afx nft

So it's social media for art collectors?

Functional Neurological Disorder - Lol is this Twitter for real? 

 

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/03/11/nfts-crypto-grifters-try-to-scam-artists-again/

fyi

So boring this crypto currency investment bullshit is spreading like toxic

who the fuck has the money to do this? and what the fuck is being sold exactly?

  On 3/14/2021 at 8:23 AM, AnwarAutokino said:

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/03/11/nfts-crypto-grifters-try-to-scam-artists-again/

 

fyi

Cheers! 

  On 3/14/2021 at 8:35 AM, usagi said:

what the fuck is being sold exactly?

From that article ^

  Quote

The art itself is not in the blockchain — the NFT is just a pointer to a piece of art on a website.

You’re buying the key to a crypto-token. You’re not buying anything else.

An NFT doesn’t convey copyright, usage rights, moral rights, or any other rights, unless there’s an explicit licence saying so.

It’s like a “Certificate of Authenticity” that’s in Comic Sans, and misspelt.

At absolute best, you’re buying a piece of official merchandise — one that’s just a number pointing to a website.

Expand  

it's not true that NFTs are merely for grifters.  many spends of money in a modern economy is a grift.  it's more accurate to say that NFTs are a good way to donate money.  and people who are for some reason deciding to do that, are donating their money and they know that they're getting basically nothing.  but once this market matures it will make things like receiving funds with a proof of donation or "purchase" owned by the donator, significantly easier.  when you purchase an NFT you get a receipt which you can sell to others.  thus certain types of transactions are opened up which were never accessible before without centralized solutions.  more and more these cryptocurrency "grifts" are actually significant improvements in software in comparison to the typical tripe written by large corporations writing software.  and it's free and open source.

in a way NFTs are no different from any purchase of software or software feature improvements.  they can be given free, but instead they are scarce due to economic incentives making it so, i.e. a lack of allocated computational power.  the entirety of the world computer supply should be doing what the people need them to be doing, not doing what corporations are doing on them against us, like tracking our behavior and trying to sell us stuff we don't need and steal our attention.  they're optimizing their AI algorithms against that.  as they monitor us, they optimize the algorithms using machine learning.  thus the people need more and more software for their class rather than for the class which exists as the class in control over the capital whose private property rights holds control of the means of production, that class opposite and in opposition to them.  proprietary software is bourgeois decadence thinking they get to do that rather than sell it to us free and open source.  we should be allocating money to the software we want and only the software we want, made by anyone who wants to labor upon software, not who is compelled to write software

i suspect the flood gates are open on this and there's probably numerous people gonna roll the dice a few times and see what happens. 

What a wankfest...

he should've posted a minecraft aphex tank as NFT. 

  On 3/14/2021 at 8:40 AM, psn said:

From that article ^

 

  Quote

The art itself is not in the blockchain — the NFT is just a pointer to a piece of art on a website.

You’re buying the key to a crypto-token. You’re not buying anything else.

An NFT doesn’t convey copyright, usage rights, moral rights, or any other rights, unless there’s an explicit licence saying so.

It’s like a “Certificate of Authenticity” that’s in Comic Sans, and misspelt.

At absolute best, you’re buying a piece of official merchandise — one that’s just a number pointing to a website.

Expand  

 

Expand  

I sort of get the general part (well no, I probably don't), I was more asking what piece of AFX 'art' is being sold here. what is the bidder paying sixty six thousand fucking dollars for, as far as I can tell it's for 1 (one) quantity of unspecified sound and/or video.

edit: lol it's up to $100k now. what a crock of shit.

So you buying a key to the crypto-token? What is that exactly? A portal to more money or music? 

  On 3/14/2021 at 8:45 AM, cyanobacteria said:

it's not true that NFTs are merely for grifters.  many spends of money in a modern economy is a grift.  it's more accurate to say that NFTs are a good way to donate money.

Then why not just simply call it a donation where everyone can contribute, rather than an auction where something """rare""" is sold to the highest bidder? I've seen NFT-apologists call them everything from a "digital autograph" to a "receipt" or a "donation", but the actual NFT websites/auction houses never use those terms, they always create the impression of something "valuable" or "unique" being sold.

