Wow. I can't imagine what anyone is thinking when they pay that much to brag about some random blockchain that says they own an arbitrary URL that may or may not link to an image.
Mona Lisa is pretty crap anyway, if you ever find yourself in the Louvre, look at what’s hung on the opposite wall. Now that is an impressive painting.
https://thamesandhudson.com/napoleons-plunder-and-the-theft-...
Exactly proving my point.
A $15 print of the Mona Lisa makes it look good.
In truth, the painting is suffering from deterioration, the poplar panel is warped, the columns that used to frame her are missing, and restoration has obscured some details. A print doesn't convey the physicality of the cracked, rough surface of the paint, the sfumato technique, the almost total lack of visible brushstrokes, the gauzy veil, Mona Lisa's hair, the luminescence of her skin and the overall impression of glowing.
Whatever the actual quality and condition of the original, no reproduction will adequately represent it.
I really do think digital property has value but only when you do it right.
If the Mona Lisa's value was determined purely from physical traits my perfect copy would be worth exactly the same.
It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way. If you try to build any of those things on top of a blockchain you will realize quickly that blockchains are bad solution. The only purpose of them is to pump up the value of a casino token which is then used to pay a tax to the operators of the network. It's no surprise that after this nonsense you're only left with irrational actors.
And that is only for the average user; for the whales, the purpose of them appears to be mainly profiting off of massive amounts of fraud and criminal activity while maintaining the plausible deniability of being able to say "technically we don't control the blockchain so we're not responsible".
today we have both of the things which GP mentions as being under development 9 years ago, so this part is seemingly false.
> It is because blockchains cannot actually be used to do any of those cool tech things in any meaningful way.
even in the comment you just wrote, you’re still arguing a different point than what you originally said. this time you’ve shifted from “cannot be used to do” to “cannot do”.
there are interesting discussions to be had (why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-preserving coins before blockchains? what are the better ways of achieving such global systems, and solving double-spend/consensus than blockchain, today?). but it’s impossible to have those discussions if you keep claiming one thing and then arguing the other thing.
I think it is clear enough that I meant the same thing. If that wasn't clear, you can ask for further clarification. There is no need to make this into a pedantic game.
>but it’s impossible to have those discussions if you keep claiming one thing and then arguing the other thing.
No, it is not? Why would it be? In fact I will have those discussions with you now.
>why didn’t we have permission-less privacy-preserving coins before blockchains?
We don't have those with blockchains either. They are not permissionless nor are they privacy preserving except under some very extreme and impractical circumstances. You can have your permission to use a blockchain revoked if all the miners/validators reach consensus on blacklisting your wallet. Also, all public blockchains have no privacy by default as all the data is public.
>what are the better ways of achieving such global systems, and solving double-spend/consensus than blockchain, today?
Basically anything else, because blockchains do not actually "solve" consensus. The "consensus" is done simply by paying off the participants in increasing numbers as an incentive to stop them from bad behavior, it has nothing to do with the actual blockchain itself. They are able to "solve" double spend in a very contrived way, at the expense of being able to solve any other problem that might befall the network. The traditional way to solve double spend is to use good old fashioned accounting, it doesn't have that same constraint.
i assume we’re talking about Monero or zcash, as the better-known privacy coins. i grant you that Monero miners can block you by address. how can you be censored on zcash? it’s cryptographically impossible to link addresses to each other, so you can’t block by address. is it permissioned based on IP address? is that defeatable with trivial means like VPNs or Tor or just going to the neighborhood coffee shop? has censorship of zcash transactions ever been demonstrated?
"Surely this will appreciate, I am a genius"
But you don’t own the copyright and can’t make more prints unless there was a separate agreement to that effect.
With those NFTs you get copyright ownership of the image.
It's basically completely disconnected, so while the transfers may traditionally be done at the same time between the same entities, that's not a contract. The NFT just gives you a Blockchain url. If you didn't sign anything else then you got nothing else.
https://boredapeyachtclub.com/#/terms
> When you purchase an NFT, you own the underlying Bored Ape, the Art, completely.
> Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”).
No, you just have a license to use it according to a license. That's very clearly "not owning".
It's something, but it's not owning.
You’re just restricted by contract to pass on said ownership if you sell.
It’s like a house with a homeowners association. Can’t ditch the HOA by selling. Still own the house.
