|
How much can I get for a napkin with wikipedia.org written on it?
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
10% what the person who buys it will get for it a week later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 05:37
|
|
|
Oh my god. These last few pages are like some lost dead language to me. I have no idea what’s going on. I’m starting to think maybe I died a year or two ago and now I’m in hell being poor but getting to watch people make millions on something nonsensical like roblox, GameStop stock, and jpgs while I sit here like a chump with nothing but a handful of dogecoin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
NFT stands for No loving Thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
The future sure is stupid. This NFT stuff is making me feel depressed which owns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
ITT people who don't understand copyright law or chain of title try to prove that judges will see BLOCKCHAIN and throw out literally centuries of precedent on property law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
If you're a fan of NFTs then I have a good line on salvage rights to the Eiffel Tower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
I'm not 100% certain if this is the right thread for this, but given everything I just read on these here last few pages: lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
My work slack is full of people talking about NFTs and I want to say something but I don't have the energy [PUN]
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Sell them a tokenized picture of their conversation
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Write a bot or script that issues an NFT for every line anyone sends to that channel, regardless of who it is or how inane the words. They can then buy them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
If the copyright owner actually sold the copyright on the artwork to the NFT buyer, then the NFT would be a very expensive and environmentally destructive memorialization of the contract. I guess there might be a legal question as to whether an NFT satisfies the statute of fraud's requirements for a written document, though it probably doesn't cause any more issues than an email, assuming it actually states the terms of the contract. But, at that point, the NFT didn't do anything from a legal perspective. Edit: I should have said that the NFT didn't do anything that an email wouldn't have done. Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:If the copyright owner actually sold the copyright on the artwork to the NFT buyer, then the NFT would be a very expensive and environmentally destructive memorialization of the contract. I guess there might be a legal question as to whether an NFT satisfies the statute of fraud's requirements for a written document, though it probably doesn't cause any more issues than an email, assuming it actually states the terms of the contract. But, at that point, the NFT didn't do anything from a legal perspective. I think you'll find it actually makes my life super futuristic and me a sci-fi superman who is very smrt and knows how to do money things
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Hillary 2020 posted:Serious;y though it looks like a lot of artists had their work stolen to make that. There's going to be a lot of upset people when they find out what beeple got paid. Beeple does the equivalent of photobashing for 3D models - if you pay attention to his work (it gets spammed in art communities I'm in so I have to see it way too much) the same elements repeat constantly. It's just his thing, everything looks like stock assets because - whether he made them or not, I don't know - they all are. ymgve posted:nah, beeple seems to have made them all himself, dude seems to be some kind of weird art producing machine Yeah, I'm still baffled there's never been consequences for just how much poo poo he uses without copyright so frequently. My own opinions on copyright aside, you'd think with that 13 year backlog someone would have gone for the payout...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:If the copyright owner actually sold the copyright on the artwork to the NFT buyer, then the NFT would be a very expensive and environmentally destructive memorialization of the contract. I guess there might be a legal question as to whether an NFT satisfies the statute of fraud's requirements for a written document, though it probably doesn't cause any more issues than an email, assuming it actually states the terms of the contract. But, at that point, the NFT didn't do anything from a legal perspective. The NFT is a dumb way of saying “here is a Chuck E. Cheese coin that represents all of my legal rights to this thing. And now I give it to you.” But that doesn’t mean you actually have legal rights to the thing if the guy who gave you the Chuck E Cheese coin didn’t have any to start with. So you can just tokenize a picture of Lebron James you found on Google images and sell it to some stupid rear end in a top hat for $20. The Blockchain!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
I just can't help but think of Milo from Catch-22 reading the last few pages. That guy would have drooled at the prospect of making money from some sort of NFT grift.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
