If it helps: An NFT is a certificate that says you own the certificate. Yes, you read that right. It might also say “Look over there, that’s a JPEG!” But it may as well say “Look over there, that’s the Mona Lisa!” You still only bought the certificate. Wanna buy London Bridge?
6
27
2
121
If the art’s creator creates an NFT associated with a piece of reproducible, digital art, how is this different from a signed print? It just seems we’ve created the digital version of our analog stupidity
1
3
It’s different because you still don’t even own a copy of the print (notwithstanding the silliness of “owning” a digital copy of anything). You own a certificate that has a pointer to something.
1
7
True, but typically it’s very cheap to create your own print. So my point is that in both cases, it’s the silliness of wanting to create artificial ownership/value of an easy copiable reproducible of art in the first place
1
Replying to @stilkov @tastapod
If not for the energy thing and the ridiculous speculation going on at the moment, you could even argue it’s a legitimate source of income for artists (but only if they’re the ones selling the tokens, of course)

Nov 12, 2021 · 11:27 AM UTC

1
2
Replying to @stilkov
As we’ve discussed before, a digital artist could sell limited edition copies using PGP, which requires much less tech savvy by both parties and is trivially easy to execute and verify.
2
2
Sure, though once you include a mechanism for transferring ownership to a new owner, you’d have to build a more than trivial infrastructure.
1
more replies