It's basically make-believe real estate. You own some property (a jpg, or whatever) because a deed (a blockchain) says so.
It's absolutely crazy because, a) property is finite while copies of what is essentially just a number can be infinite, and b) your ownership isn't backed by any [government] force.
Of course, when Meta eventually becomes a trans-government authority like Shadowrun predicts megacorps will, I guess that second point will no longer be a thing.
When I started reading your comment, I just thought of those virtual fashion things. Now, I do watch certain... woman-centric youtube channels where they do whacky fun things.
I follow two that recently tried that virtual fashion thing and it's so odd. The creators claim they do this so fashion and designer stuff is more accessible for people with less money, who can't buy those things. But even virtually, they cost a lot of money. It's not like 5 bucks so you have virtual Gucci.
NFT's are simple to understand. Picture an enthusiast collector of some franchise. That person would be interested in officially "owning" a digital piece of his interests. If other people also care, there's a market value. If nobody else cares, the collector is still happy. In this sense, there can be value to NFT's.
Because of the crypto craze, NFT's have bloated into a silly and temporary demand bubble, where people will buy truly pointless things because it's in vogue. However, people buying randomly generated nonsense doesn't mean there isn't value to be found in official artwork by certain people.
The metaverse might work if it's an escape from feminist bullshit IRL, but given someone's already been accused of harassment in the Meta beta test, I think they'll ruin that just as easily as the real world.
There's a handful of blockchain enthusiasts who believe the hype, and while the do have a point, technically. Most things are technically valuable. The dirt in m backyard could be valuable if people want to buy it.
I considered buying one for the same reason everyone else is. It might be valuable and it's not often you get to be at the start of a new market.
If NFT's turn out to be valuable, which they have no more or less chance of being valuable like any art, than no-one really knows what makes one valuable, or not valuable. So you might as well speculate on one.
I don't even blame the sellers of this stuff, but the idiots who buy it. Hell, I wish I could get in on the racket. I saw on one site listings for a "color collection". It was quite literally a square filled with some color accompanied by it's RGB value. IIRC they were going for $20-30 each
What value does an NFT have over a downloaded jpg of the same image?
The undeniable authenticity of it being the first one.
A poor comparison is the Mona Lisa compared to a screen print of it. But even if you could 100% replicate the Mona Lisa with 3d printing, the original in the Lourve would still be the valuable one.
But anyone can have the same thing you paid for by just going online and downloading the image. It's fundamentally the same as what you bought, you just have a digital certificate.
it would be like if Halo Infinite had all colors available, but those who paid got an email saying they "owned" said armor color.
this is false. the fact that you can see it means you can copy it. that's how computers work. NFT only acts as digital legal title, but it still requires government to enforce that legal title. there's no mechanism that magically makes all computers honor NFTs.
especially in this case, the NFT is stupid because the images are in public domain. there is no legal title. the NFT is simply a lootbox that gives you a copy of that public domain image that you could find elsewhere for free. there's no need for an actual NFT here and no benefit conferred by using an NFT.
Theres a couple of vids floating around of the guy behind those lion NFTs and that dude looks about as slimy as you'd imagine, i mean my god. But... if people want to give that bozo money its none of my business.
all this image sales stuff NFTs are being used for right now is not what NFTs were designed to be used for and there's no actual benefit to using NFTs. this was just what they got a bunch of dumbasses to think has value.
NFTs are a programmable title record, nothing more. when these people are going out of their way to digitally generate thousands of slight variation images of block art, or even using public domain images, the fact that an NFT is being used is meaningless.
Original vs Copy is irrelevant to digital copies. The blockchain showing you paid for your copy is meaningless when it comes with no further rights. It isn't a copyright or an exclusive use contract or anything else with legal meaning.
Really, the proof, in the blockchain, that you paid money for something freely available is closer to a 'proof of retardation' than anything else.
the point is "the original" can be infinitely copied in the digital realm. that's how computers work. you're clamoring for DRM 30 fucking years late in an economic internet that has rejected DRM for decades.
