I think that is kind of the point. This a social commentary on the absurdity of NFTs and crypto.
There was the study yesterday that showed that 70% of crypto trading was wash trading. I.e junk to inflate the appearance of the market. I see this being mostly zeros as effectively the same. It was meant to be found to be junk, to show how stupid it all is.
I don’t understand; did the author of the torrent toss in a bunch of nothing to pad out the number, or is there that many references to nothing in the NFT chain?
The former seems pointless, but for the latter, I’m under the assumption that the NFT chain stores the image hashes directly, and those hashes are enforced to be unique — so there should be only one instance of a zero hash? Or I suppose a ton of images with like three bytes set and bunch of nothing for padding
Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership, not “you’re the only one that can access the content” (although there are indeed NFTs that can only allow the owner to decrypt the content)? It’s like video game cosmetics - many people can have the same skin, but people you want to impress or show off to can see that you own x, y, and z.
Video game cosmetics derive their appeal from people using them while they actually play the game, not from showing off the database flag that activates it for the account. With NFTs, the whole game part of the game cosmetics analogy is missing.
But does it verify ownership of anything other than the token itself? What are the typical contract terms, if any, related to NFTs? And are those terms enforceable in any given jurisdiction?
> Isn’t the point of NFTs that it verifies ownership
A lot of people think that, but I would consider that more of a requirement than the purpose.
The point of NFTs is to allow the original artist to share some of the financial rewards that the art dealers and collectors get each time they resell a piece of artwork in the future. The goal is to help restore some balance and fairness to the financial side of the art trade, particularly for new artists, who often can't earn a living wage on the original sales alone. And of course, being able to verify "ownership" of the "original" work is necessary to get the artist a piece of the pie whenever that NFT is sold.
Yes, you're right about access to the work... as an observer, anyone can enjoy looking at the art just the same as the person who owns the rights to it. Just like any other image on the internet, making a copy of it doesn't give you the rights to that image. So, I don't understand the point of this archive unless it's truly just to archive the data incase the blockchain goes down.
Ownership implies some kind of exclusive rights. If everybody has the same rights over the content as the supposed owner, it means they're not the owner.
I’ve tried but failed to understand NFTs. One thing I don’t understand is —- couldn’t you change one pixel in an image and register your ownership of the slightly different image in the blockchain? Then how would it be adjudicated which is the authentic version?
I think the biggest problem the art project will face is that nobody actually wants 19.5TB of not-terribly-good art.
If there wasn't a fun speculative element, then most of the artists would have trouble getting anyone to download their stuff even for free (just like most game devs struggle to get anyone to play their games - even when they're pretty good).
So really, if this art project does succeed it could be an interesting new distribution channel!
Actually, I was about to rent a big server and download the torrent as I wanted to build a reverse image search for NFTs. But since it's not 19TB, I won't do it.
there is a certain irony in peer hosting IPFS-based NFTs thru BitTorrent as an attempt at some kind of critique… I hope they do this with Hicetnunc[1] NFTs too and help back up all that media. :)
NFTs are about the token ownership, not the asset, so this archive is rather pointless on its own.
But it's a very meta "art" piece as described by the article, especially if it also serves as an NFT asset itself. Will be interesting to see how how far this layer cake will go.
I think it does illustrate that NFT themselves are useless (other than being some sort of performance art). If you legally bought the right to something, what has value is not the NFT, it is the legal contract of the transaction. If you don’t sign a contract, the NFT is just a few bytes stored somewhere that have no consequences. The value is in the legal agreement.
NFTs are obviously a bit silly, BUT, it would be nice if things bought on platforms like Steam, Roblox, Amazon, iTunes etc. were transferable to other games/platforms.
The platform providers would still need to agree that a specific blockchain / NFT is actually the source of truth, and so it's not really trustless. But the internet itself isn't perfectly decentralized either. I could see a future where developers could enable web3 support in their games/apps and allow importing assets, identities etc. between platforms, which would be nice.
I'm gonna copy my questions from another thread about transferable items because I'm genuinely curious about the answers.
Why would an asset designed for one game make sense or look good or feel at home in a completely different one?
Why would companies make one of them and sell it for a million bucks instead of trying to convince more players to buy it in a shop for two bucks?
