ArtStation goes NFT...and give up by the end of the day.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Hm, how that was measured is very important, but it might make sense.

20% increase in GPU sales, some of which (let's say 10%) are increase in mining hardware. That might end up at about 4% total mining sales which Nvidia reported earlier.

So 20% higher demand, and maybe let's say 30% reduction in production (grabbed out of thin air), on top of shipping issues, might be why we have such shortages.

 

I think the reduction in production is the big thing. I mean, it's not just mining related stuff that are in short supplies so I don't get why people are blaming miners. Cars, consoles, mousepads (according to Linus), processors, etc. All of it are in very short supplies. If everyone is struggling then I don't really see why people assume miners are to blame for it and not something bigger (like the pandemic reducing production capacity). Or maybe people think miners are behind the short supply on things like cars as well...

Was there actually a reduction in production though? Both companies touted increased production (though who knows how true that was)   There are apparently water problems that could affect production.  

[Sauron]

On 3/9/2021 at 10:51 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

I just don't really see what impact the option of a digital proof will have. I've never stopped and thought to myself "Gee I wish I had some form of digital proof that I paid for a picture instead of saving from Google Images search, if only..."

It's just investor bait, they want to speculate on modern digital art like they would on a painting and they can't do that if they can't have exclusive ownership. Historically, most famous artists only ever saw a small fraction of what their paintings would later end up being worth; I'm sure digital artists don't want that to be the case for them.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

Last time I checked, we don't have warehouses full of of computer for play games.

Well we do. They are called game servers. But what's your point?

10 warehouses with 100 GPUs mining in them are still the same total number of GPUs as 1000 houses with 1 GPU in them.

 

There are FAAAAAAAAR more gamers than miners.

 

 

13 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

And yet, you contradict yourself saying that PC gaming in in the 40th place in energy consumption while mining is on 25th. In ranking, mining is 15 places ABOVE gaming.

Yes but what's your point?

The argument was "it's bad because it uses a lot of power". Gaming also uses a lot of power, probably close to as much as mining. So if "high energy use = bad" then that applies to gaming as well.

Also, please note that, as I said, those figures only include desktop PCs. They do not include consoles (which is a bigger industry than PC gaming), nor does it include all the data centers that host game servers.

 

 

13 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

According to this BBC article, mining consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year.

Yes, and PC gaming alone uses 75 TWh a year, back in 2015, not including consoles or servers.

What is your point?

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

Just to mine virtual coins whose value is defined by artificial scarcity. Do you know what artificial scarcity is? It means that something that something, like a computer file, that can be easily and infinity replicated, is made scarce using artificial means (In this case, the GPU has to spend energy to solve man made algorithms) to make a copy of that information.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56012952

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that bitcoins are bad because they are "artificially scarce"? And by artificial scarcity you mean something that can easily be duplicated by a computer but is limited in some capacity?

 

I don't think bitcoins or other crypto currencies are "artificially scarce". By that logic, stock and the USD are also "artificially scarce". My bank for example could easily just go into my account and add a couple of zeroes at the end of my savings account and all of a sudden I would be rich. Does that mean the USD is also artificially scarce and therefore bad?

 

Secondly, mining does not create copies. It sounds to me like you don't fully understand how cryptocurrencies work. You don't create copies by mining, although I see how it could be easy to make that assumption.

When you mine, you are part of the verification process when deciding which public ledger to trust, and all transactions rely on verifications in order to ensure that someone can't let's say spend coins they do not actually have. 

The algorithms used by for example bitcoin are "man-made" in the same sense that the algorithm ensuring that nobody can intercept your bank details when you log into your bank online are also "man-made". In many cases they are actually the exact same algorithms.

The algorithms serve a specific purpose. If you were implying that "man-made" means "just for fun" then you are incorrect.

 

 

14 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

At least games serve a purpose. As entertainment or eSports. Crypto...things don't. They make no sense. You are spending time and resources into pink glittery clouds.

