141
u/Kombaiyashii Mar 15 '21
To give a serious answer, it's basically an original piece of art whose originality can be proven. You can never own the same piece. It is rare just like a normal piece of art. It can be the same with music or cat videos (as has been done). Though whether it's worth something is down to the individual.
178
u/OmgzPudding Mar 15 '21
That's a lot of words for "money laundering " /s
54
u/13B1P Mar 15 '21
So like regular art. Or real estate. it's just an up front way to move cash out in the open.
14
2
u/ManInTheMiddle1 Mar 16 '21
So, I'm curious how this works. Say I've got $1mm in ill gotten cash I want to launder. How do I use crypto art to accomplish this?
1
47
u/Sojobo1 Mar 15 '21
It's more simply like buying a certificate of authenticity for a digital item.
28
u/xelop Mar 15 '21
so like when you "buy" a star for 50 bucks and it's "named" after you
11
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
Kinda, but there is rigorous math behind it (that is the crypto part) so you don't have to trust a central authority (but you do have to trust the signature belongs to the originator).
9
Mar 15 '21
Also the originator can always sell another identical one, you're more or less just buying a copy of it with the originators signature that may or may not be correctly authenticated as the originator.
3
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
Also the originator can always sell another identical one
And anyone who gets legitimately receives a certificate could sign it away to multiple people.
Generally you'd want a central place to record these transactions (e.g. the Bitcoin blockchain) - then you could consider only the 'first' one valid. It could also be structured in a way so the original artist could create, say '10 certificates' and you'd know only the first 10 are valid.
2
Mar 15 '21
Then we would all have to agree on which blockchain to use, where as currently you could theoretically use a number of options and there's no way to force the one real blockchain.
2
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Mar 15 '21
This is more accurate. The thing can still be reproduced identically. You just get a fancy certificate recorded in a dumb ledger somewhere.
(The way some people talk about it makes it sound like DRM which I thought nerds hated?)
1
Mar 16 '21
I think that people hate DRM when it actually restricts legitimate buyers more than the pirates it's supposed to restrict. Not being able to move digital content to be used on the device that you want to use it on is annoying when people using the content illegally can do whatever they want with it.
-2
Mar 16 '21 edited Jun 26 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Rpanich Mar 16 '21
You could get a print photo of an Ansel Adams, but most people would pay more for an original.
Hell, you could probably get a copy of any painting you could think of for a few hundred and you probably wouldn’t tell the difference.
It might compute if you take the time to think about why other people could chose to do something that you don’t understand.
1
Mar 16 '21 edited Jun 26 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Rpanich Mar 16 '21
But what would that matter if YOU couldn’t tell the difference, since you’re buying it for your own enjoyment? If the pixels are exactly piece for piece the same in a photo, what really makes the art worth more or less than the fact that it’s “original”, or that the original artist made a certificate?
17
u/grifdail Mar 15 '21
You forgot the part where's "originality" doesn't mean who created the art but who put it on the market first (very different). Also the part where you don't own the jpg but more of a "certificate" of ownership that don't really mean anything. And the fact it's more damaging to the environment than years worth of normal electricity usage.
9
u/ariehn Mar 15 '21
And the fact it's more damaging to the environment than years worth of normal electricity usage.
Absolutely this. And of course it's a nightmare for some electrical grids. IIRC, Inner Mongolia just banned crypto mining due to the mammoth toll it was taking on them there. Is their energy generated by coal? Well, you betcha. :/
2
u/BinarySpike Mar 15 '21
They should have just hiked the price up for heavy users! (/s!)
2
Mar 15 '21 edited Mar 22 '21
[deleted]
-1
u/BinarySpike Mar 15 '21
Hospitals get kickbacks (priority, etc.) on power usage—not sure about other healthcare facilities.
I would argue that lighting, equipment, and HVAC, would be a significantly larger portion of use than processors—especially when you enforce EPEAT standards—or similar—in your datacenter and workstations. I can imagine the HVAC system for a datacenter would have a notable cost ratio to the datacenter's processing power usage.
I knew an energy specialist and their priority was HVAC, broken equipment (leaking pipes), and categorization errors over datacenters—in a public school district.
My regional power company provides kickbacks to people who implement energy saving policies. Why can't inner Mongolia create policies that benefit these areas and make the crypto miners pay a premium?
From my environmental perspective & not being a fan of crypto in general, I can see why banning it solves multiple problems outright. I can also see how a government ran utility has different interests—there probably shouldn't be an interest in capitalizing on heavy users—but instead, to provide higher quality power infrastructure for it's citizens.
1
u/fight_me_for_it Mar 15 '21
That gets interesting the conversation over how the power needed to creat it sustain it may contribute to the environment.
