NFTs

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

But an NFT doesn't do what people say it does. It isn't a verification of genuineness. That's not how digital art works. If I copy an original digital artwork, I don't end up with an original and a copy, I now have two originals. An NFT doesn't make an artwork rare, and it doesn't make anyone "own the original". It has absolutely no connection to the artwork and absolutely no useful application.

That's actually the opposite of true. The NFT is what designates the original. If you copy an artwork that has an NFT, then you have an artwork with an NFT, and an artwork that does not. Since the NFT cannot be copied, only the one with the NFT can be considered "original", even though many copies might exist. That's the whole point.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's actually the opposite of true. The NFT is what designates the original. If you copy an artwork that has an NFT, then you have an artwork with an NFT, and an artwork that does not. Since the NFT cannot be copied, only the one with the NFT can be considered "original", even though many copies might exist. That's the whole point.

As I understand it, anyone can create the NFT associated with an artwork, it doesn't need to be the owner of the artwork. Who gets the proceeds when the NFT is sold?

What is there to stop someone creating a second NFT pointing to the same artwork?

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

That's actually the opposite of true. The NFT is what designates the original. If you copy an artwork that has an NFT, then you have an artwork with an NFT, and an artwork that does not. Since the NFT cannot be copied, only the one with the NFT can be considered "original", even though many copies might exist. That's the whole point.

That is utter nonsense. The NFT designates nothing, no matter how much someone wants to make it so. An artwork is an original artwork if it's the original artwork, and in the case of a digital anything, you can create an infinite number of originals. The fact that someone associated some data with one version changes nothing.


Edit: Also, this isn't even an accurate representation. The actual reality is even more nonsensical. There is no artwork with an NFT and copies without this NFT. There are the identical artworks, and then there is the NFT. When you trade the NFT, you don't magically trade some copy along with it. You only trade the NFT.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

As I understand it, anyone can create the NFT associated with an artwork, it doesn't need to be the owner of the artwork. Who gets the proceeds when the NFT is sold?

What is there to stop someone creating a second NFT pointing to the same artwork?

Nothing at all. Plenty of NFTs have been minted of stolen artwork and there's really nothing special conferred by having the NFT of a particular thing other than a transaction history.

When it comes to proving real "ownership", copyright remains king.

ETA: someone buying an NFT of an original art piece would be well advised to do the same due diligence as if they were buying a non-crypto-scam version of the same piece, they should confirm the seller is the actual owner of a given work and can actually meaningfully transfer exclusive copyright to another.

[SuburbanTurkey]

This might be the moment this scam jumped the shark:

Originally Posted by Melania Trump

Excited for this new venture, which combines my passion for art and commitment to helping our Nation’s children fulfill their own unique American Dream. #MelaniaNFT http://MelaniaTrump.com

https://twitter.com/MELANIATRUMP/sta...nitiative.html

[carlitos]

Staring into my 4K monitor at Melania's cobalt-blue eyes just isn't enough unless I have a blockchain-certified NFT. The dodgy charity is a nice bonus touch.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I am getting a chuckle out of the idea of a bunch of MAGA meemaws and peepaws trying to figure out how to buy an NFT.

[plague311]

I just bought a new NFT! (Not that specific one).

Pretty cool, it's an actual arcade game that can be played online by other people. Basically just pac-man with that stupid meme frog rather than pac-man. It's kind of entertaining to pass some time. At some point you're going to be able to host it so other people can play your game, and stuff like that. Pretty neat little toy.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by plague311

I just bought a new NFT! (Not that specific one).

Pretty cool, it's an actual arcade game that can be played online by other people. Basically just pac-man with that stupid meme frog rather than pac-man. It's kind of entertaining to pass some time. At some point you're going to be able to host it so other people can play your game, and stuff like that. Pretty neat little toy.

Can you explain how the existence of NFTs adds to the experience?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

Can you explain how the existence of NFTs adds to the experience?

No.

[SuburbanTurkey]

My favorite kind of NFT social media posts are rubes that got ripped clamoring for more consumer protections, basically calling for the reinvention of all the exact regulatory and oversight mechanisms that crypto its derivatives were invented to evade.

Quote:

Give these crypto bros another year and they'll reinvent the FDIC lmfao

*screenshot in link*

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status...84561957638148

Probably just going to end up with parallel government structures that are just more expensive, less transparent, and somehow less democratically accountable.

[plague311]

Yeah, the guy should have had his account locked down better, or do what most people do and split the collections up between multiple wallets. I'm not sure why people don't take every precaution.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

Yeah, the guy should have had his account locked down better, or do what most people do and split the collections up between multiple wallets. I'm not sure why people don't take every precaution.

