Non-fungible token: Difference between revisions

Non-fungible token (view source)

Revision as of 19:14, 11 March 2021

554 bytes added , 11 March 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{d|Non-fungible token|/nɒn-fʌnʤəbl/ /ˈtəʊkən/|n|}}<br>
-A unique reference to an external thing — for example, a Banksy artwork — that has been cryptographically encoded on a [[blockchain]]. The “[[NFT]]” does ''not'', in itself, confer ownership on thing it represents, but — and unlike any of the millions of other copies and images of the work online — it is a ''unique'' token of your non-actual ownership — there is no other token of non-ownership quite like it (hence, “non-[[fungible]]”) and given its unique status on the [[bollockchain]], no theoretical possibility another one that could be created that could be confused with it. It is not to stop someone else from creating a different unique representation of the same artwork n the block chain; they would just be different representations of it. Not identical: each unique. With me? So this token — each of them, I guess —somehow magically bootstraps itself to some kind of intrinsic value. The problem they seem to have solved is “how to make a non-copyable thing on the internet.” This is not quite the same thing — it’s not, er, ''[[fungible]]'' with — the idea of “making a ''non-copyable'' artwork on the internet”.
+A unique reference to an external thing — in this case, a Banksy artwork, but it could be anything — that has been cryptographically encoded on a [[blockchain]]. Rather like a derivative (!) it does ''not'' confer ownership on its referent, or even contain a copy, but — unlike any other copy of the work — it is a ''unique'' token of non-ownership. There is no other token of non-ownership quite like it, you see, and given its unique status on the [[bollockchain]] it is quite impossible to create one. That is why it is “non-[[fungible]]”. Now this would not to stop someone else creating a ''different'' unique token representing of the same referent on the [[blockchain]]; the two tokens would just be different representations of it. Not identical: each unique. With me? No? Don’t worry: that’s not your fault.
-Hence some people — clearly possessed of a devastating sense of irony — hatched the idea of taking an already subversively self-referential artwork — one that plays with the idea of its own lack of intrinsic value, being a ''print'' — print 325 of 500 created! — of a ''graffito'' which is called “[[Morons]]”, and which directly addresses the gullibility of art buyers, and which actually has the words “I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU MORONS ACTUALLY BUY THIS SHIT” written in capital letters on it — and putting a (er, non-representational) representation of it on a [[blockchain]] and selling ''that''.
+Somehow this crypto-token magically bootstraps itself to some kind of intrinsic value. This, we sense is not so much because blockchain is clever, but that people who buy [[non-fungible token]]s are ''stupid'', or at any rate (as we shall see) lacking any sense of irony. For all the NFT demonstrates is that blockchain has solved the problem — if it even ''was'' a problem — of “how to make a non-copyable ''thing'' in cyberspace.”
-Still, the (anonymous) token seller perceived a rather bricks-and-mortar-ish, old-economy sort of perceptual problem: ''what if potential buyers worried that the physical work might seem somehow more intrinsically valuable than its crypto-token?''
+This is not quite the same as — it’s not, er, ''[[fungible]]'' with — “making a non-copyable ''artwork'' on the internet”.
-The token-seller’s solution: ''destroy'' the original work:
+===Enter the Banksy print===
+Now [[non-fungible token]] ''buyers'' might be lacking in their faculty for irony; [[NFT]] ''sellers'' have more than enough to go around. Some bright spark hatched the idea of taking an already subversively self-referential artwork — one that plays with the idea of its own lack of intrinsic value, being a ''print'', of a ''graffito'', which is called “[[Morons]]”, which in its subject directly addresses the gullibility of art buyers, actually having the words “I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU MORONS ACTUALLY BUY THIS SHIT” written in capital letters on it and, without the artist’s involvement,<ref>Banksy was not involved, though the (anonymous) seller claims he was “aware” of the event. Maybe they hit him up on [[Twitter]] or something.</ref> putting a (er, non-representational) representation of it on a [[blockchain]] and selling ''that''.
-{{quote|If you were to have the NFT and the physical piece, the value would be primarily in the physical piece. By removing the physical piece from existence and only having the NFT, we can ensure that the NFT, due to the smart contract ability of the blockchain, will ensure that no one can alter the piece and it is the true piece that exists in the world. By doing this, the value of the physical piece will then be moved onto the NFT.}}
+Still, the seller perceived a rather bricks-and-mortar-ish, old-economy sort of perceptual problem: ''what if buyers worry that the physical work might seem somehow ''more intrinsically valuable'' than its crypto-token?'' I mean, just imagine.
+The token-seller’s solution: buy the original print<ref>Yes, yes, I know.</ref> and ''destroy'' it:
+{{quote|If you were to have the [[NFT]] and the physical piece, the value would be primarily in the physical piece. By removing the physical piece from existence and only having the NFT, we can ensure that the NFT, due to the smart contract ability of the blockchain, will ensure that no one can alter the piece and it is the true piece that exists in the world. By doing this, the value of the physical piece will then be moved onto the NFT.}}
 There are two words I want to pick out from the above: “smart”, and “morons”. One of them is apposite to the someone — also anonymous — who bought it, and you don’t even know for sure that ''that'' dude<ref>if it isn’t a sock-puppet for the original seller, of cour — WAAAAAAITAMINNUTE.</ref> isn’t the gimp in all of this because — who can say? — some even ''stupider'' person might buy it for ''more''.<ref>At the time of writing said buyer ''does'' seem to be the gimp: it bought for 228.69, and the offers that have flooded in to date have been in the range of 0.001 - 2 ether coins (that is $500 more than it is worth, but it puts it in some perspective.</ref> That is someone-call-Alanis-Morrissette-grade ''staggering''.