Without a doubt, a mark, who bought an NFT purporting to convey a copyright that the seller didn't own, doesn't have any control over the copyrighted work. There are two questions, though. Would a court would find that the buyer could receive restitution from the seller because the buyer fraudulently misrepresented the legal effect of the NFT? And, more interesting to me, could the actual artist make some type of claim against the NFT seller on the grounds that, even if the NFT didn't convey copyright, it was a valuable piece of property derived from the artwork and belongs to the creator. Even though I'm sympathetic to artists who think their poo poo is being stolen by these hucksters, I really don't want courts to find that NFTs are protected and sellable property interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Bitcoin: exciting legal developments coming soon!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Beeple does the equivalent of photobashing for 3D models - if you pay attention to his work (it gets spammed in art communities I'm in so I have to see it way too much) the same elements repeat constantly. It's just his thing, everything looks like stock assets because - whether he made them or not, I don't know - they all are. I get that his style has been copied to death, but he’s been super influential for a decade and of course he’s not doing 100% original modeling on every single piece that he’s put out every single day for 14 years. Copyright is interesting but using copyrighted materials in artwork isn’t exactly a new phenomenon with Andy Warhol and pop-art and all, we’ll see what happens with all the new interest his stuff will get now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Without a doubt, a mark, who bought an NFT purporting to convey a copyright that the seller didn't own, doesn't have any control over the copyrighted work. I mean, there's no doubt you can contract to sell NFT's. You can legally sell nearly anything that isn't illegal and which you own transferable rights to. And courts can enforce the contracts for that sale and/or recognize them. Just because you say you're selling a tweet or or a picture doesn't mean you have a legal, transferrable right to do so however. And the courts won't enforce a sale because and only because it's done as a NFT, it needs to otherwise fit the conditions for a legal sale. There can undoubtedly be legal NFT sales. But it doesn't make it magically legal or illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
If someone fungs my tweets I'm waiting for the sale, then deleting the tweet
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
I do think it has an interesting application in distributed anonymous authentication that would be useful for when artists or other copyrights holders use it as another tool to verify assets or contracts, but like Bitcoin at its current implementation it's just cryptopogs instead of cryptomoney Also none of the data is stored in the blockchain, you just get the address for where the data is stored so it's not like anyone is uploading anything except links to pointless screenshots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Did beeple's NFT sell for real money or the crypto equivalent of real money? Because if someone tried to cash out 69 million it would definitely crash the market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Did beeple's NFT sell for real money or the crypto equivalent of real money? Because if someone tried to cash out 69 million it would definitely crash the market. I think someone posted earlier it was like $60 million in crypto and $9 million in cash
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
It's like the dotcom bubble turned super saiyan 3
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:I get that his style has been copied to death, but he’s been super influential for a decade and of course he’s not doing 100% original modeling on every single piece that he’s put out every single day for 14 years. Yeah, I was more clarifying that it's not "ahhh he stole art from other people because there's so much and it all looks shopped together", that's just what he does with his own work. I don't like any of his work but I respect the volume and the brand he's made for himself. Being a crypto dude is completely unsurprising though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
It's like 'adopting' a rare animal from the zoo by donating, only instead of a plaque with your name on its cage, it's a bunch of ones and zeroes in a database. Oh, and instead of helping wildlife, you're indirectly killing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, there's no doubt you can contract to sell NFT's. You can legally sell nearly anything that isn't illegal and which you own transferable rights to. And courts can enforce the contracts for that sale and/or recognize them. I guess I should have rephrased. Yeah, the sale of the hash on a blockchain is probably a valid sale one way or another. But would the court find that a creator has the right to profit off a NFT that is purporting to be related to her work? It would probably just find that the NFT is not some newfangled interest in the work, but is just the number on the blockchain. Flip Yr Wig fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
jokes posted:The NFT is a dumb way of saying “here is a Chuck E. Cheese coin that represents all of my legal rights to this thing. And now I give it to you.” But that doesn’t mean you actually have legal rights to the thing if the guy who gave you the Chuck E Cheese coin didn’t have any to start with. Remembering the hair splitting chuck e cheese vs bitcoin argument in terms of which one is more widely adopted/able to be accessed ITT from this post and having a pretty good belly laugh
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
