82,891
edits
Non-fungible token: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{d|Non-fungible token|/nɒn-fʌnʤəbl/ /ˈtəʊkən/|n|}}<br> | {{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 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 — not, | 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”. | ||
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''. | 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''. | ||