So gaming is allowed to use a ton of power and hardware because it is fun (in your mind at least).

But crypto, which generates money for people, and some people think it's fun tweaking to get higher hash rates (similar to how some like overclocking to get higher benchmark scores), and some people run entire Youtube channels dedicated to mining... That's a waste in your eyes and shouldn't count?

I think it is problematic to argue that "this thing is fun so therefore I think it should be allowed, but this thing I don't find entertaining so it is bad" which is what you are doing right now.

 

14 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

Also, the "Ohhhh, but gaming also consume energy" is a false equivalency fallacy. The fact that gaming also consumes huge ammounts of energy does not legitimate crypto...stuff to consume even more.

How is it a false equivalence exactly?

Also, I am not trying to "legitimize" crypto. What I am saying is that your arguments for why you dislike cryptocurrencies could just as easily apply to gaming, something you seem very okay with.

It seems to me like you are applying a different set of standards to gaming and mining and I am trying to figure out why and if you have really thought it through. 

[Moonzy]

15 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

Last time I checked, we don't have warehouses full of of computer for play games.

cyber cafe is a huge industry in asia

and it's basically a person, hoarding a ton of computers (not just GPU, whole computers) and making a profit off of it

 

here's one: http://home.orange.my/

Quote

so yes, people do hoard thousands of computers to play games

 

that said, it's a falling industry due to the pandemic, so this happened

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/internet-cafe-turning-to-mining#:~:text=In a Facebook Post%2C Internet,access to RTX 3080s for

 

there's also google stadia, geforce now etc etc

 

edit:

23 hours ago, Rocky Arbigaus said:

all it's left is a worn out GPU.

oh, and GPU dont wear out like car tyres, they either work or they dont

the fans, maybe, but it's something cheap to replace rather than tossing out the entire card.

 

edit 2:

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Or maybe people think miners are behind the short supply on things like cars as well...

...!!!! mining in a tesla + tesla accepting bitcoin = using the car to finance the car

[Luxzio22]

I think this is overall going to be bad for artists, and correct me if I'm wrong, because:

1.Earlier, artists could upload a work and while anyone could copy it, they could get it DMCAed because even a work they didn't register for copyright would at least automatically assumed to be theirs' because it appeared on their account and they could potentially have higher quality originals.

2.With NFTs, someone could steal a piece of work, register it on the blockchain, effectively making it transferrable and giving some legitimacy of ownership to the current owner of the NFT instead of the original creator. 

 

Isn't this right? Aren't NFTs hence a parallel system to copyright?

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

I think this is overall going to be bad for artists, and correct me if I'm wrong, because:

1.Earlier, artists could upload a work and while anyone could copy it, they could get it DMCAed because even a work they didn't register for copyright would at least automatically assumed to be theirs' because it appeared on their account and they could potentially have higher quality originals.

2.With NFTs, someone could steal a piece of work, register it on the blockchain, effectively making it transferrable and giving some legitimacy of ownership to the current owner of the NFT instead of the original creator. 

 

Isn't this right? Aren't NFTs hence a parallel system to copyright?

The thing you pointed to in number 1 can still happen, and will still happen.

NFT doesn't remove anything. It's an addition. NFT doesn't overwrite copyright either.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

2.With NFTs, someone could steal a piece of work, register it on the blockchain, effectively making it transferrable and giving some legitimacy of ownership to the current owner of the NFT instead of the original creator. 

 

Isn't this right? Aren't NFTs hence a parallel system to copyright?

Copyright would still apply to that work so... it would be like owning a stolen painting.

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The thing you pointed to in number 1 can still happen, and will still happen.

NFT doesn't remove anything. It's an addition. NFT doesn't overwrite copyright either.

i read somewhere that someone turned a clip of logan paul's video into an NFT and sold it for a couple of thousand like wtf. im no fan of logan paul but still seems really weird that someone can just do that and make money off of someone else's content. 

