HN Explorer

9 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 30.5 ms ] thread
ChrisArchitect
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
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.

domano
"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
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
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
Same here. The more I read about NFT, the more stupid it looks. It's asymptotically retarded.
cyanydeez
however, is it any more abstractly different than cryptocurrency?
duped
"Money laundering"