When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
A $700 countertop appliance called Prngl that crafts individual chips from bags of potato slurry that you have to have a subscription to get.
There's a LOT of companies that should know better that are doing NFTs. I keep seeming them pop up in my Twitter feed. Here's the only one I can remember.
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
The plastic face shields at work, no joke, have 2 protective layers of plastic to protect the plastic.
Like the stuff that comes on new electronics. One layer of that on each side of the plastic shield.
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
The plastic face shields at work, no joke, have 2 protective layers of plastic to protect the plastic.
Like the stuff that comes on new electronics. One layer of that on each side of the plastic shield.
Uh, isn't that to protect the part someone will be wearing, and trying to see through, from getting scratched during shipping to said person?
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
The plastic face shields at work, no joke, have 2 protective layers of plastic to protect the plastic.
Like the stuff that comes on new electronics. One layer of that on each side of the plastic shield.
Uh, isn't that to protect the part someone will be wearing, and trying to see through, from getting scratched during shipping to said person?
On offroad goggles they have little pins where you can stick a stack of plastic coverings. Lets you just peel off the filthy outer covering and have a nice new clean one when you're out in middle of nowhere and covered in dirt and grime.
I could see that being useful on a face shield too. Get a big ol' sneeze on the screen? Peel off the plastic and dispose, without have to either take the mask off to clean or try to clean it while its on your face.
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
The plastic face shields at work, no joke, have 2 protective layers of plastic to protect the plastic.
Like the stuff that comes on new electronics. One layer of that on each side of the plastic shield.
Uh, isn't that to protect the part someone will be wearing, and trying to see through, from getting scratched during shipping to said person?
People at work also don't think its stupid and wasteful, but
I just can't get into the mindset that 4 layers of plastic are required to protect your plastic from another piece of plastic during shipping
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
The plastic face shields at work, no joke, have 2 protective layers of plastic to protect the plastic.
Like the stuff that comes on new electronics. One layer of that on each side of the plastic shield.
Uh, isn't that to protect the part someone will be wearing, and trying to see through, from getting scratched during shipping to said person?
People at work also don't think its stupid and wasteful, but
I just can't get into the mindset that 4 layers of plastic are required to protect your plastic from another piece of plastic during shipping
There's also protecting them during packing and unpacking, and on the production line.
The only thing that makes me madder about this sort of thing is I didn't come up with some way to bilk people out of money by selling digital copies of my trash.
I'm torn between duct taping an NFT to a wall, and printing out the hash for one and selling it in a frame with an integral shredder.
Generate hundreds of thousands of them in a wallet, put the wallet file on one of those password locked thumb drives like that guy who lost all that bitcoin a few months ago, then sell the thumb drive. Do not include the password.
I'm torn between duct taping an NFT to a wall, and printing out the hash for one and selling it in a frame with an integral shredder.
Generate hundreds of thousands of them in a wallet, put the wallet file on one of those password locked thumb drives like that guy who lost all that bitcoin a few months ago, then sell the thumb drive. Do not include the password.
Call the thumb drive an artistic interpretation of modern cryptocurrency and greed, then make an NFT of it and sell that.
+10
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
edited March 2021
There's no need to go into so much detail explaining NFT. They're one of those "good for 1(one) Internet" coupons but with an enormous carbon footprint because it's tied to an internet fad.
NEO|Phyte on
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
When I complained that Pringles were inconveniently packaged and challenged somebody to come up with something worse than a tube exactly the wrong size for any human hands I was thinking... like.. a childproof medicine bottle cap or something. Not making a version I can't even dump out on a plate.
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
A $700 countertop appliance called Prngl that crafts individual chips from bags of potato slurry that you have to have a subscription to get.
And you get more potato chips just by squeezing the bag in the first place.
Would you know who Darryl Strawberry was if he hadn't been on the Simpsons?
I know of him from Lamb Chop's Play Along.
This is the scam that never ends
Yes it goes on and on, my friends
Some people started mining coins not caring what it cost
And now the blockchain is with us forever just because...
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
I don't see how NFTs do anything for the actual artists; if an artist wants to sell something, the fact that the artist is selling it is the proof of ownership.
NFTs do seem like they would be highly beneficial for people who want to make money off of buying and reselling art tho.
