Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

>Why is it that Elon Musk can sell an NFT of Elon Musk's tweet, but Jeff Bezos would have a much harder time doing the same? Elon and Jeff have the same level of ability to screenshot Elon's tweet and stick it into an NFT dapp, so what's the difference? To anyone who has even a basic intuitive understanding of human social psychology (or the fake art scene), the answer is obvious: Elon selling Elon's tweet is the real thing, and Jeff doing the same is not. Once again, millions of dollars of value are being controlled and allocated, not by individuals or cryptographic keys, but by social conceptions of legitimacy.

It seems like Vitalik has stumbled into another restatement of the famous essay "What Colour are your bits?"[1] ... which is basically a poetic way of saying "What _Provenance_ are your bits?"

Provenance matters.

(But I'm not claiming that NFTs will have enduring value. I can't tell if they will be a fad or not.)

[1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23#:~:text=Having%20identica....

> ... but Jeff Bezos would have a much harder time doing the same?

I question that assumption. Let's keep in mind that we have already accepted that URLs pointing to a video or jpeg become valuable once they are put on a blockchain. So let's keep an open mind here.

NFTs have value because people believe they have value, and people currently believe they have value because a lot of people are telling good stories about why the should.

So, while Jeff could not sell Elon's tweet while claiming to the Elon, he could easily sell it by telling a different story. The more attention-getting the better.

He could easily sell it is part of his limited collection of "!00 stupidest tweets of all time" or something like that.

The hype-machine would kick in and everyone would want to "own a part of it."

Oh I bet Jeff could sell a tweet from Elon, it just won't got for as much.

you have no idea. justin sun seems to have infinite <stup...> ehem money.

Jeff (or anyone else) could easily sell Elon’s tweet by pretending to be Elon, just like the other day someone was pretending to be Simon Stålenhag to sell his art as NFT.

(This hypothetical scenario works best if impersonation target is not aware of or not inclined to engage with NFTs, of course.)

This wouldn't work at all. Who buys something from ebay that is made by "ElonMusk534" without looking up if Elon himself has confirmed via another venue that it's actually him?

Same goes for NFTs.

This is true if you expect Elon to care to register his handle on every NFT marketplace. Which may be true for him, but not the majority of people.

What does that have to do with anything? You wouldn't confirm if Elon on Marketplace #1 by checking his profiles on Marketplace #2 (neither of which you know is actually is Elon). You would check Marketplace #1 and #2 by going to some place where he is verified like Twitter.

So somebody who isn’t verified on mainstream social media or generally hasn’t made themselves publicly available for a comment is a fair target then?

Besides, where does the idea that NFT purchasers even care who listed the NFT? They bought and own the actual item (artwork, tweet, etc.), who sold it is secondary—just as Mona Lisa doesn’t suddenly become something different if sold by a thief.

> So somebody who isn’t verified on mainstream social media or generally hasn’t made themselves publicly available for a comment is a fair target then?

Fair target of what? If someone gains a reputation using a anonymous wallet and sell their NFTs via that wallet, then that wallet is the author people would follow, no mainstream social media needed.

> Besides, where does the idea that NFT purchasers even care who listed the NFT?

Because the value of the NFT is around the chain of ownership, not sure why it's so hard for people to wrap their head around this fact.

No, Mona Lisa painted by Moron #1 won't be as popular as Mona Lisa painted by Leonardo da Vinci. One could say the only reason Mona Lisa is popular, is because it's made by Leonardo da Vinci, otherwise it would get lost in the river of other, better art made around the same time.

People don't actually care about the bytes. They care about who published the bytes, and that they now can be written as the owner of those bytes. Sure, you can copy the bytes, but if the ledger doesn't change to reflect that you now "own" those bytes, it's not hitting the same feeling as the ownership via NFT gives.

How does it matter if you sell your art as NFT or I sell your art while pretending to be you?

An original Mona Lisa sold by an art thief is still Mona Lisa and is as valuable as if it was sold by a gallery. Buying Elon’s tweet NFT from a rando pretending to be Elon still gets you Elon’s tweet. Blockchain doesn’t care.

And if people don’t care about the bytes, then what’s the reason for buying NFTs? Illiquid currency one has trouble using anywhere else?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com