Paul Graham Defends NFTs
twitter.com
twitter.com
It's also interesting that below the tweet around 50%, 10/20 (from a quick scroll) reactions/answers are just people trying to sell and advertise the typical low quality NFT related things.
Because, in the bank example, after a bank transaction happens, the artist may not like a particular supporter because, for example, the supporter may be a white cis male who doesn't like the left bullies, so the artist may lie that the transaction happened at all, saying that he/she didn't receive any money from the supporter. In this case, and other such cases, there must be an independent log of events that actually happened, despite what people may say.
And then there are court system to be involved if the artist were to commit fraud in this case and for example not provide services. Maybe even discrimination case.
No one will believe the supporter. The receipt may be a fake text he/she made.
The whole premise of blockchain is that no transaction can be altered. What happened -- happened, unlike someone's text or screenshots on someone's servers on the Internet.
Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and the artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.
And of course the entire transaction is a simple buyers contract, thus making it legally binding and enforceable.
So if the artist tries to go back on the agreement, he can be sued. If he claims he never received funds, the court orders the banks to hand over the records.
But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.
> So if the artists try to go back on the agreement, he can be sued.
Sued about what? The supporters want the artist to keep the money, there are no legal conflicts here other than that the artist may lie that he/she is supported by particular people. Unlike in bank case, you and me and anyone else may see for ourselves who is supported by whom.
If they receive a court order, they are required to hand over records.
> Sued about what?
If I buy something from an artist, I am entering a legally binding contract with him. Such contracts can be enforced in court.
Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.
Correct. But NFT people want to show everyone that they support artists they like. Others are free to ignore them, but with public and independently verifiable transactions no one can objectively deny that NFT people actually support the artists.
And if I buy a piece of art the classic way (buyers contract), I can put it in a gallery, or whatever, and "show everyone that I support the artist" that way.
And even without buying something, no Blockchain is required to support artists: people have managed to do so since long before electricity was discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts