- May 22, 2011
- 73,301
- 25,363
- 113
I guess easiest way to describe it is like owning the original painting but online.
New Kit
- Thread starter jaffaSlot
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I guess easiest way to describe it is like owning the original painting but online.
At it's heart it's a way to part fools from their money without actually giving them anything. The perfect scam.
I find the whole NFT thing confusing as well, I cannot figure how people see value in these things.
paying good money for the first ever tweet for example. I don't know first why anyone would see vlaue but then why someone in the future would then see mo0re value in that to buy it.
Or the Julian lennon example where the real "stuff" is still in his house but he sold images of the stuff. Are the digitised notes for hey jude (or the rights to show these??) really worth $76,000? He sold an nft or the cap worn by john lennon for 12k. a photo of john lennon basically that i can see right now for free?
Where is the value? Its not like the mona lisa where if i see the real thing i can see the brush strokes of a genius etc. an image of the mona lisa could be sold i suppose but i can see it for free on the internet any day.
but then again, i think crypto currency is similar. it has zero intrinsic value other than what people are willing to assign to it individually.
paying good money for the first ever tweet for example. I don't know first why anyone would see vlaue but then why someone in the future would then see mo0re value in that to buy it.
Or the Julian lennon example where the real "stuff" is still in his house but he sold images of the stuff. Are the digitised notes for hey jude (or the rights to show these??) really worth $76,000? He sold an nft or the cap worn by john lennon for 12k. a photo of john lennon basically that i can see right now for free?
Where is the value? Its not like the mona lisa where if i see the real thing i can see the brush strokes of a genius etc. an image of the mona lisa could be sold i suppose but i can see it for free on the internet any day.
but then again, i think crypto currency is similar. it has zero intrinsic value other than what people are willing to assign to it individually.
Reminds me of Harry Enfield's "I Saw You Coming" shop!
You must log in or register to see media
To be fair that's what most currencies are anyway.
The idea behind crypto currency, and I guess NFTs is that you live in hope that there is a bigger idiot than you willing to take the "item" off your hands in the future for even more money.
I guess it's not that different to art collecting. No painting is really worth thousands or millions of £. None are THAT good. (Honestly, I'd rather have a $49 Leonid Afremov print hanging on my wall than the Mona Lisa). People collect art hoping some other fool will pay more in the future.
not really, its a matter of scale.
A dollar is a dollar not only cos its an idea but that is backed by a lot of resource and drive to ensure it works. yes currencies are no longer backs be "gold" but they are backed by a state and that state and all its people are intrinsically tied into keeping that currency stable.
a bitcoin is backed by no state, just pirates and certain billionaires. thats why it will always be massively volatile. crypto are in themselves a small, limited (to create perception of scarcity) and a quick gamble.
An NFT. I have no idea. is the unique, one of a kind aspect again creating this perception? Like when a print of a famous painters work is sold its not worth anyhting like the "original" Its perceived value i suppose. What i can't get my head around either is the fact that i can see
You must log in or register to see images
This cape thing its free to see on google
an NFT of this thing john lennon wore was sold for $12,800. whats worth 12,800 as an NFT?
then the real thing is in julian lennons wardrobe? surely thats then worth less than the NFT or at least now reduced i nvlaue? or no?
Can't get my head round that.
the nft for this
You must log in or register to see images
sold for 2.9million dollars.
errr. i can see it for free any time?? I don't see the value of the NFT, what makes it so unique? can anyone explain why?
https://cyberscrilla.com/why-are-nfts-so-valuable/
all i can tell is people are digitally locking the thing and it's apparently another block chain type thing so while i can see Jack Dorsey's first tweet i can't see "THE" image jack dorsey sold of his first tweet or something.
It seems to me that like bitcoing mining we are rapidly approaching the point where the greatest pollution creating artifacts will be sever farms run to mine cyrpto and sell nfts.
its mad.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp everyone should be forced to study this IMO. they'd not be so quick to jump the bandwagons.
To be fair, I can see the Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother, or the girl with the blue earring any time I want too... But they're all worth more than I will ever earn in my lifetime.