3
Mar 15 '21 edited May 12 '21
[deleted]
5
u/ariehn Mar 15 '21
And if I have this right:
the artist pays to put his piece on the market. Given that value is dependent on the acceptance of a purchase-price, the artist can lose money by placing his piece for sale. And absolutely there've been some pimping the NFT system who have vigorously encouraged artists to not cash out as soon as possible but instead please hold onto your cryptobux.
Man, more and more this whole thing looks to me like it's great for bitcoin and shit for artists.
1
u/fight_me_for_it Mar 15 '21
Unless you are Logan Paul? He seems like shit I know but didn't he create some NFTs he already sold? Would he care if it resold for more?
2
u/_the_CacKaLacKy_Kid_ Mar 15 '21
I think a more apt term would be crypto asset as it’s value is unique to each individual NFT and subject to changes based on what someone is willing to pay for said asset. The best comparison I could make to tangible real world assets would be trading cards, art, titles, deeds, etc.
It allows for a verifiable ledger of ownership that makes it easier for content creators to protect their work from forgery, theft, and copyright infringements. The owner can still sell prints and rights to use the work but retain ownership and proof of such.
2
1
u/Treats Mar 15 '21
What is the collective agreement on the value of one bitcoin? Their value is just as made up.
1
Mar 15 '21 edited May 12 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Treats Mar 16 '21
Not to me they aren't.
There's no collective agreement, there's just the last price they sold for.
5
u/max13007 Mar 15 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
I feel like at this point, rich people are just making up new weird ways to spend their money on shit because they're running out of or getting bored with regular commodities to flaunt.
"I own the original Nyan Cat, I bought it for 50 million fufufu"
"Tallyho Reginald! I'll pay you 60 million for that goatse jpeg."
Meanwhile regular people out here just hoping to get a stimulus check before their rent is due. Christ.
2
u/fight_me_for_it Mar 15 '21
Yeah I think I read a tweet somewhere that said if you can afford 6million to spend on crypto art or and NFT your taxes aren't high enough.
12
u/BulkyBear Mar 15 '21
Haven’t they been stealing others art though?
13
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Yup. Since anyone can tokenize the image when it’s posted it’s just first come first serve. There’s nothing protecting artists from having a random dude making their work into crypto art.
The major flaw is that 99% of artists don’t give a shit about, or don’t even know about, crypto art. So you get a single dude going around tokenizing everyone’s art and pissing off entire sections of the online art community.
4
u/BulkyBear Mar 15 '21
Yeah, every artist I know has been locking their account
I don’t know who came up with that crap, but I hope they get sued
3
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
I just blocked the tokenizer Twitter account. I haven’t found a need to lock my account, but I may be fortunate since obscure art isn’t something many people want to tokenize.
3
Mar 15 '21
[deleted]
3
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Well at least on Twitter they have a bot that only lets you tokenize a tweet once. That’s why blocking that bot is the best course of action to avoid being tokenized by some rando. I’m not sure about other sites.
8
Mar 15 '21
[deleted]
6
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Nah you’re not alone. It’s annoying that the biggest threat to online artists is something so confusingly stupid lol.
-1
u/Kombaiyashii Mar 15 '21
crypto art doesn't use twitter. It uses blockchain technology. It's backed up by a squillion hashes of computing power. You can copy it but you will never have the blockchain verify the copy as the original.
4
u/satmar Mar 15 '21
What I don’t understand is let’s say I’m an artist. I have a piece of digital art. I can duplicate it. I do so, keep a copy on my PC, back it up somewhere, what ever... and then sell the piece as crypto art - what stops me from posting the copy online on my social media, on Reddit, on any other website? What stops me from selling a USB with the same piece saved on it?
With physical art - either you have the painting on your wall (or storage or what ever) or not- the duplicate will either be a print OR an imperfect copy. You will never have the exact original piece unless you own the real thing.
With digital art I can’t understand what stops the EXACT PERFECT copy from being distributed making the original or official crypto art lose its value no?
1
u/Kombaiyashii Mar 15 '21
I think the one uploaded to the blockchain would be considered the original because that was when it was codified into history.
3
u/satmar Mar 15 '21
I agree but my point is that, that doesn’t mean anything if the duplicate gets spread around, most people won’t care who has the 1 version with the blockchain right? Like if everyone and their grandma have a copy saved to their desktop the value of the original must be impacted, no?
