1748

My understanding is there are two types of nodes - mining and validation.

1749

But transactions can’t be validated just by validation nodes, AFAIK (or not for more than a few minutes). Without mining, complete blocks can’t be verified and new blocks can’t be created.

1750

It’s on display at MOMA in New York, for one, but really anyone can own it if they want. It can’t be shipped, but it can be created or destroyed at will.

Oh that’s funny, because I own that exact same baseball card! Same condition too. So you own it, and I own it, and I didn’t get it from you. It’s almost like they made identical physical copies of the same thing. In fact, it’s exactly like that.

I’m still waiting for the point of this and how it applies to digital media.

1751

But no, not really. You would just be creating a hole in your wall. It wouldn’t be the one that he made. But it’s somewhat moot, since, as you say, the one he made can’t really be transferred or collected.

But no, you don’t.
You own another baseball card with the same player on it. It’s a different object.

You can’t own the exact same one as I do.

Again, this is the fundamental difference between digital objects and physical objects.

Even for objects where there are many copies of what they represent, like with baseball cards, there are still a finite number of them that were produced. If you want to own one of those original copies, and not a forgery, then you have to buy one from another person who owns it.

Now, you could buy a replica, but it wouldn’t really be the same. It would merely be similar. Indeed, this is how artwork is authenticated… Because you can tell a difference between the forgery and the real thing, largely owing to the fact that they are physical objects and it’s not really possible to recreate an object on the atomic scale. Even for forging an object that was once mass produced, it’s not really possible to perfectly replicate an instance of that process… That’s why people are able to tell fakes from authentic instances.

But with digital media, making absolutely perfect copies is trivial.

If I own a Picasso, I own something that man once touched with his hands. He created that particular object. There is summer physical connection between us at that point, that goes beyond what works be there if I were to simply buy a reproduction, which is why a reproduction is not worth anywhere close to the same amount on the market.

But with digital media, there’s no possibility for such a thing to occur. There is no physical object to create a connection. There is singular instance of the object that exists in the real world. Indeed, the object itself doesn’t exist at all. It’s merely a sequence of numbers, being rendered. It doesn’t exist in a physical sense.

Now, you can copyright it, and we have IP laws to protect such things, but an individual copy of a perky abstract object has no inherent value.

1752

The one on display at MOMA isn’t the one that he made. From the document about recreating the work:

Recreating this work ignores the privileges of its ownership, rendering it accessible to anyone willing to re-make it. Recreating the work also democratizes access to the work taking it out of a single person’s or institution’s control.

By re-creating Weiner’s work based on the instructions given in this guide, you don’t have to wait for a museum or gallery to present it in the city where you live. You also get a direct experience of the work that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

Gaining access to important historical works like this one in a direct manner is crucial for understanding developments and ways of thinking within art. This work was recreated several times for different exhibitions with no one version of it being more important than any other was. We believe that works recreated accurately using our guide should be accorded a similar weight.

In other words, the point of the artwork is that anyone can own it, and all copies are equally valid.

And now you’re arguing semantics. On one level, sure, every object is different than every other object. But realistically and practically, people don’t talk that way. If someone sees a book on my shelf and says “Oh I have that book!”, I don’t go “Wait when did you break into house and steal it?!?” And if you have a mint condition baseball card and I have the same baseball card in mint condition, then the two are identical in terms of collectability and value, and if someone came in and swapped them overnight then no one would ever notice or care. For all intents and purposes, they are identical, even though one is at your house and the other one is at my house. Just like digital copies.

It sounds like you’re talking about NFTs, where there are a finite number produced, and the ownership chain is a matter of public record.

I think you’re drastically underestimating the abilities of people to make copies of a physical object, especially one that was once mass produced. But even assuming that your argument is correct, you still haven’t proven why “the inability to make a perfect copy” is a requirement for something to be “art” or collectible.

And the whole point of NFTs (I can’t believe you’re actually making me defend NFTs) is that you CAN’T make a perfect copy, because the NFT tracks the ownership chain. You would have a separate copy that looks the same, but is actually a forgery.

1753

Here’s what it comes down to: If you own a baseball card, and I own the exact same card in the exact same condition, you consider those to be two separate objects, since one is at your house and one is at my house.

But if you have a piece of digital artwork, and I have the exact same digital artwork, you consider those to be the same object, even though one is at your house and one is at my house? If two objects are different because the molecules are different, then why are two objects the same even though the magnetic representation of the bits on a hard drive are different?

1754

Ok then. Doesn’t seem like this is really something that anyone can collect or buy and sell then. Not really sure how it fits into this discussion.

