Hacker News Reader

Comment by outside1234 | Hacker News Reader

Why would anyone want a digital autograph?

It is not like you can frame this in your living room - what is the appeal?

Well, if you own the rights to something, you can control the commercial use of it (assuming non-commercial use is not worth the effort to restrict). I leave the commercial utility of Jack's first tweet as an exercise for others (because I have no clue).

Sure, but that's a legal right that lives in law, not on the blockchain.

And I'd be shocked if this NFT actually included that sort of ownership as part of the deal.

I don't think NFTs almost ever attach any intellectual property or copyright ownership to possession of the NFT.

It's more like a collectors card of some thing. Purely abstract.

At The International 2013 (a DotA tournament), in person viewers received "autographs" of the players that could attached to items in game. I told them on the Steam market place for almost $1,000.

In that case there was scarcity in the game. A limited number of people could display these on their profiles/ complete a collection. Compared to a Tweet that anyone can view and that the buyer has no control over it doesn’t seem to be quite the same thing. A Tweet equivalent might be if the purchased Tweet was now only viewable on the buyers timeline.

It's exclusivity. This is just creating something exclusive purely to be exclusive.

Each and every output of `uuidgen` is exclusive...

Yes but these are hard to forge. This is like a PGP-signed UUID in a bittorrent.

Just because something can't be or hard to forge it doesn't mean there's any value to it.

That's the madness behind the current trends: I genuinely fail to see value. Unique is not a guarantee for valuable.

Yup, and it would waste a lot less electricity too.

It's not just a current trend.

> Unique is not a guarantee for valuable...That's the madness behind the current trends...

Not sufficient, but maybe necessary, as the mathematicians would put it.

Why would anyone pay nearly $9.5 million for this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana_1c_magenta

It's certainly not great artwork (it's a crude hack job cranked out by a local printer when the shipment of real stamps didn't arrive on time). It's never been owned by anyone particularly famous (edit: well, the DuPont guy is somewhat (in)famous, but the stamp was extremely valuable even before he owned it). None of the people associated with its production are particularly famous. It doesn't play any kind of pivotal role in world history, or even the history of the former British Guiana.

The only reason it's worth $9.48 million is that there is only one of them.

Restricting energy is a sign of broken civilization

Self-restraint is a sign of an evolved ego.

Also: energy, or anything else, is not infinite. It HAS TO BE RESTRAINED.

Yes, but you wouldn't believe the lengths some people will go to to avoid fixing it.

Each and every output of `uuidgen` doesn't have meaning.

"Value" is a human construct that requires interpretation of information to form a narrative and meaning.

In contrast vanity tor addresses are valuable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com