JPG File Sells for $69M, as ‘NFT Mania’ Gathers Pace | Hacker News Reader

JPG File Sells for $69M, as ‘NFT Mania’ Gathers Pace

nytimes.com

30 pointsfurcyd13 comments

I'm big into Bitcoin, but I genuinely don't get the NFT craze. My understanding is that your ownership of the item is recorded forever on the blockchain, but there's nothing stopping someone from just copying the image.

The real value is that you are the immutable owner? But okay, what difference does that actually make for a digital image?

It's bragging rights like owning a original painting when copies/replicas exist.

Real question is how mucg is preventing a second competing NFT from existing for the same item via and alternative design or chain or currency?

The thing is, with a painting, the copies can never be the authentic original. Andy Warhol in particular explored this (art as a mechanical process), possibly inadvertently, as well.

With a digital asset there is no such thing as an original. Even the original file isn't original after the OS moves things around or it's loaded into RAM, etc. Does originality matter? Possibly it always was just bragging rights after replication became reasonably accessible and of high quality?

I'm not completely dismissing NFT's conceptually (this is as hyper modern as we've even seen) even though I don't get it entirely (and I DO get crypto). And I'm happy to see a somewhat practical use for crypto and smart contracts here. I feel like we can conceptualize it enough to trick ourselves into something profound.

This woman I play video games with is into this thing which is exactly the same for over a decade. People make these "Characters" and then sell them and people pay to "Adopt" them. It's a bunch of rich housewives spending hundreds or thousands on each character to brag about owning it.

Genuinely really weird, and I don't get it either. But some people are really into it. I think it's called "Adopts" or something. Might provide some more insight into this type of thing, since it's been going on far longer.

What I really want to see is for Jack Dorsey to attempt to sell an NFT to his first tweet (currently at auction for 2.5 million) another time. People buying NFTs are all in on the hype of an irrational market. What is more irrational than selling a good that you've already sold? Honestly, there might be even more novelty in owning First Tweet NFT #2 than there is in owning First Tweet NFT #1! If nothing else, we'd be able to see just how much craziness a mania-induced market can bear.

Along those same lines, what if Jack made an NFT of the NFT. That is, he sold the "concept of owning his first tweet" which is even less tangible

I think there's a strong argument an implied term of the sale was it would only be sold once. The law should protect the buyer here, and if it does not the market could adjust by adding a small contract to the sale stating the seller will not sell an additional copy.

Here’s something I don’t understand.

Are NFT’s all on the same blockchain? Otherwise couldn’t someone put the same asset on an alternate blockchain (or even the same asset on the same blockchain) and claim its the real one? How then do I know which is the right one to buy?

For something like Jack’s Tweet #1 it’s gotten a lot of press so maybe I would know. But for some less popular digital assets, how would I know which blockchain/version is the ‘right’ one for that asset?

Do we need the NFT equivalent of Twitter blue checks?

What purpose does an NFT auction serve other than for overt money laundering?

I think if you got the trademark it would mean something but it sounds like in many cases you don't.

For instance, if I could buy an asset with a smart contract that pays the artist when I lease the trademark, that would be 1 thing. But I'm not even sure our law is up to date here since if I owned the trademark I could go outside the smart contract.

Maybe we need new law which allows a party to create and sell trademark rights to an asset with an associated smart contract that grants the creator funds when the trademark is used?

Maybe this can help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8cV32Dlnqc -- It's long but sheds some light to lots of new ideas; as a musician I don't see lots of negative sides (except the environmental fee). It shouldn't be seen as an investment yet or ever. The vast majority of us are struggling. But it could be a great tool to revolutionize copyright, royalties etc.

This may be the first legitimate, legal, semi-non-speculative use for blockchain I've seen! That's pretty interesting on its own.

How long before OnlyFans jumps on the NFT bandwagon? :p

Reply on news.ycombinator.com