Yeah, they totally do. The value of physical objects comes in part from their uniqueness and the scarcity that results in.

In some cases, like for instance, Steve McQueen’s mustang, the main component of that car’s value isn’t based on the fact that it’s a 1968 mustang GT. The reason that it’s worth $3.4 million is because it’s THAT specific 1968 mustang GT. This is routinely the fact with things like movie props… Stuff that was from actual production is worth more than replicas… Stuff that was actually used on screen is worth more than stuff it wasn’t, partially because it’s the actual physical object you see when you watch the film.

There’s a component of the value from physical objects which is intrinsically linked to their nature as physical objects. There have a history in the world.

Digital objects don’t have that.

Except the NFT isn’t the art, right? It’s just a number.

I can take that media, without the NFT, and it’s going to be exactly the same. That picture, or video, or whatever. It’s going to be, literally, EXACTLY the same.

But if I have a baseball card, you can’t just snap your fingers and have a perfect copy of it. And that’s why it’s different.

If your belief is that people can trivially make perfect reproductions of physical artwork and collectibles, I don’t know what to tell you. You could
make a LOT of money selling counterfeits then, dude, since you can worthwhile create perfect replicas that no one could identify as fake.

1755

lol you guys are arguing about whether lighting the planet on fire in search of inefficiencies in a wholly fictional market is a good idea

Punctuation fails me.

1756

But someone might make some money maybe.

1757

Ask me any time whether any particular output for rich people gambling their ill-gotten gains is worth it for society to encourage.

1758

It’s mainly just a way for people to grift people.

1759

image
image500×505 50.4 KB

1760

You’re arguing about a metaphor between the digital and the real world like it’s exactly/the opposite of a thing with a fairly open ended definition in the real world. It’s not going to work.
So, as before, there’s the thing itself, there’s the certificate, but there’s also the artistic value and how much it adds or subtracts to the financial value. Whether those apply to the former two is up to whoever cares about the later two, with the real to digital difference being lack of degradation and ease of copy, although the later is still protected legally to whatever that’s worth.
And it could a grift, but it could also be another instance of flexing ownership by throwing money at it having it’s own social value. It’s only the extent of the practical uselessness and environment waste for the pure purpose of showmanship that is new, not that such things exist. And that is not really surprising given the level of “I make more than I could possibly throw away” that exists.

1761

Yeah, but you’re using the internet, which consumes electricity, so your argument is moot!

…Is how Andy Bates has decided to rationalize this particular bit of madness.

1762

So you’re just manufacturing arguments for me now? Or is this actually based on something I said?

1763

Because you said that physical (non-digital) artwork is a “unique physical object” and therefore has value that digital artwork does not. But this particular piece of artwork is the counterargument to that, since it can be infinitely and easily reproduced. So there are pieces of physical artwork that have value, and pieces of physical artwork that don’t, just like there are pieces of digital artwork that have value and pieces that don’t.

But saying that Steve McQueen’s 1968 Mustang GT is unique because it was owned by him is very different than you saying that your baseball card is unique because its molecules are different from the molecules of another copy of the exact same baseball card. Steve McQueen’s car has value because it is a unique, specific vehicle; your baseball card is not unique because it is one of a set of identical cards. It has scarcity because it is limited to a run of 100,000 or whatever, but your card in mint condition is no more or less valuable then my identical card in mint condition. There’s no sense of “uniqueness” in that your card is made up of its own molecules. It is an identical copy, just like copying a digital file.

They do if they are created as NFTs. That’s what this whole discussion is about.

When I previous mentioned having 1 of 100 prints that are exactly the same, you said:

So if there are 100 identical prints, you say that they’re each unique because they’re numbered. But if you have a 100 NFTs of the same piece of artwork, you say that “without the NFT…it’s going to be exactly the same.” Why is it okay for you to strip off the unique identifier in one case, but not the other case? It seems like you’re being inconsistent.

If you copy the digital media without the NFT, then you’re creating something different that is no longer unique. You’re basically making a forgery. And you could argue that it’s a perfect forgery because the media is the same, but it’s trivial to determine that it’s no longer an NFT, and is therefore not the same as the original.

And sure, you can’t snap your fingers to make a copy of a baseball card, or a print, or whatever. Physical media is more difficult to reproduce…but it is possible. I can get a print, study the paper stock and the inks used, and then make a perfect reproduction of that. Scientists can grow an amethyst in a lab that is indistinguishable on a molecular level from a natural amethyst. I could duct-tape a banana to my wall and claim that it’s the one that was sold for $120,000. Forgeries exist.

