ghosTTy posted:

Talking about NFTs the same way you were talking about BTC in 2013 or altcoins in 2017, more egg soon for your epic nocoiner face?

Hammerite posted:

reminder: if someone explains something having to do with bitcoin or blockchains to you, and your gut response is "it can't be that stupid, you must be explaining it wrong", it means they actually explained it correctly

CongoJack posted:

Where did that phrase come from, I want to laugh

quote:

But the NFT prototype we created in a one-night hackathon had some shortcomings. You couldn’t store the actual digital artwork in a blockchain; because of technical limits, records in most blockchains are too small to hold an entire image. Many people suggested that rather than trying to shoehorn the whole artwork into the blockchain, one could just include the web address of an image, or perhaps a mathematical compression of the work, and use it to reference the artwork elsewhere.

We took that shortcut because we were running out of time. Seven years later, all of today’s popular NFT platforms still use the same shortcut. This means that when someone buys an NFT, they’re not buying the actual digital artwork; they’re buying a link to it. And worse, they’re buying a link that, in many cases, lives on the website of a new start-up that’s likely to fail within a few years. Decades from now, how will anyone verify whether the linked artwork is the original?
...
There’s only one exception to the lack of interest in blockchain apps today: apps for trading cryptocurrencies themselves. What results is an almost hermetically sealed economy, whose currencies exist only to be traded and become derivatives of themselves. If you squint, it looks like an absurd art project.
...
In the meantime, the current NFT market is drawing an extraordinary range of grifters and spammers. People are creating NFTs of artists’ works without asking permission or even letting the artists know. Today, I run a platform that helps people create apps. Typically, the most popular apps are prosaic—messaging systems for work, or tools for building a website. For the entire first week of March, our most popular offering each day was a Twitter app that let people block lists of users en masse. The app skyrocketed in popularity because artists were using it to block NFT spammers from hijacking their works and monetizing them as NFTs without permission.

Three Olives posted:

I've been busy trying so I haven't had time to process NFTs, but I am getting around to it...

Is my understanding correctly, that it is basically a blockchain receipt from a digital gallery that you "own" the right to display, but not actually possess the actual copyright to a file that is capable of being exactly reproduced an unlimited number of times without relieving it's provenience, like the actual ultra-high end art market is absolutely full of forgeries, scams and why photographs dictate a much smaller market than sculptures and paintings?

Like, literally the only difference between me making a copy of a Beeple file and displaying it in my home and the person that paid money for it is some pedantic nerd will argue with me that while it is completely identical in every way, I don't have the receipt?

Gazpacho posted:

GBS > Bitcoin: If you squint, it looks like an absurd art project.

human garbage bag posted:

I don't see what's wrong with a digital autograph from the creator of the digital artwork. It would be interesting to see the legality of someone who isn't the creator autographing a piece of art and selling it without the creator's permission. Like what if Trump digitally autographed a random person's digital art and sold it as an NFT, would that be legal? I'm sure autographing a physical copy of said art and selling it without the artist's permission would be illegal.

human garbage bag posted:

I don't see what's wrong with a digital autograph from the creator of the digital artwork. It would be interesting to see the legality of someone who isn't the creator autographing a piece of art and selling it without the creator's permission. Like what if Trump digitally autographed a random person's digital art and sold it as an NFT, would that be legal? I'm sure autographing a physical copy of said art and selling it without the artist's permission would be illegal.

human garbage bag posted:

I don't see what's wrong with a digital autograph from the creator of the digital artwork. It would be interesting to see the legality of someone who isn't the creator autographing a piece of art and selling it without the creator's permission. Like what if Trump digitally autographed a random person's digital art and sold it as an NFT, would that be legal? I'm sure autographing a physical copy of said art and selling it without the artist's permission would be illegal.

Hammerite posted:

human garbage bag posted:

I don't see what's wrong with a digital autograph from the creator of the digital artwork. It would be interesting to see the legality of someone who isn't the creator autographing a piece of art and selling it without the creator's permission. Like what if Trump digitally autographed a random person's digital art and sold it as an NFT, would that be legal? I'm sure autographing a physical copy of said art and selling it without the artist's permission would be illegal.

The Sausages posted:

Andy Dufresne posted:

This NFT thing is exceptionally stupid because it doesn't prove anything about ownership in the real world. Sure, a sale could be recorded on the blockchain but it doesn't have to be. Even if beeple transferred ownership of an actual piece of digital art to me and recorded it on the blockchain, the blockchain isn't what proves the transfer. It's our contract that does (which may be verbal). From there I'd be able to sell it to Trump for $69 billion and I wouldn't have to record it on the blockchain. It would be a waste of money to do so

Paladinus posted:

NFTs is like adopting a zoo animal, but it's only a hyperlink to the badly photographed picture of a pokemon card on imgur that you hope to sell later for more.

Party Boat posted:

I thought "trade for heroin" referred to silk road

Sombrerotron posted:

I feel like this is too generous, because heroin - while illegal - is a proper commodity with a very clear - if in most cases dubious - use and people will pay money to actually consume it.

xtal posted:

Wow, extremely close to getting it

Doctor_Fruitbat posted:

It's just another iteration of freeman on the land bullshit, where people want to have their cake and eat it by being rugged individualists who are beholden to no-one, while also benefiting from a strong, codified system of ownership, and as always are too greedy and self absorbed to understand that all concepts of ownership are ultimately based on authority, so without anyone to back up your claim (which, whoops, you don't have because you based your ownership on a big decentralised system without any owners), all your poo poo is up for grabs for anyone who doesn't want to respect your fancy internet ledger.

Party Boat posted:

I thought "trade for heroin" referred to silk road

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Can't you have an unlimited about of NFTs pointing to the exact same thing

xtal posted:

The War on Drugs is truly amazing

xtal posted:

The War on Drugs is truly amazing

Nessus posted:

I appreciate your controversial yet brave pro-heroin position but I feel you need to be like eighty percent smugger if you want to properly "own" the Other.

HugeGrossBurrito posted:

He’s an idiot it’s not even worth engaging him seriously. A cspam thread was talking about donating to a charity, i said that if they pick one I’ll help promote it in GBS. This upset xtal so greatly they vowed to never donate to the same charity gbs did. Another brain destroyed by the politics forums.

xtal posted:

Are you thinking of someone else?