“Collectors might be confused … you're not auctioning the [320x200] originals”

“Collectors might be confused … you're not auctioning the [320x200] originals”(twitter.com)

37 points by _pius 4 years ago | 9 comments

domano 4 years ago |

"An authorized third party is auctioning an entry on a blockchain for a URL that points to an authorized copy of a scaled up version of a born-digital Warhol image."

I can barely wrap my head around it and i work in software. How do non-tech people understand what the auction is actually about?

Grustaf 4 years ago | |

They don’t, obviously, that’s the whole purpose.

If they did they wouldn’t bid on it. Nobody would pay a cent for “the url of a jpg of a painting”.

dTal 4 years ago | | |

You're not paying for the url of a jpg of a painting. Everyone already knows the url.

You're paying for someone to put an entry in a random database with a public URL next to your name.

himinlomax 4 years ago | |

Same here. The more I read about NFT, the more stupid it looks. It's asymptotically retarded.

cyanydeez 4 years ago | | |

however, is it any more abstractly different than cryptocurrency?

duped 4 years ago | |

"Money laundering"

ChrisArchitect 4 years ago |

Great thread/teardown.

I don't know how it's not detrimental/embarrassing to Christie's reputation and legitimacy to be parading out these claims/this stuff

Grustaf 4 years ago |

If I had paid big bucks for non-exclusive access to a public URL of a jpg, the resolution would be the least of my worries.

And not to nitpick, but Amiga 1000 could go up to 640x512i, 320x200 was not the maximum resolution.