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
With physical art, there is a difference between the original and the forgery, although it can be quite difficult to spot.
With digital art, literally every copy in existence is identical; they are all copies / forgeries. The concept of "original" is inherently meaningless with digital goods. That is, in fact, why digital systems exist; this property was the original desired goal.
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
I'd pay more for the original piece of physical art because I'm paying to own the only copy of a thing. Or, at the very least, the only #173 of 250 copies of the thing or whatever. The value of the art is (arguably mostly) in the fact that any piece of art is an incredibly scarce resource. If I just like the artwork for looking at and don't care about owning a scarce resource then yes, there's absolutely no reason for me to pay $Texas for an original Monet instead of buying a copy, or even a print. I wouldn't be paying $Texas to give me a connection to Monet, I'd be paying it so that I could tell people, "Well I own this original Monet." Nobody else gets to own that painting because I do.
If you buy an NFT of a nyan cat gif you can say, "Well I own nyan cat." but it only means anything if the person you're telling gives a shit about NFTs. They can go get an identical-in-any-measurable-way duplicate of your nyan cat gif, and you almost certainly bought the NFT from someone who did not actually make the gif in the first place. Hell, I could go make another NFT with a link to a nyan can gif and now I own nyan cat, too.
It's like paying some random guy money to write your name on a filing card and keep it in a drawer in his locked safe. Yep! Your name is right there along with "Golden Gate Bridge", but you don't actually own the bridge in any meaningful way except maybe among the people who also have cards in his safe.
And because the NFTs people are buying are based on an inherently decentralized system, there's no way to force people to only sell things they created or to stop people creating more NFTs for the same content.
If I'm a digital artist and I want to sell someone a piece of my art I don't need an NFT to do it. I can register my artwork with the Library of Congress and then either sell the person a license to use my art or sell them the copyright to the art. And because the Library of Congress is a central authority governed by laws, if someone else gets a digital copy of my artwork and tries to file their own copyright and sell licenses I have a legal recourse to claim they're infringing upon my copyright. If someone goes and creates another NFT with my artwork I have no recourse whatsoever.
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
With physical art, there is a difference between the original and the forgery, although it can be quite difficult to spot.
With digital art, literally every copy in existence is identical; they are all copies / forgeries. The concept of "original" is inherently meaningless with digital goods. That is, in fact, why digital systems exist; this property was the original desired goal.
I fundamentally disagree. Forgeries, replicas, etc can be made that are indistinguishable by the human senses. Which means whatever connection you believe you have with an artist of something you own, is entirely mental. You would have the exact same feelings for a replica if you were told it was an original.
NFTs can give you as much of a connection to the original artist as owning an original piece. It’s just a mental perception of connection. This digital copy has a direct lineage to the artist vs this physical thing was something they made. It’s not exactly the same (obviously), but it can serve the exact same purpose. To give the owner a sense of connection to the artist.
I’m not convinced that the old mental perception is really that much better than this new mental connection, but even if it is superior, this new connection may still be worth something.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
With physical art, there is a difference between the original and the forgery, although it can be quite difficult to spot.
With digital art, literally every copy in existence is identical; they are all copies / forgeries. The concept of "original" is inherently meaningless with digital goods. That is, in fact, why digital systems exist; this property was the original desired goal.
I fundamentally disagree. Forgeries, replicas, etc can be made that are indistinguishable by the human senses. Which means whatever connection you believe you have with an artist of something you own, is entirely mental. You would have the exact same feelings for a replica if you were told it was an original.
NFTs can give you as much of a connection to the original artist as owning an original piece. It’s just a mental perception of connection. This digital copy has a direct lineage to the artist vs this physical thing was something they made. It’s not exactly the same (obviously), but it can serve the exact same purpose. To give the owner a sense of connection to the artist.
I’m not convinced that the old mental perception is really that much better than this new mental connection, but even if it is superior, this new connection may still be worth something.
Nobody buys expensive artwork to have a connection to the artist.
Jackson Pollock's "No. 5, 1948" sold for $140 million in 2006. Pollock himself died in 1956.