Is the mechanic of a weapon gonna adjust to the new game when you import it or stay the same? If it stays the same, it's gonna be exploit galore. If it changes, well then, what's the point? Gonna be the same AK-47 as everyone else's, but this tiny sticker on it that nobody's gonna pay attention to is unique!
Even if we pretend this is somehow a promising field, why even use NFTs and make each one a couple of pixels different instead of making a common one, selling it for like $50, buyers get a file in whichever format is agreed upon, and import them in the settings?
Are NFTs likely to do that? No. Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money? And even if they wanted to, which they won't, why would they bless some specific blockchain with that power? If that is at all viable, somebody like Steam or Amazon will want it to be their own digital assets registry that wins. For that, they don't need a blockchain, just a database.
This could be done without NFTs. There aren’t that many platforms, they could all build api integrations if they wanted. But they don’t want to because they like having users locked in.
NFTs along with all non money crypto feel like a solution in search of a problem. And all of these solutions are things already possible and easier without crypto.
Just imagine, if you bought a movie or game and could "consume" it on any platform you want, or event download files from web, skipping platforms. While technology is there, and you could prove ownership using public or private blockchain, this is obviously "bad for business" and no company will ever implement it. They better re-sell you same digital goods few times on several platforms.
So the idea is that when I play Call of Duty, I can wear the hat I purchased in Roblox? And when I'm in Roblox, I can use the character I purchased in Call of Duty?
I'm not holding my breath for transferable content between platforms when big game studios cannot make save data compatible between the same PC game if bought on different stores. If you start playing Forza Horizon 5 on Xbox Game Pass and then decide to buy it on Steam, you have to start from the beginning because the save data is not compatible between the two different store versions.
Ah yess, when you put something publicly available then claim piracy and copyright infringement when people actually use those "public bits".
Gotta love this logic.So if i don't right-click your precious NFT I don't pirate it, how about if i get it from my browser's image cache?Am i pirating it then or not?(I'm not going into copying and selling, which is more nuanced, but even then one could argue in the same manner).
To me these questions are extremely rhetorical, especially if one believes in the concept of property. If you don't want to freely give people copies of your precious hard work,don't put it on the internet, period, not even under a protected information system. I would further argue on this principle about computer security aswell, but that actually requires understanding how computers work, which the vast majority doesn't know.
By putting your work publicly available you already explicitly give permission on people to copy your bits into their computers(a.k.a viewing).I guess people think machines are like humans and automatically "forget" what they see, thus enforcing the value of copyright.
I’m very confused about NFTs. If they are kind of an in-joke (that maybe some influencer types are taking a bit too seriously) why did they get mentioned by zuckerberg in his keynote address for meta? Say what you want about him, but I think he and his team are above falling for crypto jokes making fun of influencers.
Not really, if anything we have more art (since each piece of art is infinitely replicable). What could conceivably happen is a decrease in the production of new art, but I don't see evidence of that either.
[+] [-] quakeguy|4 years ago|reply
https://gist.github.com/zhuowei/ebd5601f7dd8e5ee186bf302874e...
https://www.twitter.com/zhuowei/status/1461576936241733638
[+] [-] samwillis|4 years ago|reply
There was the study yesterday that showed that 70% of crypto trading was wash trading. I.e junk to inflate the appearance of the market. I see this being mostly zeros as effectively the same. It was meant to be found to be junk, to show how stupid it all is.
[+] [-] setr|4 years ago|reply
The former seems pointless, but for the latter, I’m under the assumption that the NFT chain stores the image hashes directly, and those hashes are enforced to be unique — so there should be only one instance of a zero hash? Or I suppose a ton of images with like three bytes set and bunch of nothing for padding
[+] [-] judge2020|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|4 years ago|reply
Although this is totally different, because it’s blockchain.
[+] [-] 2pEXgD0fZ5cF|4 years ago|reply
Video game cosmetics derive their appeal from people using them while they actually play the game, not from showing off the database flag that activates it for the account. With NFTs, the whole game part of the game cosmetics analogy is missing.
[+] [-] rebuilder|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] addicted|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonestamp2|4 years ago|reply
A lot of people think that, but I would consider that more of a requirement than the purpose.