Because otherwise scammers would starve to death.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

The fact that someone associated some data with one version changes nothing.

This is demonstrably wrong.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Because otherwise scammers would starve to death.

You're absolutely right. Hell, people still winning the lottery in foreign countries and helping that Prince transfer funds for going on 20-30 years.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is demonstrably wrong.

How so?

[JoeMorgue]

The concept of what an NFT is trying to be became a thing the second we had digital goods.

And honestly does the "digital" factor mean as much as we're thinking it does? It's not like "Okay you could totally reproduce this but like... let's just both pretend you can't" is some unheard of concept. How much "exclusive" things do you physically own that really would be impossible to make a copy of that would fool you on a practical, day to day level if you really put the effort into it?

The fact that most goods can be knocked off hasn't stopped real world collecting/exclusivity/etc.

Again the problem with NFTs is that they are just too obvious about what they are doing, they put the cart before the horse.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The concept of what an NFT is trying to be became a thing the second we had digital goods.

And honestly does the "digital" factor mean as much as we're thinking it does? It's not like "Okay you could totally reproduce this but like... let's just both pretend you can't" is some unheard of concept. How much "exclusive" things do you physically own that really would be impossible to make a copy of that would fool you on a practical, day to day level if you really put the effort into it?

The fact that most goods can be knocked off hasn't stopped real world collecting/exclusivity/etc.

Again the problem with NFTs is that they are just too obvious about what they are doing, they put the cart before the horse.

Issue is with real goods experts can tell what's copy and what's original. Especially if they have both in hands. So you can put price on one.

With digital goods the copy is perfect. Then you have issue with price. It's meaningless. Anyone can claim they have the original. That's a problem for trade of digital goods, namely art. NFTs solve that.

And ownership does have added value, typically right to use the artwork commercially.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Issue is with real goods experts can tell what's copy and what's original. Especially if they have both in hands. So you can put price on one.

With digital goods the copy is perfect. Then you have issue with price. It's meaningless. Anyone can claim they have the original. That's a problem for trade of digital goods, namely art. NFTs solve that.

And ownership does have added value, typically right to use the artwork commercially.

NFTs do nothing to prove originality, which should be obvious now that the big exchange is routinely facing DMCA takedowns for stolen art being used.

https://petapixel.com/2021/12/20/as-...ct-copyrights/

NFTs prove a transaction history, but doesn't do anything to demonstrate that the original seller actually has copyright of the work, which is the most important element.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

This might be the moment this scam jumped the shark:



https://twitter.com/MELANIATRUMP/sta...nitiative.html

"A portion of the proceeds...."

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Issue is with real goods experts can tell what's copy and what's original. Especially if they have both in hands. So you can put price on one.

With digital goods the copy is perfect. Then you have issue with price. It's meaningless. Anyone can claim they have the original. That's a problem for trade of digital goods, namely art. NFTs solve that.

And ownership does have added value, typically right to use the artwork commercially.

There is no problem with digital art. NFTs are a desperate attempt to turn back a clock that doesn't need to be turned back, and they don't even do what they are meant to do. A digital artwork won't sell for millions, and it doesn't have to, because you can sell one artwork to millions of people.

NFTs grant absolutely no rights. If you want to use an artwork commercially, you need the copyright, etc.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

NFTs do nothing to prove originality, which should be obvious now that the big exchange is routinely facing DMCA takedowns for stolen art being used.

https://petapixel.com/2021/12/20/as-...ct-copyrights/

NFTs prove a transaction history, but doesn't do anything to demonstrate that the original seller actually has copyright of the work, which is the most important element.

That's only because original author is not the original seller. It's your problem if you buy something like that.

[JoeMorgue]

Well the reason scarcity or exclusivity was ever a thing was sunk cost/time.

It takes time to print books. It takes time to sign them. A finite number of them can be "1st Editions."

With digital goods that's all artificial, it's all made up. One copy of an e-book or a trillion it makes no more effort or time.

I own a physical book that only 500 of exist. To make more would take time, effort, resources, materials. That scarcity of it is natural and organic, not by fiat. That's the difference.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

That's only because original author is not the original seller. It's your problem if you buy something like that.

Right, that's exactly my point. Copyrights is the only thing that matters when it comes to digital art, and the NFT process proves absolutely nothing about who the actual legal owner of a given artwork is.

The NFT doesn't verify copyright status and it doesn't hinder people from copying the digital files in any way. What exactly do they accomplish, besides creating an avenue for wild speculative markets ?

[JoeMorgue]

Basically NFT are all, by definition, the strawman version of pretentious modern art.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Basically NFT are all, by definition, the strawman version of pretentious modern art.