 

also if someone does that to your work how would you go about getting it back? afaik once its registered it now belongs to the person that registered it and theres nothing you can do

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

 

 

also if someone does that to your work how would you go about getting it back? afaik once its registered it now belongs to the person that registered it and theres nothing you can do

You don’t. At best you send a DMCA to everyone who trades it, and that still doesn’t remove it from the blockchain. It just makes trading it obnoxious and tracking it obnoxious. It’s a no-winners-exist result and the hundreds of dollars in energy is destroyed doing all of it.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i read somewhere that someone turned a clip of logan paul's video into an NFT and sold it for a couple of thousand like wtf. im no fan of logan paul but still seems really weird that someone can just do that and make money off of someone else's content. 

 

also if someone does that to your work how would you go about getting it back? afaik once its registered it now belongs to the person that registered it and theres nothing you can do

Might depend on the National laws involved.  In the US it would require a lawsuit, but NFT doesn’t change law.  It’s just a watermark. The content creator would eventually recieve the rights, the new owner would lose the piece with no compensation (trading stolen goods) and the seller would have to pay court costs which could likely beggar them.  This all assumes the person stolen from attempts to do that.  If they don’t press charges things get weird.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

i read somewhere that someone turned a clip of logan paul's video into an NFT and sold it for a couple of thousand like wtf. im no fan of logan paul but still seems really weird that someone can just do that and make money off of someone else's content. 

 

also if someone does that to your work how would you go about getting it back? afaik once its registered it now belongs to the person that registered it and theres nothing you can do

 

59 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Might depend on the National laws involved.  In the US it would require a lawsuit, but NFT doesn’t change law.  It’s just a watermark. The content creator would eventually recieve the rights, the new owner would lose the piece with no compensation (trading stolen goods) and the seller would have to pay court costs which could likely beggar them.  This all assumes the person stolen from attempts to do that.  If they don’t press charges things get weird.

I think people are pretty naive right now as well, rushing to buy anything they think will have value without looking it up. 

 

If Logan Paul hasn't said he made the clip then why would someone pay so much for it? 

I think buying an unauthorized clip like that is basically like buying a painting because some dude said "yeah its totally a Picasso painting bro. I'll sell it to you for a thousand bucks".

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I think people are pretty naive right now as well, rushing to buy anything they think will have value without looking it up. 

 

If Logan Paul hasn't said he made the clip then why would someone pay so much for it? 

I think buying an unauthorized clip like that is basically like buying a painting because some dude said "yeah its totally a Picasso painting bro. I'll sell it to you for a thousand bucks".

If it’s a boxing thing it might be “the famous boxer and some dude”.  

[Luxzio22]

@LAwLzIt doesn't overwrite copyright but it does create a parallel system of verifying ownership doesn't it? Doesn't that make it a possibly illegal(based on country's laws) alternative to copyright? 

@SauronCopyright would apply legally but what I'm concerned about is if instead of the normal system of copyright verifying ownership, everyone accepts NFTs as a system of verifying ownership, can't NFT's make copyright redundant?

@BombastinatorI imagine normal proceedings for unlicensed use of work could be initiated. The main difference would be that while there was no method of watermarking digital work to sell as an original piece before, NFTs now give that power to everyone, right?

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

@SauronCopyright would apply legally but what I'm concerned about is if instead of the normal system of copyright verifying ownership, everyone accepts NFTs as a system of verifying ownership, can't NFT's make copyright redundant?

...no... copyright does not need NFTs to do what it does so why add the complexity? proving authorship isn't hard anyway

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Luxzio22 said:

@LAwLzIt doesn't overwrite copyright but it does create a parallel system of verifying ownership doesn't it? Doesn't that make it a possibly illegal(based on country's laws) alternative to copyright? 

@SauronCopyright would apply legally but what I'm concerned about is if instead of the normal system of copyright verifying ownership, everyone accepts NFTs as a system of verifying ownership, can't NFT's make copyright redundant?