So your argument has gone from “digital art isn’t valuable because you can make perfect copies, which you can’t do with physical media” to “digital art isn’t valuable because you can make perfect copies (without the NFT), but it’s really hard to make copies of physical media.” So now you just have to show why “it’s really really hard to make a copy” is what distinguishes “collectible” from “not collectible.”

1764

Let me use a simpler example: People sell frames of film from movies, and those items have some sort of value. Maybe you get a frame from your favorite movies, and it’s worth $20 to you, even though it’s just a print of the film and there can be any number of prints out there. There’s nothing really unique about that piece of celluloid, besides the fact that it’s The One You Own.

Now let’s say that Pixar wants to sell a frame from Toy Story 2. But instead of selling a physical film print (of which there can be any number of copies), they’re selling the raw uncompressed digital source file at 4K resolution or something. And just to make sure it’s unique, they sell it as a unique NFT. So this is frame #16,384 from Toy Story 2, 1 of 1, never to minted or sold again.

Don’t you think that might be worth it to some people, to have a unique digital frame from Toy Story 2? It’s the same concept as selling a frame of film, but theoretically it’s more valuable since it’s a unique digital item instead of just a frame from a film print. It would be more like buying a unique animation cel. So how is a unique animation cel something that has value because it’s physical, but a unique digital frame is not valuable because it’s digital?

1765

But this artwork doesn’t have value, as you have stated, so it kind of proves my point by falling into same category as the infinitely reproducible digital artwork.

The baseball card has value because there are a finite number of them, and if you want one, you need to buy one from that finite set. If you were able to magically create perfect replicas of them at will, then they too wouldn’t really have value as collectible objects.

The physical nature of the objects also have other impacts on their value, in that physical objects tend to degrade over time and that impacts their value. In the case of baseball cards, older cards tend to be worth more as a direct result of their age meaning that there are fewer instances of them.

But it’s not the same as an digital copy, because you can’t make another identical copy at will.

No, they don’t. The NFT has scarcity. The digital object doesn’t.

With physical prints, the number is actually part of the work, but honestly there a finite number of the physical objects, while there are an infinite number of digital copies of digital objects.

As I said, people are free to collect whatever they want. Maybe that’s worth something to that person.

But they wouldn’t be owning anything unique. In the case of Toy Story, that media has already been copied over and over again, and probably exists on a million different devices. Not even counting copies that end users have, its nature as digital media means that it was copied a ton of times before the movie was even released.

The only thing the NFT provides, is a history of the exchange with someone.

So, in that case, it’s just saying, “Hey, I paid Pixar money.” That’s all. That copy of the media that you received in that exchange is no different than any other copy of it.

Now, maybe you find value in that exchange with Pixar, I dunno.

At this point, I’m not really interested in discussing this any more.

1766

I think part of the real problem with NFTs is that it isn’t clear (to me, maybe it is to somebody) exactly what rights the supposed ownership of the NFT is supposed to provide. With physical objects, ownership confers a right to access / usage, which digital assets self evidently do not.

So, owning an NFT of a digital asset is probably more analogous to owning the IP of that asset. However, the rights conferred seem more like that of a collectible than that of an IP. Owning an IP grants a (constrained, subject to fair use, etc) legal right to prevent others from reproducing your work, but in the case of NFTs, this doesn’t seem to apply, and it would be impossible to enforce anyways. Are there specific terms in the NFTs about what rights it confers? If I own frame 162394 of Toy Story, do I get to sue for any profits if somebody else puts that frame on a shirt? I doubt Disney would agree to that, because the actual IP belongs to them, and they aren’t going to give me free reign to reproduce it however I want.

So, it seems most likely that “ownership” here is purely nominal, essentially for bragging rights. The value of the NFT is purely based on what you can convince a buyer that it’s worth. Without exclusive reproduction or access rights, I feel like you’re going to have a much harder time convincing anybody, but ultimately it’s up to them.

I feel like @Timex, you’ve come down on the opposite end of this argument when discussing e.g. a Labor or Utility based Theory of Value (although I could be mistaken). In a free market, there’s no intrinsic value to anything, just what other people are willing to pay for it. You maintain that without exclusive access, there’s no inherent value to “owning” digital assets, but the market seems to disagree (for the moment, I suspect that will change).

1767

This is absolutely true. My argument here is essentially my PERSONAL view of why there’s no value in an NFT. However, I’ve explicitly stated a few times that people are totally free to collect whatever they want.

There’s nothing preventing someone from assigning value to an NFT… I’m merely explaining how it’s different from other physical artwork.

It’s possible that those differences don’t matter to someone. There was a time when tons of people thought tulip bulbs were worth more than gold. I’m not, personally, that into tulips though.