/biz/ - Business & Finance

"art" is legal money laundering

He's based for selling it retards are retarded for buying it

>>26376864
Proceeds went to charity.

>>26376910
this

bad for the environment https://twitter.com/memotv/status/1352007593535954948

>>26376864
Ether is such a soi coin

>>26376864
Great news, we have a new demographic entering the bottom of the pyramid.

Imagine actually buying digital art.

>>26377074
Unironically.

New use cases and mainstream attention (even if the use case is retarded) is a good thing for all of crypto.

>>26377181
Yeah I don't get it either. We gonna be in the matrix soon?

>>26376864
Can someone explain this NFT business like I'm a woman?

>>26377267
AFAIK it's just digital "collectibles" you buy with crypto, like pixel art. I don't really get who the fuck is buying this shit except people with more money than brains.

can someone explain this shit to me? I feel like a boomer. so he slapped a digital non removable stamp on his digital „art“ and sold it for 1 million dollars? what stops me from using the windows snipper and just copying it?

>>26377460
>like pixel art
You mean like rare Pepes?

>>26377518
Exactly like rare pepes

>>26376864
very base

>>26377267
Paying for a gif

>>26377518

exactly like rare pepes

buy my pepe christmas ornament - im a cryptoartist

https://app.rarible.com/token/0xd07dc4262bcdbf85190c01c996b4c06a461d2430:104095:0x4ef9732aa672a11fefa14cbec0341834270052dd

>>26377659
I just stole $290,100, enjoy /biz/

>>26377588
>>26377613

Srsly though, this is about digital art?
What in the fuck.
I can make copies instantly in Paint.

>>26376893
this. very common

>>26377181
people buy csgo skins for ridiculous money
same with wow characters which is based off the gear/mounts etc (digital items)

>>26377705

>>26377659

those are gonna be expensive

buy my rare las vegas bitcoins, they are also going to be expensive. this one has 2 bitcoins and 1 diamond

https://app.rarible.com/token/0xd07dc4262bcdbf85190c01c996b4c06a461d2430:120067:0x4ef9732aa672a11fefa14cbec0341834270052dd

>>26377705
>>26377659

So how does one determine whether it's the original?
Encryption?

>>26377762
btw, i made this smintons
>>26377782
it's a computer

>>26377705
is this actually it ? god i cant wait until all kikes are eradicated from gods earth

>>26377708
Yeah basically. But you "own" it if you're dumb enough to pay for it.

>>26377800
>it's a computer
What?

>>26377708
The thing is that this system allows a digital watermark of sorts, so only one person can have the "original" copy of something, a form of digital art ownership while copies continue to exist. It's dumb but people will definitely pay money for it

>>26377782

bitbeans

https://app.rarible.com/dmoon/onsale

>>26377782
*it's a computer image, who cares about "the original?" Doesn't even make sense to me.

>>26377708
But you don't own your paint copy for all IP purposes like the dude who has the wallet with the ID of the original does.

Who cares if you don’t “get” the nft market just make money off of it boys.

>>26377831
See >>26377865, the auto-post timer ran out while I was typing.
>>26377882
that part kinda makes sense

>>26377882
>But you don't own your paint copy
So come and take it.

>going full /pol/ because you are priced out of eth and are just here for social commentary
Kill yourselves
>>26377865
You’re a retard

>>26377745
I understand that more because at least it's something you're using inside of a game that you play and enjoy, and it's unique in the sense that it's locked to your account, so not every other player has the same mount, armor, weapon, etc.

Digital art on the other hand simply exists for you to stare at on a screen. It's non-interactive. Anyone can save a copy and bam, now they own it too. It's retarded.

>>26377882
This makes a little more sense but it still seems like a huge waste of money for the most part.

>>26377846
>>26377846
>this system allows a digital watermark of sorts
As part of the NFT thing?
So basically the original is identified by encryption, I guess?

>>26377972
How so? It's literally an image anybody can copy.

>>26377181
Digital as in stored on computer memory? I don't get it.

