> I think of them as digital digital picture frames.

I don't understand this analogy. A digital picture frame lets me look at pictures. What on earth is a digital digital picture frame?

A digital picture frame is a physical device that lets you look at preconfigured digital pictures. There is typically a mechanism for changing them, you purchased the device though.

A digital digital picture frame is a set of classes that lets you look at preconfigured digital pictures. There is typically a mechanism for changing the image, you purchased the set of classes, typically following one of the NFT standards.

Those are the ways at which they are similar.

But an NFT doesn't let me look at a picture. It doesn't have a display for one. The whole point of a digital picture frame is that it has a display. Is a browser a digital digital picture frame?

I have as much need for a specialised digital digital picture frame as I have for a digital paperweight.

The frame isn't _for_ you, it's for everybody else, and that frame shows (with proof) that _you_ own the picture.

That's why the mona lisa framed in the museum is worth more than a replica picture. It's not even the frame, it's the fact that there's a public broadcast of a form of ownership.

So, it's not like a digital photo frame?

> That's why the mona lisa framed in the museum is worth more than a replica picture.

The Mona Lisa in the Louvre is worth more than a replica because the Louvre owns it? That's an original take, I'll give you that.

Is that is the case, why does the Louvre own the original and not a replica?

> why does the Louvre own the original and not a replica?

so if somebody claimed that they owned the original mona lisa, and that the louvre actually has a replica, would you consider that replica to be more valuable?

Who's to say what is the replica then? Suppose the replica was perfect?

It sounds weird, but the fact that the Louvre is displaying the mona lisa is what makes it valuable. The fact that most people is unable to know (nor care tbh) whether what they see in that glass box is actually the original or a really good replica.

So what makes NFT any different in this sense? It's not a technological thing, but a social thing.

well, this was fun, past tense. analogies compare the ways dissimilar things are similar, not the ways they aren't.

this is a thread about selling them and not asking why people are willing to pay for them. so what you or I need isn't relevant, if you don't want to buy one then don't buy one. if you want to make money, sell one. unless there was some point you were trying to make, in which case there are plenty of sister threads to make that point in.

You came up with an analogy that doesn't make sense.

the similarity is that they store images for viewing

neuro-typical people got it

Except for the fact that they don't store images and can't display them, sure.

I'm probably too thick to understand it. But please keep repeating your bullshit analogy.

can't have it both ways, they either don't [ever] store, or you're too thick

NFTs can in-fact store complete binary data and complete vector data. There are some examples and some production projects doing both of those things. But more commonly they typically load a URL to an image, and people prefer that instead of a URL that its on an IPFS URI, but people accept an IPFS proxy URL.

In all scenarios, a separate technology/viewer/website is used to access the standard method which returns the data to be interpreted. Which is where things are dissimilar. Analogies don't compare aspects that are dissimilar [0]. Any one similarity satisfies the criteria for an analogy.

[0] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

Perhaps it's a digital frame for a digital picture?

(As opposed to a physical frame for a digital picture?)

Again, how is an NFT a picture frame? Is a URL a picture frame?

Maybe? Not sure how the original commenter meant their metaphor.

I read moxie’s write up earlier in the year, but didn’t pick up on the lack of hashing. Incredible.