Modern art? That is surprising to me. I would have thought your complaint would be against post modern or contemporary art.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I see I'm not the only person enjoying some schadenfreude:

Quote:

the transition of libertarian guys from pretending they’re gonna 3d print a gun and overthrow the govt to calling the cops about having their imaginary ape stolen is awesome

https://twitter.com/Milo_Edwards/sta...31598082330633

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I see I'm not the only person enjoying some schadenfreude:

https://twitter.com/Milo_Edwards/sta...31598082330633

What a stupid comparison. Who else should you call if something gets stolen? I personally wouldn't call anyone if my digital currency were taken but this is like the ******* pinnacle of false equivalencies.

[bruto]

While I do wonder about the value of those sorts of purchase, I think that the theft is just that: a theft, and it damned well ought to be reported as such. I mean, I also don't collect china dolls or beer coasters, but I'd be miffed if someone stole them. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks they're junk.

But if it's that easy to steal an MFT, it raises a question about the security and value of it. Presumably the digital art that it accompanies is still free to anyone who wants to see it, so if you can't hold on to that title, there's no point in buying it. I was under the impression that the security of such things is guaranteed by the record being distributed and public, which I would have thought would make thefts quite visible. If that's not the case, then I think sellers will have a hard time getting their money's worth.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by bruto

But if it's that easy to steal an MFT, it raises a question about the security and value of it.

It's the exact same security as your bank account, social security number (if you're US based), and so on. You can make it more or less secure, but it's all on the person that has it.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by bruto

While I do wonder about the value of those sorts of purchase, I think that the theft is just that: a theft, and it damned well ought to be reported as such. I mean, I also don't collect china dolls or beer coasters, but I'd be miffed if someone stole them. It doesn't matter if someone else thinks they're junk.

But if it's that easy to steal an MFT, it raises a question about the security and value of it. Presumably the digital art that it accompanies is still free to anyone who wants to see it, so if you can't hold on to that title, there's no point in buying it. I was under the impression that the security of such things is guaranteed by the record being distributed and public, which I would have thought would make thefts quite visible. If that's not the case, then I think sellers will have a hard time getting their money's worth.

Decentralization and deregulation is at the heart of crypto and NFTs. Sure, stealing a digital good is still a crime. The market that these rubes have engaged in makes getting any meaningful recourse extremely difficult, precisely because it is free of any meaningful regulation and oversight.

Originally Posted by plague311

It's the exact same security as your bank account, social security number (if you're US based), and so on. You can make it more or less secure, but it's all on the person that has it.

My credit union is insured by the federal government for a balance up to $250,000. When Mt. Gox declared bankruptcy, the users got left holding the bag. These ape weirdos have no recourse when their NFT gets jacked, they probably would have been better off gambling on wall street where at least some types of outright theft and fraud are meaningfully prohibited. There's a huge difference.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

My credit union is insured by the federal government for a balance up to $250,000. When Mt. Gox declared bankruptcy, the users got left holding the bag. There's a huge difference.

Sure, sure.

So if your credit union goes tits up, then who pays you for your money? Everyone that pays taxes? Even those of us who have absolutely **** all to do with your credit union?

Yes, investors lose money when things they invest in fail. Feigning that this is somehow new or exceptional with NFTs\crypto is fun though.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

Sure, sure.

So if your credit union goes tits up, then who pays you for your money? Everyone that pays taxes? Even those of us who have absolutely **** all to do with your credit union?

Yes, investors lose money when things they invest in fail. Feigning that this is somehow new or exceptional with NFTs\crypto is fun though.

Sure, the government picks up the tab. They also impose a ton of requirements and send investigators to ensure that insured organizations are meeting standards of practice. It's almost as if a comprehensive regulatory framework is an important part of a reliable financial system.

Or you roll the dice on the boom-bust cycle of the crypto world, assuring yourself that you're too savvy to get hacked or scammed.

[theprestige]

Copyright violation is still a crime. What the non-fungible token does is preserve a transaction record in a secure distributed ledger, that can be used to credibly establish who actually holds the copyright. It's a digital certificate of ownership, and serves the same function as a physical certificate. Except that being digital, it's somewhat more portable and accessible. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for cookie-cutter art with digitally-certified ownership isn't really my jam, but the basic premise seems fairly mundane and unobjectionable. People are objecting to it left and right, but none of their objections make any sense to me, unless viewed through a luddite/curmudgeon lens. This seems uncharitable, but perhaps accurate.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Copyright violation is still a crime. What the non-fungible token does is preserve a transaction record in a secure distributed ledger, that can be used to credibly establish who actually holds the copyright.

Does it? How?

