NFTs weren’t created to be the proof of ownership of digital art, they just happen to be associated with that because that’s what the majority of them were created for.
The NFT isn’t the art that can be copy-pasted to any computer, it’s the proof of ownership. Criticizing them by saying “I can just download a copy of the picture!” is like saying copyrights are useless because you can use tools to rip movies from streaming services, sure you “own a copy”, it doesn’t make you a rightful owner of it from the perspective of the law.
NFT’s also don’t implicitly make you the rightfull owner. The basketball NFT’s content still explicitly belongs to the seller. The only true way for NFT’s to work for digital content is to have a contract that specifically states that the NFT proves ownership, but you might as well write it directly in the contract at that point.
I fail to understand your point. What extra step? You either get ownership or you don’t based on the asset you’ve acquired. NFTs don’t have alto be a once size fits all kind of thing. You are just oversimplifying it. The same can work for physical objects that you purchase. Vehicle manufacturers make it to where you can’t service your own vehicle sometimes because of special tools needed… So do you really own it? Hmmmm
I buy a picture from you, I get a receipt proving I bought it.
I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it.
What value does an NFT provide in this case? I guess it provides a better proof of the purchase but that hardly seems worth the effort of setting up a wallet and acquiring crypto (for the average person at least). Not to mention the seller also needs to do these things, and I fail to see how he will benefit in this case.
Maybe in a hypothetical world where everyone uses crypto this will make more sense.
I’ll just use a small example… Let’s say you have an NFT for a online casino project. Simply holding the nft in your wallet will give you a weekly payout (certain percentage of profits for that week/month)
I use this example because nfts can have many different uses. Another would be gated communities/gated access to online services. Hope that helps it make sense a little
All the examples you give are things that can be done (and are done in practice) without NFTs, and you don’t really explain why using NFTs would be better.
Stock ownership also gives you a payout. And yes you can use NFT’s for authorization, but you really don’t need to. That was already possible back in 2005 with some PHP. Although those systems were and still are often centralized and rely on the integrity of the infrastructure and the intentions of the people running it, you can’t host a service on the blockchain. Smart contracts can’t host a site. There still needs to be something in between the blockchain and the client.
I see the potential of a public ledger but most blockchain projects seem to simply use it as a marketing gimmick.
I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it. What value does an NFT provide in this case?
In this case, assuming you’re a trader in this example, you’d be banking on whatever art you purchased to gain further value so you can then sell your certificate of ownership and make a profit. This is no different than art sales/trades IRL. Here’s an art gallery owner discussing using NFTs as certificates of ownership for real world art sales and the added benefits over traditional COOs.
I guess if there is an issue with verifying authenticity of art and using NFTs solves that issue this makes sense. Selling digital art using NFTs is still dumb IMO, as there is no real concept of owning or displaying an “original digital painting” like you can do with normal paintings; in that case you only get a fairly abstract proof of ownership (NFT avatars on various sites and NFT items in games could change this if implemented widely I guess).
Other than a few similar use cases they still don’t seem very useful, and it I think in most cases they solve issues that already have good solutions.
The intrinsic value of any art is what someone is willing to pay for it.
For example the world’s most expensive NFT, The Merge by Pak, sold for $91.8 million. Its price was higher than the sale of Jeff Koon’s Rabbit, the most expensive artwork by a living artist at auction. It’s all about personal tastes and how deep folks wanna dig in their pockets with this stuff.
NFTs weren’t created to be the proof of ownership of digital art, they just happen to be associated with that because that’s what the majority of them were created for.
The NFT isn’t the art that can be copy-pasted to any computer, it’s the proof of ownership. Criticizing them by saying “I can just download a copy of the picture!” is like saying copyrights are useless because you can use tools to rip movies from streaming services, sure you “own a copy”, it doesn’t make you a rightful owner of it from the perspective of the law.
NFT’s also don’t implicitly make you the rightfull owner. The basketball NFT’s content still explicitly belongs to the seller. The only true way for NFT’s to work for digital content is to have a contract that specifically states that the NFT proves ownership, but you might as well write it directly in the contract at that point.
This specifically depends on the project producing the NFTs. Some grant full ownership while some do not.
That’s his point - NFTs don’t actually solve any problem here, they just add an extra step.
I fail to understand your point. What extra step? You either get ownership or you don’t based on the asset you’ve acquired. NFTs don’t have alto be a once size fits all kind of thing. You are just oversimplifying it. The same can work for physical objects that you purchase. Vehicle manufacturers make it to where you can’t service your own vehicle sometimes because of special tools needed… So do you really own it? Hmmmm
I buy a picture from you, I get a receipt proving I bought it.
I buy a picture from you on an NFT marketplace, I get an NFT proving I bought it.
What value does an NFT provide in this case? I guess it provides a better proof of the purchase but that hardly seems worth the effort of setting up a wallet and acquiring crypto (for the average person at least). Not to mention the seller also needs to do these things, and I fail to see how he will benefit in this case.
Maybe in a hypothetical world where everyone uses crypto this will make more sense.
I’ll just use a small example… Let’s say you have an NFT for a online casino project. Simply holding the nft in your wallet will give you a weekly payout (certain percentage of profits for that week/month)
I use this example because nfts can have many different uses. Another would be gated communities/gated access to online services. Hope that helps it make sense a little
All the examples you give are things that can be done (and are done in practice) without NFTs, and you don’t really explain why using NFTs would be better.
Damn bro, I guess was wrong. Crypto is totally useless. Sorry for second guessing you
Stock ownership also gives you a payout. And yes you can use NFT’s for authorization, but you really don’t need to. That was already possible back in 2005 with some PHP. Although those systems were and still are often centralized and rely on the integrity of the infrastructure and the intentions of the people running it, you can’t host a service on the blockchain. Smart contracts can’t host a site. There still needs to be something in between the blockchain and the client.
I see the potential of a public ledger but most blockchain projects seem to simply use it as a marketing gimmick.
In this case, assuming you’re a trader in this example, you’d be banking on whatever art you purchased to gain further value so you can then sell your certificate of ownership and make a profit. This is no different than art sales/trades IRL. Here’s an art gallery owner discussing using NFTs as certificates of ownership for real world art sales and the added benefits over traditional COOs.
I guess if there is an issue with verifying authenticity of art and using NFTs solves that issue this makes sense. Selling digital art using NFTs is still dumb IMO, as there is no real concept of owning or displaying an “original digital painting” like you can do with normal paintings; in that case you only get a fairly abstract proof of ownership (NFT avatars on various sites and NFT items in games could change this if implemented widely I guess).
Other than a few similar use cases they still don’t seem very useful, and it I think in most cases they solve issues that already have good solutions.
But there worthless because digital art is intrinsically less valuable than real art
Real art = analog art? I need to tell all of my electronic musician buddies.
How? Please elaborate.
A real piece of art will always be more valuable than some electronic picture
No, I asked that you elaborate, not that you repeat the same thing using different words.
The intrinsic value of any art is what someone is willing to pay for it.
For example the world’s most expensive NFT, The Merge by Pak, sold for $91.8 million. Its price was higher than the sale of Jeff Koon’s Rabbit, the most expensive artwork by a living artist at auction. It’s all about personal tastes and how deep folks wanna dig in their pockets with this stuff.
Thats insane stupid people with more money than brains