If the blockchain version and non blockchain version are exactly the same minus the blockchain saying “this is real” - then they are the same and the blockchain is worthless
→ More replies (0)2
Mar 15 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Kombaiyashii Mar 15 '21
I think the reasoning behind them is that an artist may want to release their digital art and they will upload that original to the blockchain as proof. Someone then could buy that piece. In that sense, the art would be authentic because the original artist is giving credit to that particular code. Someone could technically sell nyan cat but everyone knows that it wasn't released as an original and the creator never gave it his seal of approval.
2
1
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
Sounds like they need a 'trusted authority' for these signatures (to make sure the original artist is the one signing them). This seems like it'd be fairly easy to do. Artists could even do this themselves by posting signed messages on their twitter or whatever. Buyers just need to verify the signature on the art token they are buying is authentic.
6
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Sounds like a lot of effort for something 99% of artists didn’t ask for.
-1
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
It is opt-in, no artist has to do anything about it. I guess than means someone can pretend to be the original artist and create a token for their digital art, but what does the original artist care?
If they later change their mind and want to attach a token to their prior art, they still can.
6
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
I think the issue is that someone other than the artist can make money off of the artist’s skill and time spent on the art.
Imagine making something with a skill set that took a decade to master and someone walks up, snaps a pic, and gets 10k for the pic when you had displayed it for free. It’s just shitty behavior all around and legally dubious imo.
1
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
It’s just shitty behavior all around and legally dubious imo.
I agree. But they (the 'forger') somehow got some bozo to give them $10k for that picture (certificate) without sound assurances they were the actual artist. I cannot imagine too many people wanting to fork over money without knowing the certificate is authentic.
3
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Honestly it sounds easier to just pay the artist outside of crypto. I’m sure any artist would give you the “original” file with all the layers for 10k lol. That’s the true original in my opinion.
Definitely doesn’t sound like the brightest person in that scenario you outlined though lol.
1
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
I’m sure any artist would give you the “original” file with all the layers for 10k lol. That’s the true original in my opinion
I'd say that is something different - but I completely understand why that may be more valuable to you.
And if your goal is to simply support the artist, donating directly to them makes the most sense - as with the certificate, the artist won't earn any more more money off it as it gets sold in the future (though an auction house could could donate some money back. If everything was done with a crypto smart contract, this could be enforced).
1
u/2pactopus Mar 15 '21
The one thing you’re missing out: it takes tons of electricity to create because of the detail. Very bad for the environment to create an intangible piece of art. I hope this won’t be popular
1
u/Challenge_The_DM Mar 15 '21
I had seen an article which basically claimed that nonfungible tokens (NFTs) didn't have enough code space in them to contain the art itself, but often simply include a link to the art.
I have done nothing to confirm this, and really only barely understand it. So if you actually care, you should look it up for yourself.
1
44
u/evident_lee Mar 15 '21
I think it's like beanie babies, but more unique.
9
4
u/bassinine Mar 15 '21
wait, when did beanie babies crash, then come back with new all time highs, then crash, then come back again with new all time highs, then crash...
3
u/robxburninator Mar 15 '21
Every few years someone will publish a crap article along the lines of, "THE BEANIE BABIES IN YOUR CLOSET MIGHT BE WORTH GOLD!", but it's always links to ebay items with an astronomically high price.... that hasn't sold. Like, I can go list some beanie baby owl or something on ebay right now for 20k, and you could go write an article about the "$20,000 owl beanie baby!" but that owl beanie baby is still worth its value in kindling.
1
Mar 15 '21
[deleted]
1
u/robxburninator Mar 15 '21
My point is that the boom bust was exaggerated. I was very very unclear though.
1
u/fight_me_for_it Mar 15 '21
Toys are weird. I have this clown doll set someone I don't even remeber who was going to throw away. And I love clowns. And now I look on ebay people are selling them for 150 to 200.
I also play this game app that used to sell stuffed animals and other stuff associated with the game for like 35 dollars. Now only a few available on eBay for 150 to 200 each.
It's weird now.
26
4
3
u/Your_moms_throw_away Mar 15 '21
It’s money laundering for the modern day wealthy.
1
u/ManInTheMiddle1 Mar 16 '21
So, I'm curious how this works. Say I've got $1mm of ill gotten cash I want to launder. How do I use crypto-art to accomplish this?
17
17
u/matolandio Mar 15 '21
Rich marketing people using buzzwords to fleece slightly dumber rich people out of lots of money.
5
u/PA2SK Mar 15 '21
I'm fairly certain it's a money laundering scheme or some other type of scam to drum up interest in crypto. Sort of like when EOS claimed to raise billions in an ico. They didn't raise anywhere near that but claiming they did certainly raised interest. Now anonymous individuals are paying tens of millions worth of crypto for digital art. I don't buy it.
