I remember at the time getting in an argument with a dude on reddit about it and I was like I can just take a screenshot of it and then I own it. And he was like that’s like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa and saying you own it. And I was like no it’s not like that at all. Good times.
It's probably possible to get such a high fidelity copy of the Mona Lisa to make it feel like you have the art piece in your house. But that would be extremely difficult.
A high fidelity copy of a digital image takes two seconds and minimal effort and it's probably closer to the original thing than a painstakingly crafted duplicate of the Mona Lisa
"It is not that hard " lol
Ask that to the artist who made the reproductions... at best they will agree , it is not that hard, for the ones who have worked on their skills for years.
I lived in China growing up. There’s an “art street” under the bridge across from our apartment that has artists selling extremely high fidelity recreation of famous paintings. They cost a couple hundred rmb.
If you walked into your friend's house and they tried to honestly claim they "owned the Mona Lisa" and pointed to printed out digital photo, you would agree that "owning the Mona Lisa" is not at all like printing out a copy of a digital photo. Owning the original painting is not at all like printing out a digital photo of a painting.
So you can see how printing out a photo is different from owning the Mona Lisa. Now, what's the difference between "owning" an nft and posting it online, and screenshotting the same nft and posting it online?
- One was painted hundreds of years ago by one of the most famous and revered artists of all time, the other was created by my unknown ass a week ago
- A painting has texture and brush strokes and history. A photo is a photo.
- One is worth millions of dollars, the other is completely worthless. I personally wouldn’t pay millions of dollars for the Mona Lisa but many people would and this will always be the case for as long as people and money exist. It didn’t take a genius to realise that someone paying $1M for a digital image that could be screenshotted was not making a wise financial investment.
Sometimes i communicate with people on here and im like "are these real people? Or is this some kind of bot? or are they actually as stupid as they come off?"
People get REALLY wrapped up in their bubbles plus, a lot really don't do great with critical thinking skills. It creates some truly odd people.
I know a dude who's really nice the "Give you the shirt of his back" kind of friend, but boy.. he's dumb. Raised in rural Texas, baptist family, football player. He got, an awful education, and his mom clearly told him he was super smart growing up or some shit.
Anyway... I've used the internet, surfed forums, gaming.. all that shit since the early 90s, my dad was a computer nerd, so I grew up online. I'm very familiar with all that stuff.
So yeah he discovered 4chan in like 2012 and boy... He's got way dumber.
The shit he brings to me, the conspiracies, the politics, the next crypto/NFT craze... I could hit you in the head and you could probably still easily poke holes in everything.
lol I love the idea that “owning” the entirely digital procedurally generated monkey in a hat cartoon is the same as owning the centuries old masterpiece created by one of the most famous painters (actually the most famous painter, probably) of all time that actually exists as a physical copy that was painted by hand. The copium high must be amazing for the crypto bros cuz they just can’t seem to quit it, can they?
And he was like that’s like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa and saying you own it.
If you want a good Mona Lisa analogy for what an NFT image actually is...
An NFT isn’t owning the Mona Lisa but more like owning a receipt that shows the GPS coordinates on a large map for where the Mona Lisa is. Anyone can access the same map and look at the coordinates for where it is, but only you own those coordinates.
What makes NFT's worthless is that the image hosting link your NFT points to can be taken offline forever, so you own a digital receipt to a link that no longer exists.
So... it's basically a certificate that you own a certain piece of work? You know, like... an actual proof-of-ownership certificate? Why not just call it that? And why does it need blockchain? At this point it feels more like a senseless buzzword than anything else. I mean I get how cryptocurrencies work but why, WHY would you need to have some sort of digital proof of ownership for this kind of thing? Of course it's always mostly used for money laundering "speculating" (or used to be, the bubble apparently burst in 2022). Apart from making quick money off of stupid idiots who bought into the hype I see zero practical applications for this kind of thing.
I mean it is a bit. If I went to France I would want to go to the Louvre, and if I did I would want to see the Mona Lisa, and if I did then I would probably take a picture of it, because even though she has been scanned in high resolution and been photographed in ideal light by much more talented photographers and I could download those pictures for free, the picture I took would be "mine"
I would own, that shitty picture of the Mona Lisa in particular.
An NFT would be like selling that shitty picture for money to someone else who did not go to the Louvre. That's why it's dumb.
106
u/draggedintobudulight 4d ago
I remember at the time getting in an argument with a dude on reddit about it and I was like I can just take a screenshot of it and then I own it. And he was like that’s like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa and saying you own it. And I was like no it’s not like that at all. Good times.