My question to him was, "Would you buy the ownership of Heroes by David Bowie (his favorite song of all time), for $2000 (a price he can afford)?"
He conceded the point before I finished the sentence. Now imagine if the NFT also came with the royalty rights of the song (not that this Grumpy cat came with that, but NFTs can be created where they carry rights with them), wouldn't he be willing to pay an even higher price?
Of course if you are selling to him something he already considers valuable at a very very low price he is gonna want to buy it. It has nothing to do with it being an NFT.
In short, he conceded no point but you did: the NFT in itself is not the valuable part, what's being sold is.
From what I can see, pretty much everything getting hyped with NFTs can already be achieved without them.
Blockchains can produce stronger guarentees than trusted timestamping. This is often used to prove digital existence and ownership.
Given the adoption of this interpretation in law disputes about digital ownership can amount to a digital signature with the private key.
Also not hard to photocopy things. You can even make them better.
You have 4 copies of "The Scream" and then you have Andy Warhol.
This meme to me makes so little sense, I can only see it exists because people want to destroy new ideas. That seems to be peoples default state.
Think about the amazing Tulip industry, worth billions and billions and all the people 100s of years ago saying they are only stupid flowers. I'm not big on flowers but I do think they make the world a better place.
Except the average person can't tell the difference between a 'fake' Picasso and originals. Nor experts.
Once again this meme that because ~infinity can be produced the value of all of them goes to zero is somewhat insane. We can produce ~infinity real paintings as well.
I find it similar to the idea modern art is stupid and my child could do that, but I'm not earning millions with my kids because I'm too smart.
Fine, spin NFT's up and make money. Lets see how we go. If you jump in right now you might be the first to print a million soup cans for a $1.
> Once again this meme that because ~infinity can be produced the value of all of them goes to zero is somewhat insane. We can produce ~infinity real paintings as well.
The value of things is not dictated by how much of it we can produce. Value is not directly related to quantity but to the relationship between quantity, demand, and time.
> Fine, spin NFT's up and make money. Lets see how we go. If you jump in right now you might be the first to print a million soup cans for a $1.
Not interested.
Lastly, you use the word meme out of context a lot like someone who just learned it, and you keep calling other people stupid, people you do not know. That is no way to have a conversation.
Your point of supply, demand and time is a good one. The supply and costs to creating an NFT is low, but the demands for NFTs in general are also low.
Popular NFTs have low supply as they are created by popular individuals, of which there are few. The demand for these NFTs are high for a numerous reasons including but not limited to speculation and investors simply having excess capital.
From a technical perspective there is no limit to how many NFTs a popular artist could create but unless they are unique there isn't demand.
Like anything, making money by creating NFTs is non trivial whilst only the successful outlines are reported.
I don't think calling this "protected" is reasonable. You have some very weak guarantees that apply to one particular NFT platform, but this doesn't include being protected against fraud by the platform operators themselves, who can run a 51% attack whenever they want.
(And in case of Ethereum, have demonstrated their willingness of doing so whenever smart contract results prove to be inconvenient to investors.)
What do you gain over running a digital auction house on a RasPi? It'll be a lot cheaper to operate and is at no risk of having its underlying platform banned from multiple countries.