[danuker]

I was about to praise this tool for exposing the artificial scarcity that are NFTs. It is trivial to mint your own copy.

Then I read the following in the FAQ:

> The price for a replica starts at 0.001 ETH. Each time a particular NFT piece is replicated, its next replication cost will double. So be sure to replicate popular pieces early!

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

They also have:

> Why can't I replicate a replica?

> Do you want black holes? Because that's how you get black holes.

Pretty sure the pricing is part of the whole joke[0]. It sounds an awful lot like the fictional cryptocurrency I came up with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26120703

[0] God I do hope it is a joke

[andybak]

So somebody will launch a rival without this limitation.

The quicker can we play through this entire thing, the sooner it will be over.

[globetro]

I'm the creator of this tool. I understand the skepticism on that bit, but the reason I put the doubling price thing in was to just encourage some mild amount of urgency to at least make a transaction.

In practicality, with the abundance of popular NFTs out there and the starting price of just 0.001 ETH (which is around 4 bucks), I'm not exactly expecting to make much from this. Hell, it cost me over $400 in gas fees just to deploy the contract, I'd be counting my lucky stars if I even recoup that!

And to be clear, the price doubling is not global, but applied to each specific source NFT.

[Kiro]

They are not copies though. They are replicas. The original is still unique. You're buying an entry on the blockchain and the scarcity of that is real.

[andybak]

> the scarcity of that is real.

Scarcity on it's own does not equal value. The value comes either from social consensus or direct utility.

Real numbers are scarce. There's only one of each.

[loceng]

This thread is the perfect example of a lack of grounded thinking in the Bitcoin/crypto community - a disconnect from practical reality.

I first noticed this incongruence with time tested business models when all Bitcoin related business plans/pitch decks, they'd never even list price comparisons as a competitive factor - arguably the #1 most important metric to address when wanting to disrupt an industry or model.

[Kiro]

I don't think the crypto community thinks it's magically is something it's not. Most serious NFT investors are probably well aware that all they're buying is just a ledger entry.

Blockchain has almost no practical uses right now but it does provide a way to make something digitally unique, even if it's just a JSON with an ID and an URL. Not saying the data is unique but the ledger entry is. Only one wallet can own it at a time and it's easily proven. Maybe it will never have any practical applications but I don't see how that could be done without a blockchain.

[reaperducer]

Scarcity on it's own does not equal value

This is an important point that a lot of the crypto bros don't seem to grasp.

Antiques and thrift stores are crammed with millions of things that are scarce. One-of-a-kind, even. But still nobody wants them. Eventually the cost of storing them becomes more than they're worth, and they go into the trash.

[theWreckluse]

> Real numbers are scarce. There’s only one of each.

This gives me ideas! Who wants to join me in this new fad?

[andybak]

I've already claimed all the rationals so hurry up.

[vanusa]

You're buying an entry on the blockchain and the scarcity of that is real.

Except that unlike the original object, or even a replica, "an entry on the blockchain" has -- no intrinsic value whatsoever. It's basically like you're buying the rights to a "Like" on that painting, or trading card, or whatever. Nothing more.

My hunch though is that 90 percent of the people buying these things are utterly oblivious to this distinction. And that, plus "it's new" and "it's value is just going to keep skyrocketing" is essentially what is driving the NFT "market" as such.

[Kiro]

I don't claim it has intrinsic value (what has?) but it's still scarce. There's one entry on the blockchain and it's unique, even if it's just a number and a trace to the original wallet.

I also don't disagree with your second paragraph.

[vanusa]

I don't claim it has intrinsic value (what has?)

Gosh, I don't know -- a loaf of bread? A shiny new car?

Do you understand the meaning of the word, actually?

But it's still scarce.

So what?

[Kiro]

Why the attitude? I'm responding to a post saying it is not actually scarce and explaining why I think it is. I'm not arguing for NFTs, but even if I did I don't think it warrants such a snarky response.

Anyway, my point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.

[vanusa]

Why the attitude?

I didn't mean to come across with attitude.

Only that your question about intrinsic value seemed rather .. weird.

My point with that parentheses was that there are a lot of things that has no intrinsic value but still has value on the market.

Can you provide some examples, please?

