NFTs: I don't get it.

[Agema]

How non-fungible tokens became the latest tech speculation bubble

From animated cats and sex tapes to major albums, artists are using NFTs to sell their work. But why?

www.theguardian.com

I get the digital signature stuff. The rest... what the fuck? Please discuss, to help me figure out what the hell this is supposed to be and do.

 

[SilentPony]

THANK YOU! I have no clue what these are or what's going on. They're like the first save file of piece of digital art or something and that makes them valuable?

 

[Worgen]

It seems like its buying a piece of media, its like digital art ownership or something. Its weird, bit coin is weird, all these digital things are weird and its stupid that any of them make money.

 

[Chimpzy]

Is this art trade? Cuz if it's anything like the trade in regular ol' non-digital fine arts, then the purpose is speculation, money laundering and tax fraud.

 

[Baffle]

Many of the artists I follow are pretty livid about it. Probably doesn't help that there seems to be a free-for-all on selling other people's stuff and burning down rainforests.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Probably doesn't help that there seems to be a free-for-all on selling other people's stuff....

All of a sudden, those "original character do not steal" disclaimers almost seem prophetic....

 

[SilentPony]

Many of the artists I follow are pretty livid about it. Probably doesn't help that there seems to be a free-for-all on selling other people's stuff and burning down rainforests.

Can you explain what they are? I'm still not sure I get it, its a piece of digital media someone just puts "First" on and that makes it valuable? Chimpzy mentioned its basically just another money laundering scheme

 

[meiam]

Too much money around and people don't have anywhere to park it, so they look for alternative and pretty much anything will do. If it work they can safely store large amount of money in something that's easy to keep, doesn't depreciate and has light tax/regulation. If it doesn't well w/e at least they'll have tried. It's FOMO meet speculation.

 

[Avnger]

Can you explain what they are? I'm still not sure I get it, its a piece of digital media someone just puts "First" on and that makes it valuable? Chimpzy mentioned its basically just another money laundering scheme

My attempt at a simplified explanation:

In the real word, a "first edition" of a comic book is evidently the first edition through physical properties. In the digital world, that's not the case. The "first edition" of a gif or image doesn't have any physical properties to distinguish it from perfect copies. That's the gap that these NFTs fill. They're tokens that accompany a piece of digital art and guarantee it's the "first edition."

Where it gets more complicated is that there are currently quintillions of digital art pieces that didn't get assigned an NFT when created because the concept didn't exist. Therefore, someone can take any copy of the art and mark their version as a "first edition" by generating the NFT first.

 

[SilentPony]

My attempt at a simplified explanation:

In the real word, a "first edition" of a comic book is evidently the first edition through physical properties. In the digital world, that's not the case. The "first edition" of a gif or image doesn't have any physical properties to distinguish it from perfect copies. That's the gap that these NFTs fill. They're tokens that accompany a piece of digital art and guarantee it's the "first edition."

Where it gets more complicated is that there are currently quintillions of digital art pieces that didn't get assigned an NFT when created because the concept didn't exist. Therefore, someone can take any copy of the art and mark their version as a "first edition" by generating the NFT first.

So...what's to stop someone from just making one of these tokens and claiming its real? Lets say you and I find the same digital picture and we both decide to sell it. Technically speaking the first one I sold is a SilentPony First Edition picture, and the first one you sold is a Avnger First Edition picture. Same picture, sold at the same time, yet we both offer a NFT because its the first one we sold.
Or what's stopping me from making a SilentPony First Edition NFT for every single sale, because its technically the first time I've sold one to each individual purchaser.
Like this whole thing seems rife with scam possibilities.

 

[Agema]

Where it gets more complicated is that there are currently quintillions of digital art pieces that didn't get assigned an NFT when created because the concept didn't exist. Therefore, someone can take any copy of the art and mark their version as a "first edition" by generating the NFT first.

But... that's meaningless. It doesn't matter if you have a chunk of code if someone can demonstrate prior creation.

And what happens if someone makes an alternative NFT system? Can two people claim first dibs on the same thing through different blockchains?