The point of NFTs is to allow the original artist to share some of the financial rewards that the art dealers and collectors get each time they resell a piece of artwork in the future. The goal is to help restore some balance and fairness to the financial side of the art trade, particularly for new artists, who often can't earn a living wage on the original sales alone. And of course, being able to verify "ownership" of the "original" work is necessary to get the artist a piece of the pie whenever that NFT is sold.
Yes, you're right about access to the work... as an observer, anyone can enjoy looking at the art just the same as the person who owns the rights to it. Just like any other image on the internet, making a copy of it doesn't give you the rights to that image. So, I don't understand the point of this archive unless it's truly just to archive the data incase the blockchain goes down.
[+] [-] lottin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] da39a3ee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m1sta_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m1sta_|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solarkraft|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrspeaker|4 years ago|reply
If there wasn't a fun speculative element, then most of the artists would have trouble getting anyone to download their stuff even for free (just like most game devs struggle to get anyone to play their games - even when they're pretty good).
So really, if this art project does succeed it could be an interesting new distribution channel!
[+] [-] timdaub|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattdesl|4 years ago|reply
[1] - https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/hicetnunc-and-the-merits-of-...
[+] [-] andrefuchs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manigandham|4 years ago|reply
But it's a very meta "art" piece as described by the article, especially if it also serves as an NFT asset itself. Will be interesting to see how how far this layer cake will go.
[+] [-] cm2187|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispyporkbites|4 years ago|reply
The platform providers would still need to agree that a specific blockchain / NFT is actually the source of truth, and so it's not really trustless. But the internet itself isn't perfectly decentralized either. I could see a future where developers could enable web3 support in their games/apps and allow importing assets, identities etc. between platforms, which would be nice.
[+] [-] input_sh|4 years ago|reply
Why would an asset designed for one game make sense or look good or feel at home in a completely different one?
Why would companies make one of them and sell it for a million bucks instead of trying to convince more players to buy it in a shop for two bucks?
Is the mechanic of a weapon gonna adjust to the new game when you import it or stay the same? If it stays the same, it's gonna be exploit galore. If it changes, well then, what's the point? Gonna be the same AK-47 as everyone else's, but this tiny sticker on it that nobody's gonna pay attention to is unique!
Even if we pretend this is somehow a promising field, why even use NFTs and make each one a couple of pixels different instead of making a common one, selling it for like $50, buyers get a file in whichever format is agreed upon, and import them in the settings?
[+] [-] wpietri|4 years ago|reply
Are NFTs likely to do that? No. Why would game/platform creators do a ton of work so they could make less money? And even if they wanted to, which they won't, why would they bless some specific blockchain with that power? If that is at all viable, somebody like Steam or Amazon will want it to be their own digital assets registry that wins. For that, they don't need a blockchain, just a database.
[+] [-] Gigachad|4 years ago|reply
NFTs along with all non money crypto feel like a solution in search of a problem. And all of these solutions are things already possible and easier without crypto.
[+] [-] butz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dorkwood|4 years ago|reply
Is this something that players desire to do?
[+] [-] Hamuko|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghuntley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] framecowbird|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sebow|4 years ago|reply
Gotta love this logic.So if i don't right-click your precious NFT I don't pirate it, how about if i get it from my browser's image cache?Am i pirating it then or not?(I'm not going into copying and selling, which is more nuanced, but even then one could argue in the same manner).
To me these questions are extremely rhetorical, especially if one believes in the concept of property. If you don't want to freely give people copies of your precious hard work,don't put it on the internet, period, not even under a protected information system. I would further argue on this principle about computer security aswell, but that actually requires understanding how computers work, which the vast majority doesn't know.
By putting your work publicly available you already explicitly give permission on people to copy your bits into their computers(a.k.a viewing).I guess people think machines are like humans and automatically "forget" what they see, thus enforcing the value of copyright.
[+] [-] da39a3ee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghuntley|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] granaldo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GoodJokes|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] easytiger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invalidusernam3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lottin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clippablematt|4 years ago|reply
Thanks for backing up all the art dude. Much appreciated.
[+] [-] andrewxdiamond|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1ark|4 years ago|reply