CGOL patterns as NFTs

[erictom333]

I'm not entirely up to date with what NFTs actually are: what I know is that they're marketable formalities, something that can be created, owned, bought and sold but are nothing, in that they are not physical objects, nor software, nor numbers on paper or a computer equivalent to money, nor anything else with actual value. I have no idea why they exist: why pay money for nothing?
Also, CGOL is a field of academia, driven by people drawn to curiosity and discovery, not money. CGOL should not be survival of the richest. If people want to make money off CGOL, a better option would be to sell merchandise. For example, I have actually made a (sole) CGOL bookend as an actual bookend.

[bubblegum]

I'm not entirely up to date with what NFTs actually are: what I know is that they're marketable formalities, something that can be created, owned, bought and sold but are nothing, in that they are not physical objects, nor software, nor numbers on paper or a computer equivalent to money, nor anything else with actual value. I have no idea why they exist: why pay money for nothing?

So say you have someone offer you an NFT of the Mona Lisa. You buy it, because duh, it's the Mona Lisa, but then the person up and goes "you can't have it". When you complain that you paid for it, they offer you a receipt that says you "own" a "reproduction" of "the" Mona Lisa. They don't own the Mona Lisa of course, they're just selling you a receipt.

Michael Simkin does in a (contrived) sense own the things he's planning to make NFTs from, but that's not really any better, because you can't even control what happens to the thing you own a receipt of - the seller could just delete it, especially if it's digital, et voilà ! you own nothing.

They exist because, essentially, people will pay for them.

[erictom333]

I'm not entirely up to date with what NFTs actually are: what I know is that they're marketable formalities, something that can be created, owned, bought and sold but are nothing, in that they are not physical objects, nor software, nor numbers on paper or a computer equivalent to money, nor anything else with actual value. I have no idea why they exist: why pay money for nothing?

So say you have someone offer you an NFT of the Mona Lisa. You buy it, because duh, it's the Mona Lisa, but then the person up and goes "you can't have it". When you complain that you paid for it, they offer you a receipt that says you "own" a "reproduction" of "the" Mona Lisa. They don't own the Mona Lisa of course, they're just selling you a receipt.

<snip>

They exist because, essentially, people will pay for them.

That's what I thought they were, marketable formalities.

[simsim314]

I'm not entirely up to date with what NFTs actually are: what I know is that they're marketable formalities, something that can be created, owned, bought and sold but are nothing, in that they are not physical objects, nor software, nor numbers on paper or a computer equivalent to money, nor anything else with actual value.

I've explained it during this thread like 10 times already. I will try again.

When you look at your bank account, the number has no real value. It's just a number - you trust it because they will give you some "paper money" for the "virtual numbers" which are in limited supply. But - the paper money has exactly the same intrinsic value as the numbers in your bank account. You left with realization that "ownership of assets" - is not about physical attachment to physical stuff, but a record in respected vault (like bank) that is recognized by society as something attached to a person. You can transfer the money to someone who is recognizing the value in the money, and respects this virtual attachment to person system, and as you two agree this is the social contract - this is what creates value. There is no need in anything physical to own money, only record in the database of your common bank. Ownership is just trust in the bank records.

Now lets think about art creation. Like book - or a song, or a movie. You can always download them piratically on torrent. If you never heard of torrents and how to download any kind of information without creators permission - google it. The reason people prefer to pay creators, is not because they "get something real" they couldn't get any other way. The reason people pay creators is because they realize that creators "deserve" to be payed for their work and effort put into their creations. This is called "intellectual property". This is not something about owning something real, when you buy ebook or a song, or anything virtual - you don't buy anything real, you ONLY support the creator. Yes this model is enforced by law, and forced by governments to be respected. But you don't actually buy something. Another example of the sort is - patreon model. If you watch youtube channel that you like, and you want the creator to continue invest time and effort into creation of this content, you pay him something. I wouldn't call it donation - as he provides you with content. Just like buying a book or a song or a movie, you pay the creator "after the creation" for "new content". This makes more sense, because the creator opens the content to everyone, hoping people like it - and only AFTER they like it, people support the creator by paying him.