The person who bought No. 5 did not pay $140mil to benefit Pollock, obviously, because he was 50 years in the ground. They didn't buy it to have some sort of very-expensive spiritual connection with Pollock. They bought it because owning a Pollock painting is both a status symbol and a form of investment, in that if they ever choose to sell No. 5 it will almost certainly be worth more than the $140mil they paid. The buyer might also actually like the painting. As long as the physical painting exists, barring some shift in the art world that makes the bottom fall out of Pollock, ownership of that painting is both a bragging right and a physical repository of wealth.
Buying an NFT of a jpeg of No. 5 is not the same thing because:
* It is only a bragging right if the person you're bragging to even knows what an NFT is, much less recognizes your ownership of the NFT as meaningful in any way.
* It does not preclude anyone else having the same jpeg of No. 5.
* Not only do people still have to like Pollock when you go to sell your NFT, they also have to still think ownership of an NFT related to a jpeg is worth anything whatsoever.
I've managed to go this entire week without learning what the fuck an NFT is. Should I try and keep that up or what?
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
With physical art, there is a difference between the original and the forgery, although it can be quite difficult to spot.
With digital art, literally every copy in existence is identical; they are all copies / forgeries. The concept of "original" is inherently meaningless with digital goods. That is, in fact, why digital systems exist; this property was the original desired goal.
I fundamentally disagree. Forgeries, replicas, etc can be made that are indistinguishable by the human senses. Which means whatever connection you believe you have with an artist of something you own, is entirely mental. You would have the exact same feelings for a replica if you were told it was an original.
NFTs can give you as much of a connection to the original artist as owning an original piece. It’s just a mental perception of connection. This digital copy has a direct lineage to the artist vs this physical thing was something they made. It’s not exactly the same (obviously), but it can serve the exact same purpose. To give the owner a sense of connection to the artist.
I’m not convinced that the old mental perception is really that much better than this new mental connection, but even if it is superior, this new connection may still be worth something.
Things only recognizable or distinguishable to unaugmented human senses is a silly metric.
Just because I cannot see the difference with my naked eye does not mean they aren't there.
My father can't read without glasses anymore. Does that mean a book with blank pages is functionally identical to a copy of Crime and Punishment?
Posts
Something worse? Individual plastic pods in a bulky rolodex like device.
A $700 countertop appliance called Prngl that crafts individual chips from bags of potato slurry that you have to have a subscription to get.
On the other hand: it takes basically zero effort and maybe gets them talked about.
I blame the jackasses who decided this should be a thing and the other jackasses who dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into making it a thing.
The plastic face shields at work, no joke, have 2 protective layers of plastic to protect the plastic.
Like the stuff that comes on new electronics. One layer of that on each side of the plastic shield.
Uh, isn't that to protect the part someone will be wearing, and trying to see through, from getting scratched during shipping to said person?
Idontwantotliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg
On offroad goggles they have little pins where you can stick a stack of plastic coverings. Lets you just peel off the filthy outer covering and have a nice new clean one when you're out in middle of nowhere and covered in dirt and grime.
I could see that being useful on a face shield too. Get a big ol' sneeze on the screen? Peel off the plastic and dispose, without have to either take the mask off to clean or try to clean it while its on your face.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
People at work also don't think its stupid and wasteful, but
I just can't get into the mindset that 4 layers of plastic are required to protect your plastic from another piece of plastic during shipping
There's also protecting them during packing and unpacking, and on the production line.
The only thing that makes me madder about this sort of thing is I didn't come up with some way to bilk people out of money by selling digital copies of my trash.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Generate hundreds of thousands of them in a wallet, put the wallet file on one of those password locked thumb drives like that guy who lost all that bitcoin a few months ago, then sell the thumb drive. Do not include the password.
Call the thumb drive an artistic interpretation of modern cryptocurrency and greed, then make an NFT of it and sell that.
It's a horrible waste of resources that nobody should engage with, staying ignorant of what it is is probably the way to go.
Imagine that you wanted to buy a baseball card but you had to drive a 592km round trip in a diesel car to pick it up
(Based off 340kwh per transaction, the average UK carbon footprint per unit of electricity generated, and the average efficiency of a modern diesel car)
Also, there is no legal basis behind you owning the baseball card, as rights such as copyright or ownership are not transferred with the transaction, nor is there a guarantee that the seller is the owner of the baseball card, you'll have to use some other way to determine if they're trustworthy.
