magnet
1688
Astonishing.
The computation necessary to process a single Bitcoin transaction consumes more than one MWh, which is equivalent to the power consumption of an average U.S. household over 39 days. Overall, Bitcoin miners use about as much energy as the entire Netherlands.
I knew it was wasteful, but I never knew it was that wasteful.
Netherlands is 17 million people. 2-3 years ago, Bitcoin was eating up as much energy as Portugal, or 10 million people.
Elon is probably just trying to buy a GPU for a new gaming PC.
So he can play Star Citizen? :D
It’s just as legal as saying he’s thinking about trading you a Tesla for Pokémon cards, then selling all his Pokémon cards on eBay. Bitcoin is not money. It’s digital beanie babies.
We know it’s legal. We’re saying it shouldn’t be.
Thrag
1697
“the first-ever animated series curated entirely on the Blockchain”
Are they also creating a GUI in visual basic to track the killer’s IP address? WTF does this even mean!?
aeneas
1698
I think it just means that every frame as well as every episode will be available as NFTs, which advertisers will be able to license for promotional purposes. Like your Taco Bell Box’o’Tacos could have a Krapopolis frame inside which you redeem by scanning a QR code. I only hope that this idea has no actual appeal to anyone.
We live in the dumbest fucking era.
MikeJ
1701
Seriously, that’s insane.
How is this different from an animated feature like Snow White putting the original animation cels up for auction?
These are the main ways:
- They are digital assets rather than physcial objects
- They are being made preferentially available to show sponsors for licensing
- Presumably either the original owner or the licensor can create as many duplicate NFT’s as they want out of them (as they are digital assets)
- The individual assets are being marketed before the work as a whole is available
- NFT’s are a Ponzi scheme
Otherwise it’s pretty much the same thing.
Right, I get that they are physical assets instead of physical objects, which makes sense because shows don’t use physical animation cels anymore. And I have no idea how licensing would work for show sponsors.
But if the show produces one NFT per frame of animation, and sells that as an authentic frame from the show, how would it be conceptually any different than selling an original animation frame? The original owner could make duplicates, but I presume that would be just like an animation studio selling a reproduction of an original cel: The original is the original, and the reproduction would be sold and priced as a reproduction.
And sure, things are marketed and sold before they come out all the time. Movie rights are sold to a book before it’s published. Comics get word of mouth and the creator is so busy working on movie deals that he barely gets six issues of the comic done before moving on. I don’t think any of these problems are specific to the use of NFTs.
My understanding of it is similar to @Andy_Bates. NFTs are the signed baseball, signed frame, signed photo, signed painting, etc of digital anything.
I think its stupid how much baseball cards are worth, as do most people, but it doesn’t matter so long as someone is willing to pay that. See every piece of weird art that ever raised your eyebrow (e.g. gold plated elephant dung) selling for millions upon millions of dollars. NFTs with high price tags aren’t much different IMO.
I myself own a few pieces of signed photography that have some personal meaning to me, but will almost certainly never resell for what I paid (around $100 for a big signed print). That’s fine - I bought it to support the artist and because it has some connection to me, even if it is barely worth the photo paper its printed on. Again, I think NFTs occupy this niche just fine AFAIK.
But you actually have the painting in your possession. AIUI, NFT is a USB key or whatever that says you own the painting, which we promise exists and is stored in a location we also promise exists.