>>26377181
>>26377213
>>26377708
>>26377865
I thought this initially too and I still hate this entrie concept but I will be buying rari because it has huge potential for integration with VR/augmented reality worlds/video games.
see
>>26377745
People will and literally have just spent money on this shit, just like they do with other digital items.
also as the account holder they own the item same way someone in world of warcraft owns a rare expensive sword, sure, you can take a screenshot of it and do what you like with that but it is attached to their account and they get to use it.
>>26377762
Also this shit is insultingly low effort to charge that insane amount of money for, could have at the very least put some effort into the creation of it.

>>26378025

buy my art: https://app.rarible.com/dmoon/onsale

>>26376864
HEY MORTY CHECK IT OUT MORTY *BURPS*

(insert reddit spacing here, delete this before posting)

I'M CHAINRICK MORTY

>>26377882
so you could tell people in a pub that you spend a fortune for a picture in your computer? I now understand how boomers feel about esports

>>26377267
>>26377460
>>26377466
It's authenticity. That is the main purpose of the NFT. Granted, it has created markets where they didn't exist before (digital art collectibles, for example), but the true use is authenticity. How do you know your collectible or rare item is the real deal? How do you know your vaccine wasn't made in China but made in the US? How do you know your sneakers are Nikes and not Ni|<es?

We live in a world where forgery is becoming more and more of a huge problem as technology advances, as the forged items are nearly indecipherable when looking at them from the original. In the case of a rare collectible, it might legitimately be an EXACT replica. If you care about owning "the real thing", the NFT solves the problem of forgery. If you don't care, then just buy shitty prints at Home Goods or whatever and you're happy.

>>26377994
>Anyone can save a copy and bam, now they own it too. It's retarded.
Not if it is integrated with for example a virtual reality world where you can link your rarible account or whatever and then you can have that virtual art on your virtual walls, just one example off the top of my head.

>>26378187
Also, to keep adding to this
Anyone seen the black mirror episode 'Fifteen Million Merits'
basically they all live in pods and have gay little avatars of themselves on huge screens, theres a scene where this guy is spending credits he worked for by running on a treadmill on gay digital assets for his avatar
I firmly believe this will in some form become reality, more than it has so already.

>>26378187
Sounds neat but what's stopping someone from just uploading artwork they stole to use inside their own VR world?

>>26376864
>17 hours ago

>>26377994
You can't just "copy" an NFT. The NFT is unique. You can EXACT scan any number of art prints that people pay sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars for and print that again too, but that doesn't mean you own the artists art. The artist decides what is authentic and what is not. If the artist says "I'm doing a run of 10 prints", then only those 10 prints will ever hold value. How do you know you have one of the 10 prints? NFT says so. Physical art is actually more worthless than the NFT because physical art can easily be reproduced, but the NFT can not. That being said, they go hand in hand - an NFT without the piece of art is valueless, and a piece of art authenticated by an NFT which has no NFT would be as well.

>>26378514
just read my responses it has nothing to do with VR worlds.

>>26378641
Yeah, but in the cast of a painting or something, things like the brush strokes, etc that are difficult to recreate exist. The original piece matters there, and prints are worthless in comparison. Whereas a digital image is always a copy, even if it's a copy from the artist's computer.

>>26377690
>christmas ornament
aww i thought it was a lil cowboy hat

>>26378685
The broader uses you describe here >>26378171
definitely make sense. I guess it's "owning" digital art that I can't quite wrap my head around (i.e. why would a sane person actually spend money on it). Unless you're filthy rich and have just run out of shit to buy with your money.

>>26378757
They’re difficult but not impossible to recreate, and most artists do not have their brush strokes logged in detail before selling a piece, so only really the most rare pieces in the world MIGHT be able to be authenticated this way.

>>26376864
So basically it's a jpeg with with cryptographic hash?

