Paul Graham Defends NFTs(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Paul Graham Defends NFTs
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1490406747051286539
19 comments
Just like cryptos, the idea is good, the use we're doing so far is bogus.
And what specifically is the idea good for exactly?
The idea of supporting the artists you like directly and verifiably.
The artist could list patrons on their website. That would be more trustworthy imo
I can do the same by buying the art from his website transfering the funds to his bank account, using a fraction of the energy, requiring no additional software and no network of nodes to keep some blorkchain alive.
I specifically wrote verifiably. In your bank case, no one will be able to verify, independently of the supporter or the artist, that the transaction happened.
And why would anyone need to be able to verify that? I really see very little reasons. And for some of the traditional receipt would do the trick.
> And why would anyone need to be able to verify that?
Because, in the bank example, after a bank transaction happens, the artist may not like a particular supporter because, for example, the supporter may be a white cis male who doesn't like the left bullies, so the artist may lie that the transaction happened at all, saying that he/she didn't receive any money from the supporter. In this case, and other such cases, there must be an independent log of events that actually happened, despite what people may say.
Because, in the bank example, after a bank transaction happens, the artist may not like a particular supporter because, for example, the supporter may be a white cis male who doesn't like the left bullies, so the artist may lie that the transaction happened at all, saying that he/she didn't receive any money from the supporter. In this case, and other such cases, there must be an independent log of events that actually happened, despite what people may say.
The supporter could ask bank to mail him a receipt from the transfer. And then show this transfer or have it notarized in most extreme case. Thus proofing he made it. We already have solutions for this.
And then there are court system to be involved if the artist were to commit fraud in this case and for example not provide services. Maybe even discrimination case.
And then there are court system to be involved if the artist were to commit fraud in this case and for example not provide services. Maybe even discrimination case.
> The supporter could ask bank to mail him a receipt from the transfer. And then show this transfer or have it notarized in most extreme case. Thus proofing he made it. We already have solutions for this.
No one will believe the supporter. The receipt may be a fake text he/she made.
No one will believe the supporter. The receipt may be a fake text he/she made.
Those people who don't believe a notarized document are unlikely to believe a blockchain entry either. After all it could be hacked? Or faked?
> After all it could be hacked? Or faked?
The whole premise of blockchain is that no transaction can be altered. What happened -- happened, unlike someone's text or screenshots on someone's servers on the Internet.
The whole premise of blockchain is that no transaction can be altered. What happened -- happened, unlike someone's text or screenshots on someone's servers on the Internet.
Or the Blorkchain is forked.
> no one will be able to verify
Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and the artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.
And of course the entire transaction is a simple buyers contract, thus making it legally binding and enforceable.
So if the artist tries to go back on the agreement, he can be sued. If he claims he never received funds, the court orders the banks to hand over the records.
Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and the artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.
And of course the entire transaction is a simple buyers contract, thus making it legally binding and enforceable.
So if the artist tries to go back on the agreement, he can be sued. If he claims he never received funds, the court orders the banks to hand over the records.
> Except the Credit Card Firm, my bank, and artists bank. All of which are required, by law, to keep records.
But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.
> So if the artists try to go back on the agreement, he can be sued.
Sued about what? The supporters want the artist to keep the money, there are no legal conflicts here other than that the artist may lie that he/she is supported by particular people. Unlike in bank case, you and me and anyone else may see for ourselves who is supported by whom.
But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.
> So if the artists try to go back on the agreement, he can be sued.
Sued about what? The supporters want the artist to keep the money, there are no legal conflicts here other than that the artist may lie that he/she is supported by particular people. Unlike in bank case, you and me and anyone else may see for ourselves who is supported by whom.
> But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.
If they receive a court order, they are required to hand over records.
> Sued about what?
If I buy something from an artist, I am entering a legally binding contract with him. Such contracts can be enforced in court.
Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.
If they receive a court order, they are required to hand over records.
> Sued about what?
If I buy something from an artist, I am entering a legally binding contract with him. Such contracts can be enforced in court.
Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.
> Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.
Correct. But NFT people want to show everyone that they support artists they like. Others are free to ignore them, but with public and independently verifiable transactions no one can objectively deny that NFT people actually support the artists.
Correct. But NFT people want to show everyone that they support artists they like. Others are free to ignore them, but with public and independently verifiable transactions no one can objectively deny that NFT people actually support the artists.
Support for the artist exists when someone first buys the NFT from the one who minted it. But nothing prevents investors from trading NFTs among each other. How many NFT trades are "artist-to-buyer", how many nft trades are "investor-to-investor"?
And if I buy a piece of art the classic way (buyers contract), I can put it in a gallery, or whatever, and "show everyone that I support the artist" that way.
And even without buying something, no Blockchain is required to support artists: people have managed to do so since long before electricity was discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts
And if I buy a piece of art the classic way (buyers contract), I can put it in a gallery, or whatever, and "show everyone that I support the artist" that way.
And even without buying something, no Blockchain is required to support artists: people have managed to do so since long before electricity was discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts
It's also interesting that below the tweet around 50%, 10/20 (from a quick scroll) reactions/answers are just people trying to sell and advertise the typical low quality NFT related things.