You yourself said that all you get is a license, not ownership.
That is not even remotely close to the legal basis under which HOAs have power, which is a lien on the house, not with you.
House: You bought a house with an HOA lien.
NFT: You licensed (do not own) an image. Like YOU quoted there is no ownership change at any point.
These are not even remotely similar.
This emperor has no clothes, but still mant people choose to believe.
Certainly the first person to buy a bored ape from BAYC, they definitely entered into a legal contract with BAYC that granted them a copyright license.
But if you bought a Bored Ape NFT from someone else, did the sale contract you made with them definitely include another copyright license transfer? Or did you just buy an NFT?
What if the previous owner of your Bored Ape, while they held the copyright, took it upon themselves to separately sell the copyright to someone else, so by the time you bought the NFT, they didn't even have the copyright any more?
What if the previous owner of the Ape, as its copyright holder, and perhaps unknown to you, chose to release it to the public domain?
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220311005470/en/Yug...
They might be able to enforce terms of their original contract on the first party buyer - ‘once you sell the ape you no longer have this license’. But they have no contractual relationship (no ‘privity’) with you.
Perhaps possession of the ape entitled you to go to BAYC and get a license contract?
That’s great, so long as BAYC 1) continues to honor that agreement (and since you have no contract with them to begin with there’s nothing obliging them to do so) and 2) continues to exist. If they go under and their copyright in their apes gets auctioned off, good luck finding whoever acquired your ape and persuading them that since you own a hash in a blockchain they really have to grant you a license to use that ape.
Now, all you have to legally is prove that you own the NFT, because theft and computer hacking aren't a legally accepted way to transfer ownership.
And as an owner of a second hand ape you have no legal recourse if they (or their successors, or their receivers during their bankruptcy) decide they no longer want to.
But it is by no means clear that someone who bought an NFT from someone who bought an NFT from someone who bought an NFT from the original copyright holder has any basis for being able to expect the new holder of that copyright to continue to allow them to exercise the terms of the original license agreement made between the original seller and the original buyer.
> ii. Personal Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you a worldwide, royalty-free license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art, along with any extensions that you choose to create or use, solely forthe following purposes: (i) for your own personal, non-commercial use; (ii) as part of a marketplace that permits the purchase and sale of your Bored Ape / NFT [...]
> iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, Yuga Labs LLC grants you an unlimited, worldwide license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”). Examples of such Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying copies of the Art. [...]
> The Bored Ape Yacht Club terms of service grant a commercial license to exploit the copyright of each Bored Ape to the owner of the relevant NFT.
So the holder of a Bored Ape NFT has a license to commercially use the off-chain image associated with the NFT by way of an on-chain URL. That license is granted by the actual copyright holders of all of the Bored Apes.
Just like you can create anything, and license it as you wish, and keep a list of authorized licensees on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape.
The NFTs are better because...
Look, I hate cryptoc, but this is about the one thing in the whole world that NFT is actually good for.
Perhaps people use the word differently.
I don't understand the word "decentralized" to mean "not occupying a specific physical location".
To me it means more like "having many independent parts" or "not having a single point of failure".
For example, land titles in the US, I believe, are decentralized. There is not one single national/federal list of who owns what.
But having a blockchain is like having that list. I don't know if that is "centralized" in an absolute, yes/no way, but it seems more centralized.
And it doesn’t even require an entire countries worth of electricity to do it.
And has it actually been copyrighted with the USPTO and the various copy protection agencies across the world? Because if not, then who will actually enforce it and what legal backing does that copyright have?
And if it has been copyrighted, then what value does putting it on a blockchain add when the copyright enforcement is being maintained by the same entities that would have done it if it was on Shutterstock?
However, I don't think it explains all of the value.
First is the art itself, probably not worth much considering that it is rather generic and partly generated art, but some people may actually like it.
Then there is the idea of being part of something big. Some people think that NFTs are revolutionary, that in the future, this is what will represent property, more than a paper in some administrative office. Owning a NFT now is like owning a piece of history.
And there is also this idea that many collectors share that if it is rare and unique, it is worth having, and apes are rare and unique.
I know some collectors who spend thousands on collectable items, like video game cartridges or trading cards with no intention to ever sell them back. It is their treasure, it represents a lot of dedication and effort, they may have memories attached to it. It may sound stupid to outsiders but it is important.
Who’da thunkit