 

[Agema]

I feel this is like where you can pay someone to give you a certificate saying you own an acre of the moon: you've got a certificate, and you sure as hell don't own the slightest bit of the moon.

 

[SilentPony]

I feel this is like where you can pay someone to give you a certificate saying you own an acre of the moon: you've got a certificate, and you sure as hell don't own the slightest bit of the moon.

 

[Worgen]

I feel this is like where you can pay someone to give you a certificate saying you own an acre of the moon: you've got a certificate, and you sure as hell don't own the slightest bit of the moon.

Or just a new way of laundering money.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Aight, did a bit of browsing, and holy hell those NFT advocates talk like actual cult indoctrinators on social media, seriously creepy stuff with an extra neo-capitalist spice to trigger my particular sensibilities. But found a link that seems worded well enough.

NFTs: crypto grifters try to scam artists, again

Banksying the unbanksied.

davidgerard.co.uk

 

[Avnger]

But... that's meaningless. It doesn't matter if you have a chunk of code if someone can demonstrate prior creation.

And what happens if someone makes an alternative NFT system? Can two people claim first dibs on the same thing through different blockchains?

They sure can; same as how anyone could create bytcoyn by forking the bitcoin blockchain. I agree it's dumb as fuck.

 

[Avnger]

So...what's to stop someone from just making one of these tokens and claiming its real? Lets say you and I find the same digital picture and we both decide to sell it. Technically speaking the first one I sold is a SilentPony First Edition picture, and the first one you sold is a Avnger First Edition picture. Same picture, sold at the same time, yet we both offer a NFT because its the first one we sold.
Or what's stopping me from making a SilentPony First Edition NFT for every single sale, because its technically the first time I've sold one to each individual purchaser.
Like this whole thing seems rife with scam possibilities.

So theoretically, each NFT implementation could only have a single token for each art piece. If you and I tried to create an NFT for copies of a hello kitty picture, only one would be possible to generate. HOWEVER, there would be nothing stopping you from forking you own version of the NFT blockchain and creating an NFT using that one. (Think how crypto-currencies started with only bitcoin mainstream and there's now hundreds of the buggers out there.)

 

[SilentPony]

So theoretically, each NFT implementation could only have a single token for each art piece. If you and I tried to create an NFT for copies of a hello kitty picture, only one would be possible to generate. HOWEVER, there would be nothing stopping you from forking you own version of the NFT blockchain and creating an NFT using that one. (Think how crypto-currencies started with only bitcoin mainstream and there's now hundreds of the buggers out there.)

Ah okay so its only valuable because someone claims its valuable. Now I know that's true for just about anything, but in this case someone just said "I made a system that creates NFT and I decided that's valuable, pay me money" and it worked.

 

[Agema]

So theoretically, each NFT implementation could only have a single token for each art piece. If you and I tried to create an NFT for copies of a hello kitty picture, only one would be possible to generate. HOWEVER, there would be nothing stopping you from forking you own version of the NFT blockchain and creating an NFT using that one. (Think how crypto-currencies started with only bitcoin mainstream and there's now hundreds of the buggers out there.)

I don't understand. How does the NFT grant you any actual rights? I'm pretty sure there's a Japanese corporation that might have something to say about me acting like I own (the right to) Hello Kitty pictures.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

It seems like its buying a piece of media, its like digital art ownership or something. Its weird, bit coin is weird, all these digital things are weird and its stupid that any of them make money.

Bitcoin at least makes some sense it's just a currency like many others ascribed worth by people and I know the argument that originally when money was metal coins the metal had value etc etc but as an example in the UK our notes aren't money, seriously anyone in the UK go check your notes in your wallet you'll find something about "I promise to give the bearer of this goods to the value listed on this note." The notes themselves are essentially IOUs.
Bitcoin is just people with gold bars stashed away but without having to actually stash gold bars away.
Hell bitcoin is more useful in every day life than gold because some places accept it as payment while I doubt many places accept gold bars as a payment method.

NFTs though, yeh I don't get it they're like stamping "Limited edition 1 of 250" onto a regular copy of a film or something and selling it alongside the other regular copies. As is NFTs have no benefit to them over the none NFT version