Good Lord I can't believe I even have to have this argument right now when there's like ten Twitter accounts you can tag to instantly mint a token for someone else's art by replying to their post
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @RealAllenHena
It's literally the joke from The Little Prince where the guy is making a list of every star and planet and celestial object he sees in the sky so he can write in his ledger that he owns them and if you want him to change the entry in the ledger so you own them you have to pay him
2 replies 7 retweets 57 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @RealAllenHena
and of course, there's nothing stopping you from making your own ledger with exactly the same information and selling the "distinct" ownership that your ledger records
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @zodiacwars_ @arthur_affect
Having your own ledger does not come with proof from the creator's address that it was minted on that new ledger. Surely you understand this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RealAllenHena
The knowledge that the person who minted the initial token actually is the same as the person who drew the artwork is a reputation problem that cannot be solved inside the "trustless" chain of provenance itself
2 replies 2 retweets 37 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @RealAllenHena
This is an obvious issue that people have patiently argued with blockchain fanatics about again and again and YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE'S ART BEING STOLEN TO BE TOKENIZED ALL AROUND YOU RIGHT NOW
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @RealAllenHena
Saying that art is stolen is buying into their hype. No art is being stolen, only a false entry being made into a ledger, then the ledger imbues this false entry with a sense of sanctity, and the newly sanctified entry can be traded as if it were meaningful and accurate.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
It's stolen in a similar way pirating a movie is stealing, yes it might not meet the technical definition required by a court of law that would charge you with something else, but outside of that it's pointless nitpicking.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The nitpicking is the point. If you believe that a ledger entry that says someone bought the right to a thing, based on nothing but that someone said they did it first, has value then it's a thing that can be fraudulently obtained. But I reject that entire belief as nonsensical.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
If not "stealing" then it's *appropriating* and *exploiting* art If I had something that had been tokenized against my will and was fetching lots of money on the open market, I haven't technically lost anything but I'd reserve the right to be pissed off
2 replies 1 retweet 21 likes
It's like that incredibly creepy game someone tried to market that was a simulated "celebrity stock market" where you could "buy shares" in real people and watch their prices rise and fall with their popularity
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @phyphor and
Obviously, this stock market only existed in their stupid app, and carried no actual obligations of "ownership" of any kind from the real people Just as obviously, this was a fucking weird concept for a game and a deeply invasive one that pissed off everyone who heard about it
0 replies 1 retweet 13 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.