>>26379010
Basically, it's dumb
>>26378970
A lot harder to recreate than a jpg

>>26378514
No idea and so much can just be done with modding anyway
I just feel like its totally conceivable that people will pay for digital 'ownership' more and more as the years go on
I really hate it though, I make (& sell) physical stuff myself and I grew up on real tangible shit that inspired me
This NFT crap is fucking soulless and gross to me and I want to react against it but honestly at the same time I feel like I'd be retarded not to profit from it's imminent breakthrough into the mainstream

>>26378808
It’s just being a fan. Fans have paid for way stupider shit than owning an artist authenticated original piece. If you like an artist then you’ll want to own something rare of theirs. If you like a digital artist, the NFT actually makes it so the digital art has value and rarity whereas before yes, it could just be copied a billion times. The value is in that the artist issues that thing as what has value, and it is the artist that stipulates that because who else gets to? I understand the struggle of digital art as collectible/worth paying for, but if you think about why the NFT can change that perspective then you might also come around to being someone who is open to collecting it. Happened to me, anyway.

I can see it being useful for verifying authenticity of physical pieces or similar applications, but paying $300,000 for a jpg is retarded.

>>26379070
Not really. More expensive yes, but not harder.

>>26379200
How is it not harder than downloading/taking a screenshot? There's actually work involved, which is why it's more expensive.

>>26379086
I feel the same way. Feels like a huge scam to me but to each his own, I guess. I don't collect Funko Pops either but they're a multimillion dollar industry. Although at least in the case of Funkos you've got a physical, tangible asset.

>>26379256
There are machines which can reproduce paintings pretty faithfully
>https://www.designboom.com/art/oce-3d-printer-creates-identical-reproductions-of-fine-art-paintings-09-30-2013/
It's literally just scanning an image and then recreates it in a way that 99.99999% of people on the planet would never be able to tell the difference. More expensive, but really marginally more work.

>>26377708
I think I get it now. Let's say Roiland creates a digital drawing of pickle Rick. He puts it on the blockchain as a NFT. Now he can sell that as the "authentic" copy.

Even if he put a new copy on the blockchain, it's still not the original one, so there is a certain prestige of owning the original copy. But to value his own work more he would probably only put the one copy on there

There's also the aspect of images losing quality as they're constantly passed around the internet being compressed and re-encoded, I guess with NFT you would know the image is the original quality the artist exported

>>26377705
be seeing you in kleros court sir

>>26379469
Not denying that exists, but even that is just "pretty faithfully." A jpg, even the nft image you see on your computer is still a copy. Reproducing it exactly is trivial.

>>26379382
>at least in the case of Funkos you've got a physical, tangible asset.
Better off owning NFTs lol
>>26379118
this is probably the best point ITT.
I have actually seen one artist I respect a lot selling a couple NFTs and because they were so cheap I considered getting it 'just because' even though I feel like the whole concept is pretty bleak
Digital patronage is real big now and that probably plays into it a lot too.

>>26379563
I'll just sell some rare pepes I made to pay off the judges.

>>26379531
Yes, exactly.
>>26379597
Sure, but there is literally no other way to collect authentic digital art than via an NFT. So you either want to own something from your favorite digital artist, or you don't. You sound like someone who doesn't really give a shit about digital art and likely doesn't follow any digital artists, so you probably don't give a shit and maybe never will, but that doesn't reduce the value an NFT adds to a piece of digital art that both authenticates it and legitimizes it as rare/collectible.

>>26379617
That makes sense. Supporting an artist you like. There's a pixel artist who I think is great but he's charging 1-2 ETH for his crypto art and it boggles my mind that people actually buy it. Good for him, though.

>>26380227
Yeah the ones I saw were like $10 worth of ETH, still didnt buy one but was kinda tempted.
funnily enough I think people would make more in the long run from just pricing their NFTs 'low' and uploading/minting lots, especially since its 0 effort to 'produce copies'
if Roiland had done that instead of charging this obscene amount of money for his actual Fucking Shit™ that he just Shat out onto a screen, then I wouldn't think he's such a smug self aggrandising cunt either.

>>26378171
just take screenshot. kek

just the beginning of nft art sales.

>>26376864
Pretty based, anyone who makes money off of retards is ok in my book

>>26377181
By that logic imagine paying for bitcoin
Imagine people taking your crypto for free

>>26376893
Art + crypto is legal, and makes it easier for everyone. so the answer to OP is:

Based