News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by oneeyedpigeon on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @07:17PM (#27284021)
With the art market, at least you're buying something. Ownership is being transferred. As far as I can tell (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), with NFTs you're effectively buying nothing. The seller could just turn around tomorrow and make whatever it is you have worth literally nothing (if it wasn't already).
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by adflux on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @07:24PM (#27284086)
For most NFTs you are essentially buying a record which links to an url on a platform. The video is not encoded in the nft
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by atleta on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @08:08PM (#27284488)
Well, I guess you could include some kind of hash/checksum too. That could prove your 'ownership' without any platform whatsoever. (It doesn't make it more meaningful, but at least decreases the dependency on whoever owns the platform hosting the link.)
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by oneeyedpigeon on Tuesday May 25, 2021 @08:01PM (#27284443)
Exactly, and the URL could 404 tomorrow or redirect to goatse or download malware ...
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by miracle2k on Wednesday May 26, 2021 @03:06AM (#27287314)
How can they make it worth nothing?
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by oneeyedpigeon on Wednesday May 26, 2021 @03:13AM (#27287347)
By destroying the original object or renouncing its copyright or printing billions of NFTs for it.
Re:Charlie Bit My Finger video to be taken off YouTube after... by miracle2k on Wednesday May 26, 2021 @04:38AM (#27287893)
Indeed, the disconnect between the digital and the physical is why NFTs do not represent physical objects. beeple however cannot destroy the original JPEG, as there isn't one.

An artist renouncing the copyright (as in putting it into the public domain) does not per se devalue the NFT. It is not strictly obvious if you legally need to own the copyright to sell an NFT of something in the first place (it is likely just fraud to misrepresent your authorship of the work).

The creator of a famous photograph which they have previously put into the public domain would likely find a buyer for its NFT, while you would not. NFT buyers are under no illusion about what they are buying here - it is the official sanction of the creator of a digital edition of the artwork.

Similarly, a creator could print billions of NFTs, but Damien Hirst could also sell 499 more further sharks in formaldehyde. NFTs cannot and do not set out to solve this problem.