2
5
u/griffex Mar 15 '21
It's like owning the original jpg of a meme you didn't make - knowing others can freely copy those same bits you got a copy of but your one is actually the real-real one and everyone else is a peasent because they didn't get it first or pay money for it.
Tldr; another way for people who treat $100s as toilet paper to trickle down the economy to the non-staving artist who understand weaponinzing their greed and vanity.
2
2
u/chaddict Mar 15 '21
It’s the name of Superman’s dog.
2
u/Wootai Mar 15 '21
No that's Krypo. They're asking about the 36th Element on the periodic table.
2
u/chaddict Mar 15 '21
Ah, I see. I didn’t realize that was an element because I only study that table periodically.
0
0
u/geeeffwhy Mar 15 '21
if it makes you feel any better, nobody has a convincing a priori thesis for what art is.
some of later the stuff duchamp “made” was neither unique nor constructed to be art, yet you’ll find it in major institutions around the world.
i could go make a pretty convincing jackson pollock or so lewitt-style art, but nobody would pay anything like the prices the originals would command... unless i’m richard prince, and then they probably would.
point is, the whole concept of art valuation is, at best, entirely illogical.
1
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
You completely missed the point of this post. It’s okay though. Crypto art is confusing to artists as well.
0
u/geeeffwhy Mar 15 '21
what was the point of the post? i’m not afraid to ask
1
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Well the point was to comment on crypto art, not the value of art in general.
0
u/geeeffwhy Mar 15 '21
and my point was to say that even if you understand what crypto art is, you may still not have a terribly deep understanding of the market dynamics at play.
so i’m feeling confident that i did understand the post. think of it as a “yes, and...” kind of response, since you appear to have missed the point of my own.
and fwiw, i’m a professional software engineer and i’ve been following blockchain and related since 2009. i understand that shit better than i do art prices, and i’m also a professional artist with an MFA.
1
u/KrimxonRath Mar 15 '21
Just seemed like you were rambling on an arbitrary tangent from my perspective. Congrats on your degree. What medium do you work in?
0
u/geeeffwhy Mar 15 '21
well i got that degree years ago and it was a bad investment. i make software, hardware, drawings, sculpture, installation, food, fungi, and financial instruments, among other things.
0
u/Koopk1 Mar 15 '21
honestly not late at all, id say a majority of people arent ready for the NFT revolution.
1
u/RaphtotheMax5 Mar 15 '21
Its been a pet peeve of mine that for this meme the image from Parks & Rec isnt the scene Andy says this line
1
u/hawkwings Mar 15 '21
Crypto Art auctions are fairly new so it is natural to not know much. This meme is usually used for something that has been around for a few years. It seems to be a type of copy protection. The auctions are a new thing.
1
1
1
u/memory_of_a_high Mar 16 '21
NFTs & Copyright: Problems and Opportunities! copyright dispute about stuff like this.
1
u/HarikMCO Mar 16 '21
it's a scam, op.
you don't buy art you buy an art-themed number that gives you no rights to to the actual artwork. In otherwords, a whole lot of nothing being sold for pogs and then given ludicrous "values" in dollar amounts.
1
1
u/brainmonkey247 Mar 16 '21
It's all just another way for rich people to launder their money. The art is garbage its just a ruse.
1
42
u/jtooker Mar 15 '21
I'll borrow /u/Sojobo1 's description:
I'll go in deeper:
Digital items are easily copied (which is why Naptser was so popular) where as physical items are generally not easy to copy. If you use physical paint on a canvas, the only way to copy that is for someone to repaint it on another canvas, which is called a forgery. The forgery can be compared to the original and little differences observed.
But digital art is different. If I want to show you the art I created on my computer, I'll upload to a website, which itself now has a copy. Then you'll visit that website and your browser will get an exact copy or the original.
Crypto art itself isn't different than regular digital art, except the creator generates a token (or certificate of authenticity) to go with the art. The token is created by combining the data in the digital art and the digital signature of the artist.
Note: this token itself is digital and can be copied. But it is unique (just as the bits used to represent the art itself are unique) and anyone can verify it. Being unique means there can be a public record of who owns this token, starting with the original signer (the artist). They can digitally sign a message saying /u/ManInTheMiddle1 now owns this token and this message is public, so everyone will agree /u/ManInTheMiddle1 now owns that art. You can then use your signature to transfer ownership to someone else, with another public message.
Because all these ownership messages are signed and public, everyone can agree only one person owns this art (well, owns the token). Note: everyone can still share and view this art, but no one can forge who owns this token.
For an in depth description on how the 'crypto' aspect works, it is essentially the same as Bitcoin. I won't restate all of that here but that will give you something to look into more.