/ I have no desire to own NFTs or priceless art.
but you can, if in the area, go to the louvre (if bothered) and see the actual brush strokes on lisa's face and all that jizz for a small fee.
what is the point of an NFT if you can't hang it on your wall in the toilet?
I suppose its assumed to be like gold in fort knox, the NFT is stored away, never looked at and then sold on at some point.
"Traditional" currencies have more systems around them but they still habe no intrinsic value. Hence why central banks can print loads of money to devalue the currency, making it worth much less. Or if all the Western countries decided to no longer accept Roubles for example. It's only ever worth what people are prepared to pay for it.
But NFTs seem like a bubble. It reminds me of the dotcom bubble. Hyped up Investments in the hope that someone else pays even more down the line, until the whole thing crashes when people realise there's no actual substance there.
Non-fungible token I believe.
Thanks. You made me look up the word fungible. It all sounds a bit crackpot to me.
It seems a unique item in non fungus but a bitcoin is a fungus as one bitcoin is the same vslue as any other even if serial numbers or block chain or whatever are different
It is. But is it really that much crazier than Americans selling baseball cards for tens of thousands... Or people selling art work for tens of millions?
Above MITO says it's different because they're tangible and that's true. But just like anyone can view the art or photo tied to an NFT.... Anyone can view a photo of the Mona Lisa, you don't have to see the original to know what it looks like.
There is something very special about seeing and handling or touching originals in person. It can be a valuable experience. I agree with you though about the need to actually own one. On the other hand, if you extend the concept then would looking at pictures of cats and dogs be as good as actually living with them? Or having and studying an atlas give as much joy as visiting the various countries?
I'm sure baseball cards or pokemon cards or football stickers or any such are rather silly things as well.
This has been interesting reading, I'm still no closer to understanding unfortunately.
I can see the parallel with art, but there are only so many "master pieces" in the world, the rarity and prestige with being able to afford something of that ilk is understandable.
However this just doesn't seem to be the case with an nft, a tweet and a picture of a tweet look exactly the same? A photo and a picture of the photo look the same, I just don't get why you'd bother.
I do wonder if people are scared of missing out on the next big thing, very few expected bitcoin to blow up, it's driving initial demand, but if it suddenly pops, people are left looking foolish.
I can see the parallel with art, but there are only so many "master pieces" in the world, the rarity and prestige with being able to afford something of that ilk is understandable.
However this just doesn't seem to be the case with an nft, a tweet and a picture of a tweet look exactly the same? A photo and a picture of the photo look the same, I just don't get why you'd bother.
I do wonder if people are scared of missing out on the next big thing, very few expected bitcoin to blow up, it's driving initial demand, but if it suddenly pops, people are left looking foolish.
I guess a better example is random people selling "deeds" to an acre on the moon or for naming rights to stars. Or even letting you buy a lordship online. NFTs are in the same realm as these. They're created from something with no real value. So that people can say they own something (that they don't really own) and maybe hope to sell it for more in the future.
I don't get why people would "buy a star name" from some random company that has no official right to name a star.... But people do it all the time. A bit like these NFTs.
They seem to be like a cryptocurrency as there's some blockchain involved in it and they are stored in the same wallets.
But if the artist retains the copyright or even the physical thing then is it actually "the one and only possible not version" of whatever?
I can understand the mona Lisa is in the louvre. I can understand people can pay to see it in person or buy a print of it or look at it on the Internet but to really see it you have to see it in person.
Why would the one and only digital nft be worth a lot but a print not? OR thinking on this why would a etherium ordinary crypto be worth less than an not etherium token really? It's a coin with a picture attached???
Is this not the inventors of these currency exchanges making their product stand out a bit more??
But if the artist retains the copyright or even the physical thing then is it actually "the one and only possible not version" of whatever?
I can understand the mona Lisa is in the louvre. I can understand people can pay to see it in person or buy a print of it or look at it on the Internet but to really see it you have to see it in person.
Why would the one and only digital nft be worth a lot but a print not? OR thinking on this why would a etherium ordinary crypto be worth less than an not etherium token really? It's a coin with a picture attached???
Is this not the inventors of these currency exchanges making their product stand out a bit more??