Non-Fungible Olive Gardens
nonfungibleolivegardens.com
nonfungibleolivegardens.com
Imagine someone buys the Mona Lisa NFT for millions, and then you go and also buy the Mona Lisa NFT on another blockchain for $3.99.
Or better yet, make a blockchain that simply mirrors NFTs sold on OpenSea. Couldn't get what you wanted on OpenSea, come to SecondSea and buy the same NFT on our blockchain.
There are a bunch of EVM compatible chains, and people already forked many smart contracts over to them.
Also actual human people care about them.
Neither is true of the NFT cringe.
People care about a deed because it's a legal right to a thing that exists and does something. Nobody cares about the "Mona Lisa NFT" on any blockchain, extant or to be developed. The Mona Lisa is in a museum. You can go look at it, COVID permitting.
The "Mona Lisa NFT" is, however, a good joke. It is accompanied by many distinctly less funny jokes, like all of the art I've seen blatantly stolen to bake into a blockchain somewhere, but that one at least is sort-of punching sideways and not down.
We are talking about NFT X where someone paid $1M for. X is on Y blockchain. Creating X on Z blockchain is meaningless exercise. Why you may ask? Well, future bidders won’t consider X on Z. It’s no longer “X”. I guess uniqueness can then be considered as “X on Y”.
I think the Deed example up the comment chain perfectly illustrates this. Look, I have zero horse in this game. I probably hate this NTF culture as much as you do. But you’re missing the entire idea of NTFs. And so are most people here although the Olive Garden joke is pretty funny.
But at any rate, it isn't the "NFT culture," no matter how odious it is (and it is!), that I have a problem with. It is the thing itself and the desperate excusemaking so attached. It's "emotionally charged" because it is a scam whose externalities burn the planet on which we live. That should carry emotional charge. It is good to be revolted by nasty and selfish things.
Theoretically, I think NFTs are similar to real life unique items (there are many threads on HN going back and forth) with a caveat - NFTs can’t contain actual data of the JPEGs, but only a URL of the server serving it. That seems like a huge gaping hole in NFTs.
Fundamentally though, atoms or bits, pick your unique-arrangement medium. Try to sell it to people that are willing to pay for it.
Edit: I can’t comment anymore (limits) so I’m answering here. You switched the argument now. We were discussing uniqueness in the world of atoms vs bits. But now you’re arguing about energy usage. We can discuss that but it’s no longer the central argument.
I wouldn't buy them. But they're things that actually exist, and nobody needed to burn more energy than a refrigerator uses in a month so that they could record its existence in one of a dozen rivalrous venues--or to do so again to hand it to somebody else.
The absurdity here isn't just the tulip mania. Which is absurd. It's the vicious abuse of a shared planet to attempt to plant one's own batch and get out of Dodge before the whole thing collapses.
"People could buy less virtual stuff!" People could also just buy less stuff, and not pay grifters money for nothing.
Say there is an old Bugatti that rich people trade for tens of millions of dollars.
That is basically a token, and the cost to society is the original manufacturing cost plus the upkeep.
The inflated market price is a good thing, because it represents the potential consumption that rich people are not consuming and is therefore available for the rest of society.
On the other hand, if someone spends the same amount on a brand new yacht, then they are putting all that value into environmental impact, either directly or indirectly. And they're taking it away from all the poor and hungry, even if the yacht builders benefit and it "trickles down".
It's exactly the same logic as the famous Eisenhower speech about national defense taking away from the needy.
One simply needs to make the mental transition to considering all wealth the property of society.
Most people seem to have it all backwards, where abstract tokens and bank accounts are a waste, and consumption is "creating jobs" which is good.
Crypto, as far as I can tell, neutralizes things through requiring undue consumption to create the tokens, so it seems to me like a massive step backwards.
I'll consider X on Z, it sounds like a bargain. Sure, it's only X on a small blockchain, but I like X and some apps I use support Z.
You’re right, and that is a totally rational thing to do. I suspect that the market of fake paintings and prints is in few billions at least. They’re quite popular. But that doesn’t stop the art auction “scams” at Christie’s and Sotheby’s.
My point is eventually blockchains, if they are going to succeed, will find their success in the barrel of a gun, and at that point will be no different than any other centralized government system?
The reason I can't mint my own currency is because, ultimately, men with guns would make me stop. Few would care about my currency at first, but market forces are not enough to stop it.
Decentralized social pressure doesn't make a stable currency and it won't make a stable blockchain until there's a powerful central entity backing it. At that point, what is the point?