Plus, that unique baseball card is a "series" of 2000 "unique identical" baseball cards that will be sold, and you don't get a physical card, just your name written on some tablet somewhere saying "yeah, you own 1 copy of this card"
Of course, there are multiple tablet around the world, you'll have to do your due diligence to determine which tablet maintainer tells the truth. All these tablets could vanish, stop or be deemed fraudulent at any minute, as determined by a libertarians wet dream: The free Open Market, remember the credo: "You're responsible to do your own research!"
Also, if you resell this card, the original distributor gets a cut, because the issuer needs money in perpetuity, this is just how the world works, and I'm still paying 20 cents every time I flush the toilet to my plumber, fair's fair.
Everything about it is super wasteful, super libertarian, super scam friendly and to be honest... really, really, dumb, but in a way that's actively harmful.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Would you know who Darryl Strawberry was if he hadn't been on the Simpsons?
Come Overwatch with meeeee
This interview is over
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Which is available to buy for the low low price of 3 ButtCoin
And you get more potato chips just by squeezing the bag in the first place.
I know of him from Lamb Chop's Play Along.
This is the scam that never ends
Yes it goes on and on, my friends
Some people started mining coins not caring what it cost
And now the blockchain is with us forever just because...
Honestly I think this is a little harsh on NFTs. There is a legitimate need to restructure the way we think about digital sales.
NFTs are basically an art type market, in that what you are really buying when you buy a piece of very expensive art is the certificate of authenticity. You could have a master piece of art, done by one of the best painters to ever live, and if you can't prove who made it, it's price will be drastically less than if you had that certificate.
As an alternative to a patronage, subscriptions, or donations, I think it is a cool idea. I'm more ambivalent about the current NFTs that have a contract that stipulates every sale has some proceeds go to the original seller, but it's not the worst idea in the world. And it's not a fundamental part of NFTs, so someone else could come along and make one without that. It's only being pushed right now to try and incentivize big names to use the new technology.
And of course, as with every other case, I'm not entirely sure that a block chain is the best way to do NFTs. Especially in cases like baseball cards, or the NBA "top shots" thing, or whatever, when there is very clearly a central authority that could do everything involved much more efficiently. But whatever. Maybe it makes it longer lasting (less likely you have companies killing the servers that run it), or maybe it makes it last way less time (people lose interest in "mining" the base coin and nobody is left to run the authorization of sales).
With buying real art you're buying the certificate of authenticity and the piece of art.
NFTs don't function as a certificate of authenticity unless the original artist generates and sells the NFT, which so far seems to be the exception rather than the rule. And, so far, nobody appears to be selling an actual piece of art along with the NFT.
Physical art needs certificates of authenticity to deal with forgery.
Digital art either can't be forged or is a forgery by its nature the moment someone views it anywhere except the computer were it was created - and possibly even there, depending on how it was stored.
A custodial chain of ownership for digital art doesn't make sense. You either care that other people have access to your digital media because access to it is what people are paying you for (for example: the raw photo files of a professional photographer), or you don't (the cropped and rescaled photos posted on the photographer's facebook that are too low-res to print well). Either way, you don't need (or benefit from) a certificate of authenticity because the file either holds the value you want or it doesn't.
NFTs are, I think, even worse than cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a solution to a problem nobody has. NFTs aren't even solving a problem people don't have because the problem statement (tracking ownership of freely-distributed digital media) is inherently nonsensical.
Your italicized point makes no sense to me. If I buy a digital piece of art (through NFT) I get the certificate of authenticity (the NFT) and I get the digital art, same as for a physical piece of art. Why is forgery any different than making digital copy? If you can not tell the difference between the original art and the forgery, why would you pay more for the original? If I snuck in and swapped your original for a forgery that you couldn't identify, what would change? The answer is that owning the original gives you some nebulous connection to the original artist. It's an entirely mental perception, that is not based on anything physical.
NFTs offer the same style of nebulous connection to the original artist. After all, even if a digital artist gave me the only copy of a digital piece of art (say on a flash drive), it's still just 1's and 0's so I don't actually have anything that the original artist used, just a copy. But with an NFT I have a traceable lineage back to the original artist.
In the end, artists (or content creators in general) need some way of getting paid. Patronage, subscriptions, donations, and ads are all market styles that exist to facilitate that, but they all have issues. NFT is just another way to facilitate it. It has pluses and minuses just like all the rest, but I think it is definitely unique and could be beneficial.