@BombastinatorI imagine normal proceedings for unlicensed use of work could be initiated. The main difference would be that while there was no method of watermarking digital work to sell as an original piece before, NFTs now give that power to everyone, right?

Think of NFT as a CD key, or a signature. 

They are not related to copyright at all. 

Copyright and NFT are completely different systems for different purposes. One does not replace the other. You can sell an NFT without providing the buying with the copyright for yhr work for example. 

Likewise, having the CD-key for Diablo 2 doesn't mean you own all copyright related to Diablo 2 and can use it however you want. 

[rand_althor_cometh]

On 3/9/2021 at 9:44 PM, Rocky Arbigaus said:

No, but imagine if you get 30, 50, 100 artwork stolen. That if you even know you had a stolen artwork in the first place

Just put them on yourself after the first time it's stolen. Maybe you'll stop parking your car in Harlem after the first 10 times or at least start locking it and taking the keys with you instead of leaving it running. 

This argument is so flawed. This is a way to know that it has been stolen. it's very easy to DMCA and you only ever have to do it once. After that, you can just upload it yourself and it's done.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, rand_althor_cometh said:

Just put them on yourself after the first time it's stolen. Maybe you'll stop parking your car in Harlem after the first 10 times or at least start locking it and taking the keys with you instead of leaving it running. 

This argument is so flawed. This is a way to know that it has been stolen. it's very easy to DMCA and you only ever have to do it once. After that, you can just upload it yourself and it's done.

I had a teacher in art school that did commercial art using found image for a while.  He made a point to only use stuff printed before 1930.  He got tricked once though and got a call from the person who posed for the image.  His dumb luck it was just an actor who didn’t have any rights to the work, but merely wanted to know what it was about the image that made him want to use it.  It could have been much worse.  He developed a new technique. (A really difficult thing for a commercial artist to do.  Takes years and a certain amount of risk)

Edited March 12, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Bombastinator]

On 3/9/2021 at 2:17 PM, Rocky Arbigaus said:

So, it's ok for someone take my car and sell it because I left it on the street instead of put it inside the garage? Your logic is flawed.

How could your car get sold that way?  It can.  You’d have to park it illegally enough that it would be towed.  Then you’d have to refuse to go get the thing and pay the fine.  It sits around for the required time and the towing company can sell the car to reclaim losses .  Happens often enough that there are general auctions for such vehicles.  

[Rocky Arbigaus]

19 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

How could your car get sold that way?  It can.  You’d have to park it illegally enough that it would be towed.  Then you’d have to refuse to go get the thing and pay the fine.  It sits around for the required time and the towing company can sell the car to reclaim losses .  Happens often enough that there are general auctions for such vehicles.  

Yeah, but I did not parked my jpeg illegally...or did I? *checks jpeg*

You won this time, but next time...be prepared...or not, your choice.

[spartaman64]

On 3/12/2021 at 10:34 AM, rand_althor_cometh said:

Just put them on yourself after the first time it's stolen. Maybe you'll stop parking your car in Harlem after the first 10 times or at least start locking it and taking the keys with you instead of leaving it running. 

This argument is so flawed. This is a way to know that it has been stolen. it's very easy to DMCA and you only ever have to do it once. After that, you can just upload it yourself and it's done.

if im not mistaken isnt there several NFT systems? so i eventually need to register my art on like 50 different NFTs to make sure someone else doesnt get to it first? also some blockchain transactions are anonymous right? so how do i DMCA someone 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

if im not mistaken isnt there several NFT systems? so i eventually need to register my art on like 50 different NFTs to make sure someone else doesnt get to it first?

I remember reading there was 3 but even that is way too many.  It’s apparently annoying to get on even one of them for that matter.  There was an article in Forbes(?) about it.  Apparently they’re a big mess and it has to do with the way it was originally set up so it’s baked in.