Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 5732. (Read 26619975 times)

Whatever, dude or dudette, I am not selling you any or asking you to buy, but the overall dismissive attitude here is, frankly, bewildering to the n-th degree.
Reminds me of the attitude regarding bitcoin by the public at large several years ago.
Bitcoin developers/maintainers are making their own NFTs (on bitcoin side chain), yo.
EDIT: Correction. Although BMN (Blockstrem's mining thingie) is essentially an NFT, they choose to call it a Luxembourg investment contract (I guess because there are no NFT laws yet).

"Let the record show I have an NFT, of the painting of which's copyright you are accusing me of infringing, from a random blockchain that I have pulled out of my asshole."

Debatable, since I don't know if there are 'real" collectors, but you can tokenize some property as in my Blockstream NFT example. That looks quite real..and on btc side chain.

I guess we will see about that.
What exactly the law say specifically about bitcoin or blockchain in general?
Almost nothing to nothing so far, which does not make bitcoin any less valuable.

I don't think anyone buying top tier art really gives a shit about art for the sake of art. It's an investment, a thing to brag about, and a way to store value.

Some people think NFTs can serve those purposes. There is nothing else to it.

Not sure what your confusion is with.

Unless NFT are written into ownership/copyright law and it is thereby enforceable by law, then they are completely useless.

Doesn't matter what an NFT supposedly entitles you too...the supposed contract is worthless and unenforceable.

What physical enforcement?
In a museum, we are relying on "experts" to tell us what is genuine, but even experts are fooled sometimes.
There are very sophisticated forgers in a physical world.
https://artfulliving.com/art-forgery/

EDIT: btw, metadata IS part of the work itself, for sure, included in the NFT.

If I were a collector, I wouldn't be satisfied in feeling that the uniqueness of my piece is limited to a few bits of metadata in the signature - which, again, isn't part of the work itself, since other "unique" prints have the same exact data as their artistic content. Only physical enforcement of the link would give me that kind of satisfaction - along with possible returns.

Well, I am able to enjoy Van Gogh painting in person OR as wall paper while understanding the difference.
When i look at the wall paper, i have some thoughts about the fate, the universe, etc.
When i am in front of the physical painting, I pay attention to the minutia of the artist's work and how it becomes 'alive' at the distance.
When you own something, it is different from looking at something.
For myself, I like to look more than own, but some like to collect.
If their NFT shows artist's digital signatue, is validated on a blockchain and is basically immortal (hopefully), then collector might be satisfied in feeling that his/her 'piece' is unique, there is only ONE and there always be only one.

EDIT: BTW, Blockstream is selling essentially a bitcoin mining NFT (BMN) representing 20000th/s (>= 200 S19 machines worth) of hashing power for about $275000 (£ 200000). You can redeem all mined btc from it in 3 years.
Only non-US investors qualify (that f-g Howey test is ruining everything for us). Could be a good value as you cannot get one S19 for $2750, not even close. The drawback is that you have to put down $275K in one go. You can then sell on a secondary market in smaller chunks (0.1 BMN). If you are not in US and have $275 thou 'laying around', it maybe something to look at.

My issue with your point of view, Biodom, is that we are losing track of the raison d'etre for art - the enjoyment.

I understand a Van Gogh original is worth millions, and enjoying a copy or a hi res photo of it isn't the "same" thing in some sense.

But - if the work of art is digital to begin with, what's the relationship between artistic enjoyment and "originality" or "ownership" of the work? When it gets that philosophic, I start to smell smoke.

0.015 BTC for a full day seems reasonable if the Google site with 50% discount I found is up to date.  

Imagine that dude who spent 10,000 BTC on 2 pizzas at that rate.
2 pizzas or 1826 years worth of bad but good looking actresses.

Even if you had 20 of these per day it's beyond the mating capability of a lifetime.

If I were Laszlo I'd be concluding that pizzas are the worst invention in the history of mankind.

You seem not to understand the idea of artistic ownership.
Maybe your painting is worth $10 or , say, $100, but Van Gogh's is worth $100 mil.
Go ahead, make those copies, then try to sell.
Unique pieces of art are valuable. NFT allows an artist to sign their creation, establishing the link between a piece and it's creator.
Most of the works are digital to begin with, they're not photos of actual paintings.
If the artist will make 10 more copies, his/her name would be tarnished and value of his/her works diminished.
A photo of Mona Lisa is not the same as Mona Lisa not any more or less than the copy of my public address is the indication of my bitcoin ownership.


Not sure what the confusion is with. There should be a description of what NFT entitles you to, like with ANY contract.
NFTs will allow for partial ownership of valuable real estate, that's for sure, after the concept goes through a couple of iterations.
I am not buying any art NFTs since I am not knowledgeable enough to know the value, but I did buy some Decentraland parcels several years ago just for funzies.
Those were the early NFTs. No big deal if it zeroes out, but I did it since "Snow crash" is one of my most favorite books and I thought that it would be fun to own some.

Woo was first. (An account worth to follow, imho)

https://twitter.com/woonomic/status/1377095701595742218

Exactly my issue with NFTs. There could be a use for them, such as tracking actual physical assets: imagine owning an NFT for (part of) the Mona Lisa or something like that, and earning profit each time someone buys a ticket for the Louvre, or every time the work is loaned for an exhibition.

Same with the songs: I own the NFT, are the song rights now mine? Who gets the royalties on its uses - me or the person who sold me the NFT? If it isn't me, what exactly have I bought? The right to listen to the song? I've got my mp3 for that.

To those who haven't put much thought into this, there is a sole word which hasn't been addressed yet:
Copyright infringement

I think only NBA Topshot has this covered since they have paid the NBA and thus the players in that association in using their images & likeness in their NFT and they run those very same tokens on their own blockchain.

So with these artists selling their songs such as with the example of miss lohan,
are they giving up their rights to owning in it's creation in some way?
A lawyer would have something to say about it if she ever wants that NFT back saying it is covered under the copyright act of 1976 title 17.

Damn, I’d like to sweep her keys

So what's stopping me from taking a digital photo of a wall painting I own, and sell it as NFT art?

Nothing.

Under current ownership law, the purchaser of my NFT digital "painting" would receive nothing of value, and I would still retain ownership rights to my physical painting. I could create as many digital copies online as I want, keep selling them over and over again, and not lose ownership of the original painting. If it ever went to court, I could just claim that someone took the digital photo of the painting without my permission.

That's precisely why NFT is a scam.

"The Emperor has no clothes!"

MMcrypto's latest "Monster confluence" video is talking about cup and handle in the chart.
He's expecting $68,200 on the upside.

But then he's mostly just entertainment.  

In the same video he shares some cup and handle facts. He's looking at a cup of about 10 days and it says it should be 7 weeks minimum to be a real cup.
 

Interstellar (2014) too. One of the best movies I've ever watched. I'm a fan of Nolan's work, so I'm biased, but there's no argument that his work is unique and truly departs from the traditional, predictable, stereotypical style of movie making. Certainly not for everyone's taste.

A second viewing is almost essential (to me at least) for many of his movies, in order to fully appreciate the finer details, and make all the connections between the characters, events, objects, and timeline.

---

I see we're back where we were yesterday. Where's the volatility? Is Bitcoin turning into a stablecoin?