One of them has more intrinsic value, both as a matter of law and by virtue of physically existing at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:I think someone posted earlier it was like $60 million in crypto and $9 million in cash Is that the post tax gain? If not is the $9m cash enough to cover the liability from a $69m gain? I don't know the US tax code but if not, lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Dear Watson posted:Oh my god. These last few pages are like some lost dead language to me. I have no idea what’s going on. Okay so Digital image files are really hard to prove ownership of. They're big strings of data, you literally move them around by copying them, if you copy them the result is two of the exact same image. It's kind of wonderful; everybody gets the original as it was created, unless someone cracks open actual editing software. Most digital files can have additional data stapled to them, like who made them, when they were last modified, or just big ol arbitrary strings to make the image more unique. This is called "metadata." You stick a piece of metadata on an image with some editing software, it becomes part of its big string of data. If you take a big string of data and do some math to it, you end up with a "hash," which is a much shorter string of data- specifically, a string of data that always comes out to a specific length, that will always be the same length for all potential big or small strings of data, and which is nearly guaranteed to change if something changes the input string. You take an image, you add an arbitrary string to its metadata, you munch it through that math, and you end up with a hash that very nearly uniquely points to that particular image. So far, so good. You find an image that munches down to that same hash, you can just about guarantee that it's the same image. Here's where the cryptocurrency crap comes in. So, you have your image, and your hash. You can take that hash and put it on the blockchain, at which point transfers of ownership get recorded- so you put that hash in as belonging to you, it belongs to you, and you can now sell that hash to someone else, transferring ownership of it to them. In NFT dream theory, this means that the image also transfers ownership. At last, you can say that you own your digital art, and that you've sold that art to someone else, and that now they own it. Right? In practice, not so much. See, the process of sticking some arbitrary metadata on the image, creating a hash, and pushing that hash onto the blockchain- that's all something anyone with a computer and access to that image can do. If you buy an NFT, all that you know for certain is that at some point it didn't exist, and then it did. There is no guarantee that the hash was created by the artist, or that the hash points to the artist's version of the work. That's what an NFT was theoretically meant to mean, but, because the bots have already started going through prominent art back catalogues and spinning up hashes for them, the only thing that tells you if an artist made that hash is the artist themselves. This is literally the same as the system we have now, but with blockchain bullshit that makes it environmentally disastrous. There's also the problem of hash collision - two different source strings creating the same hash- which is a problem that absolutely no-one involved is going to try to deal with as long as they can keep throwing sheer volume at the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
I've gotten used to seen LED marquees outside dodgy convenience stores showing different animations of "BITCOIN" but today was my first "Ethereum". Going to see if any sex shops can be talked into putting "BUTTCOIN" on theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
EorayMel posted:This is my newest favorite money laundering scheme I’m still partial to the human smuggling in the Arab culture. But I’m a people person, and value the friendships that develop over time. Can’t do that with yer freakin’ web browser (yet)!  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Flannelette posted:So what's the point of calling it non fungible if I can funge it? Hey, watch your filthy mouth...there are women and children her, too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1370448304505491463?s=19 correction, justin sun didn't win the auction, some other self-promoting crypto whale bought it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/1370448304505491463?s=19 Adding credence to my hypothesis that this is all a scheme to cash out of crypto through a side door.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:With NFTs? Is it just buy one and then try to sell it to someone else for more? You don't get royalties for holding it. It doesn't actually do anything. So why? Just in the hopes you can hot potato it on to someone else? literally yes, because this is crypto these things only exist to make a new kind of magic bean for our old friends the crypto bros to sell the market is blatantly fake in a manner that makes Tether look subtle that's it, that's the whole thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
wanna buy a number? wanna buy a number?
Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Mar 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
I was wondering how many dead/failed coins there are, and apparently the answer is 1900. An astounding number had no publicly identified developers, just randos hiding behind screen names. Love to invest my retirement money with Dark_Goku_34@aol.com Dead Coins
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2021 04:09
|
|