Reality. Reality is what the majority choose to believe it is. If youve put the effort in to convince enough people that your chain is the truest chain, congrats.
I can create 1 million bot accounts, transfer the NFT within myself, each time bidding a high amount and eventually reaching $10,000,000
Would a new sucker bid $11 million on that? Yes.
This is the true nature of NFTs. Everything and anything can be faked and duplicated
What if the buyer confers with the artist about the authenticity of the NFT + Blockchain that it originally was put on?
Unrelated: If you haven’t seen NFT Bridge skit from John Cleese, it’s pretty funny.
State/NFTs on a secure blockchain have a force of law, which is what the proof-of-X consensus mechanisms are. Consensus by game theory/computation.
On a normative note, saying "actual human people" don't care about something you either don't like or don't understand is closer to what I would describe as cringe.
I can own a share on a blockchain, but if I execute a takeover who will cut the locks on the factory gates? I can buy a house, but who will evict the squatters? I can buy lunch with ETH, but I can’t eat it if someone with a gun suggests I hand it over.
Does that central entity also need to enforce NFTs? And if so, what's the point of NFTs?
Sure, you could legally get into trouble for making fake copies, but what really the biggest barrier is that the people who collect these things care a lot about it.
If you don’t care about collecting a particular thing, then you were never gonna get it to begin with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter
There’s a law firm in Germany that crawls the web and tries to collect money from any page that posts an image they haven’t gotten permission to.
If you really want to make your brain hurt check out the rules around photos of buildings and the right to panorama.
But assuming you did make an NFT of a copyrighted work, then it’s simply asking if the courts consider it a derivative work, which I could see.
signed chains only work if they go through a trusted authority that reconciles them and provides it's own (authoritative) proof that the trade happened and you own it.
NFTs are valuable because people want them in the same way a US dollar is valuable because people want them.
Who came to your blockchain and sold it to you? Is there a bridge to move value from the existing blockchains over to yours? Who runs the bridge? Alternatively is there an exchange that allows withdrawals to your blockchain, again, to move value there for transfer at all? Its not just about the nodes.
So because their wouldn't be a collision it doesn't matter that the non-owner minted these earlier.
Even if they did, to be ironic, the social proof from that official issuance, would attract all the value, ignoring these. Which has also happened before in the NFT space.
If the owners gave validity to this collection later, it may accrue actual value despite being incapable of being a claim to any building or land or franchise.
You have to check your own collection, or collections you find interesting. There’s not going to be a push notification.
Whether its a collection of polaroids or a collection of nfts its the same in this regard. (except you could make your own tool to know about the bids and volume in real time with the NFTs, and the chain of prior purchases and prices are built in, compared to physical goods on ebay or trying to aggregate and archive craigslist where you also wouldn't be assured of those pieces being actually part of the desired collection)
I don’t think is nearly as clever as you think it is though. The market just rightfully views these as knockoffs and values them as such.
Value comes from people wanting something and as they say, a person’s trash is another person’s treasure.
How can the HN crowd miss the point by such a length?
"I own a Mona Lisa NFT."
"Oh really?? You mean THE Mona Lisa NFT?? How did you manage? I thought that was owned by Louvre!"
"No, i mean, I bought this one on SecondSea"
"Ah ok. I bought it on ThirdSea just to test. It's free after all. But nice, good for you."
NFOGTs are a sound investment for a better tomorrow.
PS: Please buy mine - the market price has already dropped 99% and my wife is wondering where our kids' college fund just went.
"Imagine that it's fifteen years from now. Somebody announces that he's built a large quantum computer. RSA is dead. DSA is dead. Elliptic curves, hyperelliptic curves, class groups, whatever, dead, dead, dead."
Hmm, it's slightly different. There is an algorithm to break ECDSA on quantum computers. We have the algorithm, but we don't know how to build the quantum computer yet.
Buying pointers to actual Olive Gardens will give you entry into the exclusive club consisting of owners of pointers to actual Olive Gardens.
A potential name for your exclusive club: the "Bored Olive Gardens pointer owner Yacht Club."
Just sell an NFT of your wife and kids
fwiw the floor price is up from 0.04($160) to 0.14($560) overnight lol. seems these articles and sharing got the whole thing more attention, as they say no such thing as bad publicity.
After all, the only thing safer than not-owning an Olive Garden would be not-owning fractions of multiple Olive Gardens - diversification is the root of wise investments.
