and if the consumer doesn't care about additional NFT's that simply point to the picture that the creator uploaded, then whoever the consumer bought from has violated nothing
I'll expand on another commenter's analogy. Imagine if it was possible to easily duplicate, atom-for-atom, the Mona Lisa. How much would a copy go for? Maybe $50 with a nice frame? Nothing close to the mega millions for the real thing.
This means that the value of the painting is not the painting itself. It's valuable because of who created it and the history surrounding it.
It's possible that bad actors will try and sell a forgery, with paintings as well as for NFTs. That doesn't mean all paintings are worthless. It just means that buyers have to be careful.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of NFTs (and to be honest I'll probably never buy one) but this is not one of them.
I don't consider this a criticism. I also don't find the analogy applicable. Their updated analogy is more applicable "a sheet of paper with a URL to a photo of the mona lisa" that a consumer buys.
I understand and use and create and sell NFTs, I can understand where your assumption came from given what responses one might expect to see on this forum.
I think this is an interesting nuance of this technology that is not well understood by NFT traders or NFT critics. Many malicious actors are also doing more than they have to do to sell "forged" NFTs. Developers can perceive whats going on though.
Comments
If the creator mints the NFT then it's traceable back to them.
and if the consumer doesn't care about additional NFT's that simply point to the picture that the creator uploaded, then whoever the consumer bought from has violated nothing
that's my point
Why wouldn't the consumer care about that?
I'll expand on another commenter's analogy. Imagine if it was possible to easily duplicate, atom-for-atom, the Mona Lisa. How much would a copy go for? Maybe $50 with a nice frame? Nothing close to the mega millions for the real thing.
This means that the value of the painting is not the painting itself. It's valuable because of who created it and the history surrounding it.
It's possible that bad actors will try and sell a forgery, with paintings as well as for NFTs. That doesn't mean all paintings are worthless. It just means that buyers have to be careful.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of NFTs (and to be honest I'll probably never buy one) but this is not one of them.
I don't consider this a criticism. I also don't find the analogy applicable. Their updated analogy is more applicable "a sheet of paper with a URL to a photo of the mona lisa" that a consumer buys.
I understand and use and create and sell NFTs, I can understand where your assumption came from given what responses one might expect to see on this forum.
I think this is an interesting nuance of this technology that is not well understood by NFT traders or NFT critics. Many malicious actors are also doing more than they have to do to sell "forged" NFTs. Developers can perceive whats going on though.