So now we have no Banksy painting but someone has a crypto token that says “This represents a Banksy painting” in the code?
Since there’s nothing to own or even point to, what’s stopping a second party from claiming they actually have the original Banksy NFT and selling their own? Just the time stamps on the blockchain?
What a miserable destruction of real art to profit on a trading frenzy.
Yup. You understand NFTs. You are not paying for the product, because once it's minted into an NFT, it's right there in public for anyone to copy; so it can't be used to do things like protect digital art. What you're actually paying for is the ability to say "this person _definitely_ gave me this item". That's still potentially useful in some use cases, like proof-of-ownership of software or tickets, but the way it's being branded as "wow you can own a banksy on the blockchain" is absolute garbage. Somebody actually paid millions of dollars just to be able to say "the artists that burned a banksy gave me this scanned jpeg."
Private keys don't verify that an NFT was authorized by the owners of the painting. You're still relying on real-world trust and claims that the NFT you're buying was the "real" NFT.
If the owners of the Banksy came out a few days later and claimed that someone else sold a fake Banksy NFT, but they're now going to sell the real NFT, the private keys won't help.
I am not sure why I got down votes here. If you are buying a NFT for an artwork that is not confirmed to have been created by the author of that artwork then surely you are just stupid?
Only Banksy can mint an NFT for his artwork for it to be of ANY value. The same way that only Banksy can create Banksy art.
Public-private key encryption is how you verify that something was signed by the original author.
It's the same problem that always comes into play for crypto: either people have to accept the crypto as currency (which almost no institution that must buy things and pay taxes can do; the IRS doesn't accept bitcoin...) or there have to be gatekeepers to interact with the blockchain.
This can either be a crypto exchange (regulated on conversion to fiat, lest they get shut down by some SEC thing) or on those "vote on the blockchain" or "verified supply chain on the blockchain" things: eventually some non-blockchain entity has to be trusted enough to set state on the blockchain (e.g. "party A did indeed fulfill the contract to party B. please fulfill this smart contract", or "your food ingredient was prepared in accordance to your green/bio label's requirements").
Excuse my ignorance, because I haven't looked into NFTs too carefully, but how do you decide which blockchain (or even block) is authoritative for a given item? Seems like something like a painting could be sold on an unlimited number of chains? If it's time priority (oldest wins), what's preventing miners from copying artwork from slower chains before they're included in a block?
I'm sorry, but respectfully, you don't understand the modern art world: the destruction of the physical object and the creation of the NFT was, in this specific instance, the work of art itself. The art world has taken "meta" to extreme dimensions Internet Culture will not realize, perhaps ever.
True - if banana with tape is art. You are already deep into lala land. NFT is atleast sane and consistent on some level.
I mean aren't works of art exactly NFT in real life. Sometimes they also happen to look pretty to look at seems to be a archiach byproduct.
Look, if it's okay to buy limited edition numbered tins with the feces of an artist for 300k then it means anything goes. I don't understand where all these "Destroyed with Facts and Logic" people are coming from.
Its clown world out there already. Maybe, you're just too old to like the new clowns. Nothing wrong about that.
Please, stop calling any non-essential use of energy that you're looking to smear, "evil". Are movies, which consume energy in their production and consumption, also evil? Video games? No, because you personally see the entertainment they provide as redeeming?
If people want to expend their own resources on NFTs, that's entirely their right to do so, and calling it evil because the process consumed energy is absurd.
If you have a problem with CO2 emission, by all means advocate for laws requiring energy production to not emit CO2 as a by-product. But to single out some non-essential activity that you personally don't like because of the imagined motives of those behind it, while ignoring every other non-essential activity that uses energy, is disingenuous and irresponsible.
I really resent the community of grifters like yourself constantly pushing the stuff and defending its excesses.
I recently saw Twitter thread where a big pusher of NFTs was moaning on about how the real issue is we didn't create enough nuclear power plants and now we're blaming NFTs for this.
It's blatantly obvious that this is all a pyramid scheme capitalizing on people's complete ignorance and optimism with crypto. Enjoy your pyramid scheme and I hope you make out like a bandit and eventually develop a conscience for the people you're grifting.
I think he or she is saying that "climate change" is a ridiculously hyperbolic attack vector. And they're right. Of all the idiotic aspects there are to NFT's, Ethereum energy consumption may not crack the Top 100.
That has nothing to do with my point, which is that by no reasonable standard, can the people producing/buying/selling NFTs be singled out as "evil" for contributing to global warming.
You're obviously getting overly emotional, and throwing whatever you can at the people involved in cryptocurrency ("they're evil for using energy") to see what sticks.
I reiterate, it's a reckless and disingenuous way to conduct oneself, regardless of whether the underlying grievances motivating the hostility have merit.
This is basically a "what about" argument but in this case it does illustrate something valid. There are lots of things that benefit a segment of people and harm everyone. One I happen to notice regularly because I don't have one, is cars. They not only contribute massively to climate change; they also directly kill ~35,000 people annually in the US. Yet cars are beloved, sacred, unassailable to a majority of Americans. Are those people evil? No one alive can throw the word evil around without implicating oneself. The whole concept is just a religious overlay designed to try and mitigate a bunch of much older and ubiquitous human behaviors that suddenly became disruptive after we took up agriculture and settled in villages. (Which by the way, was itself "evil" in that it enabled a few to feed themselves, by taking land from "everyone" or at least all hunter-gatherers, and destroying the natural habitat that the land contained.)
Since there’s nothing to own or even point to, what’s stopping a second party from claiming they actually have the original Banksy NFT and selling their own? Just the time stamps on the blockchain?
What a miserable destruction of real art to profit on a trading frenzy.