Moving all of these NFOVs around is productive economic activity of course - we're engaging in the noblest of endeavors: providing liquidity to markets. We're heroes!
https://twitter.com/GeoffreyHuntley/status/14619697727283691...
Was something like that in the Three-Body Problem novels maybe?
NFTs weren’t really a thing until someone did a media splash (some random artist). From a splash it turned into a story. Then the old non-tech people get scared/FOMO, so they of course have to write something up. And if big news sites are talking about it, it must be real news!
About 10 people could have just ignored the bullshit and NFTs would be some niche thing that no one ever heard about. I wish more newsrooms had the self-confidence to filter out obvious bullshit. See also: all the metaverse nonsense Facebook spun up to distract everyone from their huge moral failings.
We can shell out $$$ on things that are so materialistic, so consumable, so unnecessary just for our own use.
People keep complaining about wealth, and such. But the truth is, average people are the richest they have ever been. And it's so apparent.
It could all just be a credit/debt mirage. But the poor choice spending is definitely there.
No, poverty is still rampant. Inequality is still rising. Rich people just need literally anything to blow their money on, as long as it's not actually helping poor people.
I mentioned that the average wealth of a person is rising. Which is true. The only thing rising faster than it is housing.
>Rich people just need literally anything to blow their money on
Yes, because there are more of them. And less poor people. If you still can't understand, think of it not as a class system change, but a benefits to nearly-all classes addition.
>No.
This is just a DMCA takedown notice waiting to happen.
If this wasn't a joke, it would make an interesting demonstration of how the value is purely the current social consensus: a receipt is of dubious value in any case but it would be especially unlikely to attract buyers when the target URL has been DMCAed.
The jpeg could be on IPFS, bittorrent, freenet, whatever. Look it up by hash and verify the hash after getting it. If takedowns are a problem, use the more censorship-resistant options.
If something is taken down for legal reasons, you're left with intersection of hosts who are in legal jurisdictions where they can blow off those complaints, don't have their IPs blocked, and are willing to host it for whatever you want to pay.
That's not impossible but it's far from the solved problem NFT salespeople present it as, increasing in difficulty with the value of the content.
> Use project funds to complete leveraged buyout of Darden Restaurants, Olive Garden's parent company
“ Starbucks did not pursue legal action, although it did note to the press that it was "evaluating" the possibility while reinforcing that the "Starbucks" name is a protected trademark. Upon the episode's broadcast, it was acclaimed by television critics.”
Also see https://www.nissan.com/, which Nissan (the car company) has had legal proceedings with for years, bullying a company that has the same name because they want their domain. So far, unsuccessfully.
I don't know what class this falls under, but unless Olive Garden has a trademark in class 38 or class 42, I don't think trademarks will give them the legal ability to take the website down.
What will help them take the website down is the ability to bully a small project into submission by filing all kinds of lawsuits to basically out-lawyer them. You can only get justice if you're rich, after all. I think a cease and desist will be quickly accepted to avoid the inevitable tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for a full-on lawsuit.
It's going to be pretty difficult to argue that their statement "granting owners no rights or privileges in meatspace Olive Gardens" is sufficient.
It does raise some interesting issues though. If Olive Garden is successful in any challenge of this where do the NFTs go?
Are all the owners of the illegally trademarked NFTs responsible for destroying them or transferring ownership to Olive Garden? Given that their continued existence can imply that Olive Garden supports NFTs, which may damaging to their brand, how do they legally exercise their rights to remove their association with these NFTs?
I wonder if the law regarding trademark counterfeiting could be stretched to cover this case.
I'm suspicious it was made by an agency at their behest.
Taking down the site and taking the domain name: yes.
https://www.broadbandcloudsolutions.co.uk/what-happens-if-yo...
I am convinced that crypto people know literally nothing about the world other than making numbers on a screen go up.
I really fail to see how adding lengthy processing logic to transactions makes anything more liquid.
[0] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/723-W-23rd-St-North-Littl...
A blockchain copy can be better verified than a database.
More and more I wonder if the answer to Fermi's paradox is that all sufficiently advance civilizations discover blockchains and subsequently destroy their planet.
an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4KrdjAPohc
Nathan Fielder does indeed have a status as a parody artist of course. A family member is working for his new show. Says it seems way crazier than Nathan For You.
exciting! glad he’s working on new stuff!
to answer your question: this whole NFT thing is a scam pushed by the propertied class/corporations.
What you wrote is not an answer to that question. This question was supposed to make you doubt that a use of Olive Garden's copyright (which requires a critique of Olive Garden to be fair use) might not legally fall under fair use.
