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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The only thing people own with nft's are licenses, they are useless otherwise.
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