"the original" has no value over any copy when we're talking about the internet.
watch some gary v and he goes over this shit. there are a lot of fucktards spending on the bubble of useless NFTs that don't mean shit. these are retards who don't understand what an NFT is... just like you have no fucking clue what an NFT is.
an NFT is nothing more than digital title. if the value of what's attached to the NFT relies on that, that's fine. if it is something as simple as something that can be infinitely replicated on the dark web, that NFT is for suckers.
It's you who isn't understanding. I already said that anyone can download the same picture. I already said that the only thing that gives NFT's value is having the proof of purchase.
There's a market because enough people decided to buy into it.
People have been selling digital art work for decades. This is basically an extention of that which allows famous people who have no talent to create an exclusive digital "painting" and sell it.
I think it's a logical extension of Imaginary Property. They are trying to put the squeeze on digital "art". Digital artists are happy to jump into this because its just more $ for them.
It is about as bogus as copyright today, but much that is bogus seems to keep going mainstream.
This message brought to you by the pronouns: bite/me
It's basically make-believe real estate. You own some property (a jpg, or whatever) because a deed (a blockchain) says so.
It's absolutely crazy because, a) property is finite while copies of what is essentially just a number can be infinite, and b) your ownership isn't backed by any [government] force.
Of course, when Meta eventually becomes a trans-government authority like Shadowrun predicts megacorps will, I guess that second point will no longer be a thing.
I wonder if those "Own a Star!" companies have gotten on the NFT bandwagon yet.
Becomes? A little late, chummer.
When I started reading your comment, I just thought of those virtual fashion things. Now, I do watch certain... woman-centric youtube channels where they do whacky fun things.
I follow two that recently tried that virtual fashion thing and it's so odd. The creators claim they do this so fashion and designer stuff is more accessible for people with less money, who can't buy those things. But even virtually, they cost a lot of money. It's not like 5 bucks so you have virtual Gucci.
NFT's are simple to understand. Picture an enthusiast collector of some franchise. That person would be interested in officially "owning" a digital piece of his interests. If other people also care, there's a market value. If nobody else cares, the collector is still happy. In this sense, there can be value to NFT's.
Because of the crypto craze, NFT's have bloated into a silly and temporary demand bubble, where people will buy truly pointless things because it's in vogue. However, people buying randomly generated nonsense doesn't mean there isn't value to be found in official artwork by certain people.
The metaverse might work if it's an escape from feminist bullshit IRL, but given someone's already been accused of harassment in the Meta beta test, I think they'll ruin that just as easily as the real world.
Yeah I can't imagine it being anything other than a heavily steralized environment.
Money laundering, same as art?
As far as I can tell; speculation.
There's a handful of blockchain enthusiasts who believe the hype, and while the do have a point, technically. Most things are technically valuable. The dirt in m backyard could be valuable if people want to buy it.
I considered buying one for the same reason everyone else is. It might be valuable and it's not often you get to be at the start of a new market.
If NFT's turn out to be valuable, which they have no more or less chance of being valuable like any art, than no-one really knows what makes one valuable, or not valuable. So you might as well speculate on one.
I don't even blame the sellers of this stuff, but the idiots who buy it. Hell, I wish I could get in on the racket. I saw on one site listings for a "color collection". It was quite literally a square filled with some color accompanied by it's RGB value. IIRC they were going for $20-30 each
I buy all kinds of in game bullshit and I still think this is incredibly dumb. What value does an NFT have over a downloaded jpg of the same image?
A sense of authenticity. This appeals to collectors.
The undeniable authenticity of it being the first one.
A poor comparison is the Mona Lisa compared to a screen print of it. But even if you could 100% replicate the Mona Lisa with 3d printing, the original in the Lourve would still be the valuable one.
Anyone can download that same jpg file.
NFT's are one of a kind digital items. They can't be downloaded and sold as a fake because of blockchain. Everyone would know it's fake.
I don't own any myself. Just answering your question.
