Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after selling for £500k

Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by Tabular-Iceberg on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @05:30PM (#27282942)

I can't replicate the exact numbers, but I don't see how one random string looks more authentic than the other. Whereas a handmade autograph with all its human inconsistencies looks more authentic than one made with a mechanical device.

I'm just as good as the most accomplished artist at reading numbers from /dev/random, that's why I don't see why one random-looking string would be more valuable than the other.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by basch on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @05:39PM (#27283048)

Because it's timestamped earlier, or its proven to have been generated by a person who exclusively had a certain private key.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by Tabular-Iceberg on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @06:27PM (#27283542)

> Because it's timestamped earlier

That depends on who thought of making the NFT first. Which isn't necessarily the artist.

> or its proven to have been generated by a person who exclusively had a certain private key

That has the same problem, it's generated by arbitrary pseudo-random numbers, rather than a real, living human hand. Look, I'm not disputing the underlying cryptographic principles. I'm happy they exist, because they are immensely useful for many purposes, like securing communication and financial transactions. I just struggle to see the artistic merit in someone having pulled some numbers out of /dev/random and having done some math on them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by basch on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @08:00PM (#27284436)

It’s not artistic merit. It’s artificial scarcity. It’s printing only five of a rookie baseball card because you can.

[ Parent | on HN ]