[dageshi]

The paradigm shift is that this is an agreed method of determining who has the right to sell a digital asset via an internet native method. You can look at the same bytes all you want, but you can't sell them, the owner of the NFT can, the same way you can look at a painting in a museum, but you don't own it and can't sell it.

Before there were walled gardens of this. Skins in something like CSGO being a good example, you could have a very valuable skin in CSGO but valve determines whether you own it or not and have the right to sell it. With NFT there's no central authority that says you have the right to sell something, you just do...

I honestly think this is a pretty powerful thing, I'm interested to see where it goes.

[ALittleLight]

Agreed upon by whom? I don't agree to it. I think I own the first tweet. I'm willing to sell it to you though - for only 10 dollars!

It seems worse than the "I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" scam, because, at least in that case, you're trying to buy something valuable. Here, you're trying to pay for the rights for some people to say you own something? Madness.

[quickthrower2]

Naming a star and buying the Brooklyn Bridge are 2 great analogies of this. I also think it’s speculation because of the crypto bubble meaning the concept of buying a token a flipping it for a higher price has been proven to be a thing in a big way. Unlike a domain name these tokens have no intrinsic value outside of the domain of being a token and the psychology of people.

[dageshi]

Do you have the NFT that Jack Dorsey originally and publically sold that establishes the right to sell?

If you don't then you have no credible ability to sell it, if you do... then maybe I'm interested.

[ALittleLight]

I have something better. I have the ALL*-NFT that gives ownership of the NFT that Dorsey originally sold. Logically, if you own the token conferring ownership of the tweet, then you must open the tweet.

Just send me the money. I'll create a row in a sqlite database specifying you own the NFT, burn that on to a read only CD and mail it to you!

* - ALittleLight

[adnzzzzZ]

By the market. If someone has item A that's worth 10 million dollars and you have that same item A but it was only sold for 10 dollars then the first item A, despite being the same as yours, is more valuable, and therefore people and eventually apps will deal with it rather than with yours.

In general items sold by their original authors will be more valuable (and you can already see evidence of this being wrong or right on the network), so this seems like a fine way of going about it.

[notahacker]

> If someone has item A that's worth 10 million dollars and you have that same item A but it was only sold for 10 dollars then the first item A, despite being the same as yours, is more valuable, and therefore people and eventually apps will deal with it rather than with yours.

That's not "the market", that's sunk cost fallacy. If I buy a painting in a jumble sale for £5 and a reputable auctioneer confirms it's a genuine Picasso original, collectors will be willing to pay millions for it. If I spend £1m on a print or a painting by my sister, the auctioneer will still tell me none of their collectors are interested.

[adnzzzzZ]

As I said, in general the most valuable versions of items will be from original authors and not from your sister.

[notahacker]

My sister did the painting! Her paintings are original and absolutely fine, just not remotely interesting to collectors. Me paying a silly amount for it has no real effect on that. Similarly, a Picasso picked up for cheap from someone who didn't understand art is still worth millions because collectors care about the current and future desirability of Picasso originals, not whether the last buyer/seller was an idiot. And collectors obviously also pay a lot more in real terms for Picassos than anyone ever paid Picasso.

Or to look more closely at your example, the resale values of a mint condition Harry Potter first edition bought for £10 and a Harry Potter first edition bought for £30k are exactly the same and exactly the same collectors and auctioneers will deal with it, precisely because assets are identical and the market cares about how collectible the asset is rather than its individual historic price. (The market price of a first edition owned by Rowling herself is also the same, but she can change that pretty easily with a signature to make it more 'special' than other first editions)

[lottin]

A painting in a museum is a physical object, it cannot be hung on two different walls simultaneously. This is why we need private property. Private property simply means that the owner of a good has the right to prevent others from consuming it or, in the case of a painting, from taking it and hanging it in their living room. None of this applies to tweets, which are not physical objects. You could theoretically exclude other people from reading certain tweets, limiting their freedoms gratuitously, but this is not what NFT art is about either. NFT art apparently is about selling "property rights" on something that doesn't really exist and that consequently don't confer the owner any actual right. The crypto-scammers have truly outdone themselves with this one.