract. This does not mean that it is accurate or meaningful to say "blockchains can play chess" or "chess is a feature of blockchains" or something like that. Even if blockchains became totally unpopular for everything else, and were only used to play chess, it would still not be accurate as the idea of a blockchain still would not actually include the ability to play chess. It is about as accurate as saying "chess is a feature of tables". Also, it would be pretty horrible to play that way and blockchain gaming is a total disaster, so I doubt that would happen.

hkgjjgjfjfjfjf 4y ago