Unless those benefits outweigh the environmental damage caused by their existance I don't really care
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
NFTs do seem like they would be highly beneficial for people who want to make money off of buying and reselling art tho.
With physical art, there is a difference between the original and the forgery, although it can be quite difficult to spot.
With digital art, literally every copy in existence is identical; they are all copies / forgeries. The concept of "original" is inherently meaningless with digital goods. That is, in fact, why digital systems exist; this property was the original desired goal.
I'd pay more for the original piece of physical art because I'm paying to own the only copy of a thing. Or, at the very least, the only #173 of 250 copies of the thing or whatever. The value of the art is (arguably mostly) in the fact that any piece of art is an incredibly scarce resource. If I just like the artwork for looking at and don't care about owning a scarce resource then yes, there's absolutely no reason for me to pay $Texas for an original Monet instead of buying a copy, or even a print. I wouldn't be paying $Texas to give me a connection to Monet, I'd be paying it so that I could tell people, "Well I own this original Monet." Nobody else gets to own that painting because I do.
If you buy an NFT of a nyan cat gif you can say, "Well I own nyan cat." but it only means anything if the person you're telling gives a shit about NFTs. They can go get an identical-in-any-measurable-way duplicate of your nyan cat gif, and you almost certainly bought the NFT from someone who did not actually make the gif in the first place. Hell, I could go make another NFT with a link to a nyan can gif and now I own nyan cat, too.
It's like paying some random guy money to write your name on a filing card and keep it in a drawer in his locked safe. Yep! Your name is right there along with "Golden Gate Bridge", but you don't actually own the bridge in any meaningful way except maybe among the people who also have cards in his safe.
And because the NFTs people are buying are based on an inherently decentralized system, there's no way to force people to only sell things they created or to stop people creating more NFTs for the same content.
If I'm a digital artist and I want to sell someone a piece of my art I don't need an NFT to do it. I can register my artwork with the Library of Congress and then either sell the person a license to use my art or sell them the copyright to the art. And because the Library of Congress is a central authority governed by laws, if someone else gets a digital copy of my artwork and tries to file their own copyright and sell licenses I have a legal recourse to claim they're infringing upon my copyright. If someone goes and creates another NFT with my artwork I have no recourse whatsoever.
I fundamentally disagree. Forgeries, replicas, etc can be made that are indistinguishable by the human senses. Which means whatever connection you believe you have with an artist of something you own, is entirely mental. You would have the exact same feelings for a replica if you were told it was an original.
NFTs can give you as much of a connection to the original artist as owning an original piece. It’s just a mental perception of connection. This digital copy has a direct lineage to the artist vs this physical thing was something they made. It’s not exactly the same (obviously), but it can serve the exact same purpose. To give the owner a sense of connection to the artist.
I’m not convinced that the old mental perception is really that much better than this new mental connection, but even if it is superior, this new connection may still be worth something.
Nobody buys expensive artwork to have a connection to the artist.
Jackson Pollock's "No. 5, 1948" sold for $140 million in 2006. Pollock himself died in 1956.
The person who bought No. 5 did not pay $140mil to benefit Pollock, obviously, because he was 50 years in the ground. They didn't buy it to have some sort of very-expensive spiritual connection with Pollock. They bought it because owning a Pollock painting is both a status symbol and a form of investment, in that if they ever choose to sell No. 5 it will almost certainly be worth more than the $140mil they paid. The buyer might also actually like the painting. As long as the physical painting exists, barring some shift in the art world that makes the bottom fall out of Pollock, ownership of that painting is both a bragging right and a physical repository of wealth.
Buying an NFT of a jpeg of No. 5 is not the same thing because:
* It is only a bragging right if the person you're bragging to even knows what an NFT is, much less recognizes your ownership of the NFT as meaningful in any way.
* It does not preclude anyone else having the same jpeg of No. 5.
* Not only do people still have to like Pollock when you go to sell your NFT, they also have to still think ownership of an NFT related to a jpeg is worth anything whatsoever.
Things only recognizable or distinguishable to unaugmented human senses is a silly metric.
Just because I cannot see the difference with my naked eye does not mean they aren't there.
My father can't read without glasses anymore. Does that mean a book with blank pages is functionally identical to a copy of Crime and Punishment?