I can think of plenty of market assets which have what we might say is slightly abstract kind of value -- "brands", naming rights to stadiums, etc -- but still, it's pretty straightforward to see the intrinsic utility they provide, and that this easily translates to dollars.

With NFTs though -- there just isn't it any. Other than to sell to the next sucker in line.

EDIT: Wait, I can think of one asset class that compares to NFTs: signed sports memorabilia. Which of course have crap resale value (except for items signed by ancient players like Joe Dimaggio). But the modern versions team franchises regularly crank out -- not so much.

[NelsonMinar]

I own the only unique real copy of c6922832e65b60ab8517d7c1c5fd5911. Its scarcity, too, is real.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Hey, I own 6dee29bc-8798-4560-ba13-de94bac69333! We should start a club.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29509473

[NelsonMinar]

The remarkable thing about artisanal integers is there's an infinite number of them and yet each one is a beautiful hand-crafted keepsake. http://www.neverendingbooks.org/artisanal-integers

[Kiro]

Not sure what you're saying here but if you put c6922832e65b60ab8517d7c1c5fd5911 as a token on the blockchain there will indeed only be one with only one owner (you). The uniqueness is that it was minted by your wallet. There cannot be another entry like that.

NFTs are mostly just that. An ID minted by Wallet X which itself is unique and the social contract gives it a value. That's it.

[NelsonMinar]

Thank goodness your use of c6922832e65b60ab8517d7c1c5fd5911 did not impinge on my personal ownership of this valuable number. Plznorightclick.

[Kiro]

Alright. I take it you don't want to discuss this seriously.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

My number is owned by me. I have signed it and everything. If someone agrees to buy it from me I will use the same public key to sign the transfer. Would you like to buy it? It's a UUID, so it is guaranteed to be unique.

[danuker]

How can you tell the whether a given piece is original? You'd have to build a database of all NFTs in order to check. And perhaps the new image is slightly altered making it original.

[vmception]

You check the contract address of the collection. These replicas will point to an image url, but will not be part of the NFT collection that was launched. By their very nature, these only replicate existing NFTs, so the earlier NFT is clearly the provenance.

I guess one important thing to understand in these discussions is who exactly are you worried about?

-The original creator?

-The initial purchaser/minter from the original creator's collection?

-The person that currently owns the item in that collection?

-The replicator?

-The replicator that tries to sell a replicant?

-A future buyer that is trying to figure out which one to buy?

These are all distinct people with distinct realities. But people arbitrarily talk about a random one of these market participants as an indictment of the entire NFT concept, when each one is experiencing something unique that is either the same as the existing art world or better. Out of all 6 market participants, none of them encounter something worse than the non-NFT art world. Out of all 6, some of them encounter something better.

[Kiro]

You see that it was minted by Wallet X, which the artist has confirmed is theirs. The image it's pointing to is irrelevant. You're buying a unique digital signature.

Is it inherently valuable? No, but it's scarce. There's only one such entry on the blockchain and it can only be owned by one wallet at a time.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

But anyone can create infinite ledgers and create their own entries on those ledgers all day. Snowflakes are unique too, but that doesn't mean any of them are particularly valuable.

[Kiro]

What matters is who issued it. If you buy an NFT of a Tyler Hobbs painting it's valuable because it was minted by Tyler Hobbs. That one is on one ledger only and even if he himself starts putting it on multiple ledgers it would devalue itself naturally.

It's all a social construct.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Sure, if you're going to argue from a position of economic nihilism that the only value anything is determined by what some idiot is willing to pay for it, then you can call that NFT valuable. That isn't much of a discussion though is it? Since I could also call Beanie Babies and tulip bulbs valuable. If I give my friend $100 for a red paperclip and he gives me $100 for a green paperclip could say those paperclips were worth $100.

[miracle2k]

Right. You just ask the artist. And if you don't care who the artist is, then you can always buy the replica.

[Kiro]

Yes, and I think a lot of people don't understand what they're buying and are just blinded by the hype. However, what gives say an NFT of one of Tyler Hobbs generative art paintings value is the fact that it was issued by Tyler Hobbs as part of his Fidenza collection. A random person uploading the same painting wouldn't be worth much if anything, unless the person buying it was tricked into thinking it was part of the original collection.

[contravariant]

The word 'artificial' is similar but not quite the same as 'fake'.