And even if it were some kind of donation method, why would I "donate" to afx? I'd rather buy some stuff on bandcamp to support artists who are really struggling to get by, and actually get something (audio files) in return.

Yeah there is no reason to this shit.. So weird. Im sorry Rich but this is not a good move.

  On 3/14/2021 at 9:41 AM, AnwarAutokino said:

 

Then why not just simply call it a donation where everyone can contribute, rather than an auction where something """rare""" is sold to the highest bidder? I've seen NFT-apologists call them everything from a "digital autograph" to a "receipt" or a "donation", but the actual NFT websites/auction houses never use those terms, they always create the impression of something "valuable" or "unique" being sold.

 

And even if it were some kind of donation method, why would I "donate" to afx? I'd rather buy some stuff on bandcamp to support artists who are really struggling to get by, and actually get something (audio files) in return.

Expand  

why not? it costs nothing to produce a piece of digital art, minimal electricity.  and if you don't want to donate to afx, don't donate to afx.  donate to those struggling artists on bandcamp if they make an NFT they sell.

  On 3/14/2021 at 9:50 AM, cyanobacteria said:

 

why not? it costs nothing to produce a piece of digital art, minimal electricity.  and if you don't want to donate to afx, don't donate to afx.  donate to those struggling artists on bandcamp if they make an NFT they sell.

I just don't see the advantage of "donating" via NFT compared to a regular donation (say, via PayPal or something). If anything, it seems more restrictive because in the end, only the highest bidder gets to donate.

  On 3/14/2021 at 9:58 AM, AnwarAutokino said:

 

I just don't see the advantage of "donating" via NFT compared to a regular donation (say, via PayPal or something). If anything, it seems more restrictive because in the end, only the highest bidder gets to donate.

it makes the transaction a spectacle and engages other part of human social behaviors than merely donating something with nothing in return from the group you are donating to.  if people don't want to use it they don't have to.  but it's merely a piece of software.

if someone really wanted to criticize which types of software are being produced and who is using them, you'd have more deep critiques, like why we for instance allow so many mass distributed supercomputers being used against us by the ruling class.  this much critique over bitcoin is unsubstantiated, and while the critiques may be theoretically valid, the context in which they are appearing must be thoroughly dismissed as one in which trivial conversation regarding the allocation of software engineering labor power is being had, rather than a truly meaningful critique of the software engineering industry and its appropriation of power generated by the labors of the many

  On 3/14/2021 at 10:02 AM, cyanobacteria said:

 

it makes the transaction a spectacle and engages other part of human social behaviors than merely donating something with nothing in return from the group you are donating to.  if people don't want to use it they don't have to.  but it's merely a piece of software.

 

if someone really wanted to criticize which types of software are being produced and who is using them, you'd have more deep critiques, like why we for instance allow so many mass distributed supercomputers being used against us by the ruling class.  this much critique over bitcoin is unsubstantiated, and while the critiques may be theoretically valid, the context in which they are appearing must be thoroughly dismissed as one in which trivial conversation regarding the allocation of software engineering labor power is being had, rather than a truly meaningful critique of the software engineering industry and its appropriation of power generated by the labors of the many

Expand  

It's literally useless computer art for 84000 USD, how does it deserve this tangent

on the bright side we got an extremely rare pic of rdj as a teen for free 

this should be the crowning piece of the rare pics of rdj thread, hadn't it been closed 

  On 3/14/2021 at 10:19 AM, thumbass said:

 

It's literally useless computer art for 84000 USD, how does it deserve this tangent

in defending NFT not Aphex's NFT, I like permaculture so I don't mind it as long as it's not misused

betting notch is buying this one as well ey

Sure but cryptomining is hell for the environment aiit, don't pretend it isn't.

And I'm sure whoever runs this website earns a mint from selling an apex twins exclusive gif

If anyone here actually wants to invest in this. Good. 

But.... Consider this.

Pay me half the amount. I will buy a field, plant a woodland and nurture it.

And in 30 years time, we will see which investment is worth more?

I just don't understand bitcoin / digital investment. Sorry. it just seems a new weird way for rich people to "legitimately" pork off some of their cash to avoid tax bills