If this website were illegal, what would that mean for NintendoLife.com and 9to5google.com?
This one is just pointing out the absurdity of the entire NFT concept.
Yes it's definitely happening, and that obviously sucks, but I don't think it's as large scale of an issue as most people seem to think it is.
The store only lasted a few days. Who knows what would’ve happened otherwise.
That seems more or less identical to the conceit here.
IANAL;IANYL
I mean I'm not a lawyer and still enjoy this crap no matter what the legality is. And honestly the "is it legal" fight is for the courtroom, not here.
They may be infringing on the trademark, but if the owner is going to benefit, they won't pursue charges.
'course, someone has to figure out who did it, first
I love stage 5 in the roadmap, the console TBA note is a perfect addition.
There has to be some kind of limit!
Obvious examples are ButtCoin, DogeCoin. There are comedians/YouTubers whose "joke" is having low quality content.
Some of you are really stretching to find reasons to not understand NFTs and why people like them. Yes you can “right click save as”. I can also buy a replica Rolex, but I would much rather own the real thing. What’s the “real” that I’m buying with a gen Rolex as opposed to a rep?
A worthy replica Rolex that feels similar in quality to a real one will still cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. The $20 dollar replicas feel noticeably cheaper and will not provide the same satisfaction.
If people feel like they can get more personal enjoyment from spending money on a digital asset that everyone else can enjoy for free, great. That's a signalling game. But I don't think its hard to understand why a lot of people are skeptical on the real utility behind NFTs in regards to art and creative works.
The existence of the fashion cycle feels like an argument against NFTs. Yes, people like to signal with exclusive things, so influencers seek out new, exclusive fashions. Most of the time these styles are fairly easy to copy, though, and so the followers start wearing them and the influencers need to move on to the next thing. Eventually, anyone left wearing the old fashion looks kind of laughable.
Yes, the actual NFT token always remains exclusive, but is that really something you can signal with on a human level? Or do too many right clickers eventually cause bored apes to go out of style and become laughable?
(1) "Buying" a Rolex (or knockoff) vs NFTs - buying a physical (or digital) good gives you privileged access to it. The same is not true of an NFT, which just adds your name next to a pointer in a (decentralized) database. Nothing changes in regard to access to the underlying good unless people decide to build mechanisms on top of the chosen blockchain to artificially enforce access privileges, but you don't need a blockchain for that (cf. skins in CS-GO or stock images one pays for to purchase and download).
(2) "Indistinguishable" - with physical goods, that's a perceptual property and when you're talking about knockoffs of luxury goods, it really just means "hard to tell the difference (unless you examine it closely)". With digital media, the way it's been set up with NFTs, indistinguishable means completely identical. There are ways to actually sell protected digital media - e.g. you show a low-res version on a website and only send a full-res version once a purchase is made. But that's also been happening since the internet became a thing and doesn't need blockchains or NFTs either.
The issue isn't a lack of imagination on the part of skeptics who actually understand the underlying technical mechanisms behind blockchains. It's a lack of understanding by proponents about how the physical world works and how it can and can't be made to relate to digital comstructs.
Imagine that Country A decides to use Blockchain A (which has been around for decades and has proven itself secure) to store its property titles and allow the purchase of property digitally, with full transferal of title and ownership. The government writes a smart contract on that blockchain that facilitates payment, title searches, hooks into other government databases or blockchains for easement information, liens etc. They then, obviously, migrate their existing title information onto the blockchain and distribute the NFT's to the current owners. How do you "register" your fake one?
If you can't see how this could change an old and plodding industry like real estate which is surrounded by mountains of paper-shuffling, then yes, you're being unimaginative.
If what I get by right-clicking is the same as what you get by purchasing an NFT, then there's no difference that matters. Well, there's one difference: I got this image for free and you paid for it.
To the people who value Rolex, a fake is not valuable.
To some (vain but poor) a fake is valuable but barely more valuable than a standard watch.
NFTs are not comparable because they are useless instruments of gambling and speculation.
And how exactly would Olive Garden shut this down?
If I set up a page begging for $20 donations for a DB entry in my postgresql DB and submit to HN should it be upvoted?
EDIT:
It has a link to opensea where you can buy the NFT. So I can pay the website money for nothing in return.
I'm thinking of getting a breadstick.
That's up to the readers, isn't it? There is no "should". I enjoyed and thought it was pretty funny
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody XXXXXXX in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.