But anyone can have the same thing you paid for by just going online and downloading the image. It's fundamentally the same as what you bought, you just have a digital certificate.
it would be like if Halo Infinite had all colors available, but those who paid got an email saying they "owned" said armor color.
The only thing people own with nft's are licenses, they are useless otherwise.
this is false. the fact that you can see it means you can copy it. that's how computers work. NFT only acts as digital legal title, but it still requires government to enforce that legal title. there's no mechanism that magically makes all computers honor NFTs.
especially in this case, the NFT is stupid because the images are in public domain. there is no legal title. the NFT is simply a lootbox that gives you a copy of that public domain image that you could find elsewhere for free. there's no need for an actual NFT here and no benefit conferred by using an NFT.
The NFT isn't the image. The NFT is a blockchain-based claim of ownership of the image. In that sense, it is unique.
You can download it as a picture on your computer, but it won't be the original which is what gives it value.
Why is this upvoted? Are people this retarded?
To clarify: we understand why you think NFTs are legitimate. We just think it’s comically stupid.
People really are this retarded
Theres a couple of vids floating around of the guy behind those lion NFTs and that dude looks about as slimy as you'd imagine, i mean my god. But... if people want to give that bozo money its none of my business.
bingo.
all this image sales stuff NFTs are being used for right now is not what NFTs were designed to be used for and there's no actual benefit to using NFTs. this was just what they got a bunch of dumbasses to think has value.
NFTs are a programmable title record, nothing more. when these people are going out of their way to digitally generate thousands of slight variation images of block art, or even using public domain images, the fact that an NFT is being used is meaningless.
Look around you. Yes, people are this retarded.
It's amazing how many mouth breathers we have on this site who can't understand supply and demand.
I'm not supporting NFT's. I'm simply pointing out how they work.
Because value is subjective.
Original vs Copy is irrelevant to digital copies. The blockchain showing you paid for your copy is meaningless when it comes with no further rights. It isn't a copyright or an exclusive use contract or anything else with legal meaning.
Really, the proof, in the blockchain, that you paid money for something freely available is closer to a 'proof of retardation' than anything else.
Tell that to the morons who are buying these things.
you have no fucking clue what i just said.
no one said the NFT is the image.
the point is "the original" can be infinitely copied in the digital realm. that's how computers work. you're clamoring for DRM 30 fucking years late in an economic internet that has rejected DRM for decades.
"the original" has no value over any copy when we're talking about the internet.
watch some gary v and he goes over this shit. there are a lot of fucktards spending on the bubble of useless NFTs that don't mean shit. these are retards who don't understand what an NFT is... just like you have no fucking clue what an NFT is.
an NFT is nothing more than digital title. if the value of what's attached to the NFT relies on that, that's fine. if it is something as simple as something that can be infinitely replicated on the dark web, that NFT is for suckers.
To you and me it has no value, but it does to others. Just because you don't value something doesn't mean others feel the same way.
you're still not understanding.
an NFT functionally does nothing in these cases than not having an NFT. it literally accomplishes nothing.
digital images are infinitely copyable. the NFT doesn't stop that. the NFT only represents legal title on something where legal title is irrelevant.
It's you who isn't understanding. I already said that anyone can download the same picture. I already said that the only thing that gives NFT's value is having the proof of purchase.
I still don't get it. That doesn't explain why there's a market at all. Why does anyone care if a digital item is "fake" or not?
There's a market because enough people decided to buy into it.
People have been selling digital art work for decades. This is basically an extention of that which allows famous people who have no talent to create an exclusive digital "painting" and sell it.
People place value in all kinds of dumb shit. This doesn’t make such things legitimate.
I just answered the question. I'm not arguing in support of NFT's lol
Bingo
I think it's a logical extension of Imaginary Property. They are trying to put the squeeze on digital "art". Digital artists are happy to jump into this because its just more $ for them.
It is about as bogus as copyright today, but much that is bogus seems to keep going mainstream.
This message brought to you by the pronouns: bite/me
Good. Retards and their money are soon fucked hard by scam artists.
NFTs make this post seem legit.