The distributed ledger can be used to trace the transaction back to the original person who minted the NFT, but that's not enough to establish copyright. Whether or not that person actually had the copyright to the art is something that the NFT system is totally agnostic about, and it's the most important detail when it comes to owning digital art.

Opensea is awash in stolen art being minted into NFTs as we speak. The buyer still has to be diligent to ensure the seller actually owns rights to the art being minted into an NFT, the same exact problem that someone has buying digital art outside the crypto world.

Quote:

Except that being digital, it's somewhat more portable and accessible. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for cookie-cutter art with digitally-certified ownership isn't really my jam, but the basic premise seems fairly mundane and unobjectionable. People are objecting to it left and right, but none of their objections make any sense to me, unless viewed through a luddite/curmudgeon lens. This seems uncharitable, but perhaps accurate.

Because it's plainly obvious that, at best, it's being used for a wildly speculative market that's bound to crash or as a vehicle for illicit scams and money laundering at worst. There's nothing inherently wrong with collecting Beanie Babies, but you might understand that there's something a bit odd going on when a plush doll is selling for tens of thousands of dollars. The larger the market becomes, the more the volatile and predatory nature of this thing threatens people who aren't even involved.

Plenty has been said in this thread about the naked market manipulation that this crytpo market allows. The semi-anonymous nature of who's buying and selling these things makes it very, very easy to conjure demand out of thin air through wash trading, for example. The whole thing stinks of fraud, which is generally bad for non-luddite reasons

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Or you roll the dice on the boom-bust cycle of the crypto world, assuring yourself that you're too savvy to get hacked or scammed.

I don't have to "assure myself that I'm too savvy to get hacked or scammed." It's a pretty awesome feeling.

See, I invested about $800ish (I can't remember the exact amount), and then I played a few crypto games (horse racing and the like). After awhile I caught wind through discord of a new game coming out (like horse racing, but with chickens), and figured I'd mint some since I'd never done it before. I invested about $700 in the mint, got my 5 chickens, and sold 1 of them for $4k. I put all of the money I wanted\invested back into my accounts, and only left the money that I felt I could play with in my crypto account. Much like I would assume responsible gamblers would do.

I have 2FA setup on all of my wallet accounts, along with encrypted backups of my login phrases.

For all of the bitching and moaning about NFTs I've never understood what the big deal is and why people are so ******* butthurt about them lol. If you don't want to get involved, don't, but NFTs aren't any worse or better than a million other things that are similar.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

I don't have to "assure myself that I'm too savvy to get hacked or scammed." It's a pretty awesome feeling.

See, I invested about $800ish (I can't remember the exact amount), and then I played a few crypto games (horse racing and the like). After awhile I caught wind through discord of a new game coming out (like horse racing, but with chickens), and figured I'd mint some since I'd never done it before. I invested about $700 in the mint, got my 5 chickens, and sold 1 of them for $4k. I put all of the money I wanted\invested back into my accounts, and only left the money that I felt I could play with in my account. Much like I would assume responsible gamblers would do.

I have 2FA setup on all of my wallet accounts, along with encrypted backups of my login phrases.

For all of the bitching and moaning about NFTs I've never understood what the big deal is and why people are so ******* butthurt about them lol. If you don't want to get involved, don't, but NFTs aren't any worse or better than a million other things that are similar.

Well if you made a small profit then it must be fine.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Well if you made a small profit then it must be fine.

I'm not surprised at all that out of everything I said, that's what you took away from it. I don't think there's a way for you to have missed the point any further than you did.

Here, I think you dropped your torch and pitchfork.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by plague311

I'm not surprised at all that out of everything I said, that's what you took away from it. I don't think there's a way for you to have missed the point any further than you did.

Here, I think you dropped your torch and pitchfork.

Do you think your experience with NFTs is typical or is what is driving the current speculative craze?

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Copyright violation is still a crime. What the non-fungible token does is preserve a transaction record in a secure distributed ledger, that can be used to credibly establish who actually holds the copyright. It's a digital certificate of ownership, and serves the same function as a physical certificate. Except that being digital, it's somewhat more portable and accessible. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for cookie-cutter art with digitally-certified ownership isn't really my jam, but the basic premise seems fairly mundane and unobjectionable. People are objecting to it left and right, but none of their objections make any sense to me, unless viewed through a luddite/curmudgeon lens. This seems uncharitable, but perhaps accurate.

Copyright isn't tied to an NFT. Someone might sell you the copyright along with an NFT, but those are two separate things, and you can easily re-sell them separately as well.

People keep trying to make sense of NFTs by tying them to something that actually has value, even though there is no connection. I suspect that people do this because they can't believe that art NFTs could be as stupid as they actually are, but the concept really is that stupid.