Now that we established this two components. 1. owning is not about something physical. 2. intellectual property is not about owning a copy but about supporting the creator. We can switch to NFTs. Just like in Patreon where you buy creations after they have been created to support the artist that publish them for free, and you don't own anything at all, you just support the artist to continue to do his job, the same way NFTs can be minted and "socially recognized as attached to creation". This is not about some objective ownership, this is part of social contract, and agreement of value seen by people. The "id" you get in the blockchain, will be owned by you - while the id has no intrinsic value just like the number in your bank account has no value, other people might have sentiments that are attached to this id. For example if a song creator is minting NFTs as part of his song, then - if you really like the song, you could buy the NFT minted by the creator. This is just like supporting the creator on Patreon. But there is more - this is also might be a good investment, so unlike in Pateron that you pay to the artist for his creation, by buying an NFT you ALSO buy the historical sentiment that comes with the moment in time of the minting. You buy something limited that attached to an event and person that other people see value in. Like buying the first Phonograph record of Beatles. You can listen to it on youtube - and the phonograph technology is outdated completely, there is only this historical sentiment that comes with the creation. Obviously if you have any Phonograph record it might have some value, but the first one that was published has the most value.

I will summon this up: 1. Ownership is virtual by definition. 2. Value is virtual by definition. 3. NFTs are about owning something minted by someone in point of time that has historical sentiment, just like any other art or collectible. It's not about owning "nothing" - it's about owning id that is attached to a historical event, a sentiment valued by some community, like any other value in the world.

because you can't even control what happens to the thing you own a receipt of - the seller could just delete it

1. Not the seller but the minter. 2. No he can't. This is what smart contract is ensuring. This is why you do it on blockchain. If he can - just don't buy it.

[pcallahan]

Now lets think about art creation. Like book - or a song, or a movie. You can always download them piratically on torrent. If you never heard of torrents and how to download any kind of information without creators permission - google it. The reason people prefer to pay creators, is not because they "get something real" they couldn't get any other way. The reason people pay creators is because they realize that creators "deserve" to be payed for their work and effort put into their creations.

I think this explanation, while it applies sometimes, is too idealistic. People pay for content when (1) it is priced affordably and (2) it's less hassle than stealing it. (3) There is probably some social pressure as well.

I suspect teenagers and young adults are a lot more likely to consume pirated content than mature people with well paying jobs, though I don't have the data. In any case (1), they may not be able to afford as much as they want to consume. For someone who can pay to stream a movie whenever they want to, looking for a pirated source is more time-consuming and a less reliable experience overall (or should be). That's where (2) comes into play. Finally, if you're an adult at least, you might be a little ashamed to tell your friends that you're consuming pirated content (3) whereas you will be able to say "I saw this on Netflix." That builds up a brand identity and sets a convention.

Getting people to pay for creative content isn't that easy, and if you are limited to those whose intent is to support the artist, you'll barely make a living. It's the virtual equivalent of being a street busker relying on people to drop money in your hat.

I think what's missing for CGoL is a large enough popular interest in this content to receive any remuneration. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. If it gets going, I will certainly observe with interest.

[erictom333]

Now lets think about art creation. Like book - or a song, or a movie. You can always download them piratically on torrent. If you never heard of torrents and how to download any kind of information without creators permission - google it. The reason people prefer to pay creators, is not because they "get something real" they couldn't get any other way. The reason people pay creators is because they realize that creators "deserve" to be payed for their work and effort put into their creations. This is called "intellectual property". This is not something about owning something real, when you buy ebook or a song, or anything virtual - you don't buy anything real, you ONLY support the creator. Yes this model is enforced by law, and forced by governments to be respected. But you don't actually buy something. Another example of the sort is - patreon model. If you watch youtube channel that you like, and you want the creator to continue invest time and effort into creation of this content, you pay him something. I wouldn't call it donation - as he provides you with content. Just like buying a book or a song or a movie, you pay the creator "after the creation" for "new content". This makes more sense, because the creator opens the content to everyone, hoping people like it - and only AFTER they like it, people support the creator by paying him.

Now that we established this two components. 1. owning is not about something physical. 2. intellectual property is not about owning a copy but about supporting the creator. We can switch to NFTs. Just like in Patreon where you buy creations after they have been created to support the artist that publish them for free, and you don't own anything at all, you just support the artist to continue to do his job, the same way NFTs can be minted and "socially recognized as attached to creation". This is not about some objective ownership, this is part of social contract, and agreement of value seen by people. The "id" you get in the blockchain, will be owned by you - while the id has no intrinsic value just like the number in your bank account has no value, other people might have sentiments that are attached to this id. For example if a song creator is minting NFTs as part of his song, then - if you really like the song, you could buy the NFT minted by the creator. This is just like supporting the creator on Patreon. But there is more - this is also might be a good investment, so unlike in Pateron that you pay to the artist for his creation, by buying an NFT you ALSO buy the historical sentiment that comes with the moment in time of the minting. You buy something limited that attached to an event and person that other people see value in. Like buying the first Phonograph record of Beatles. You can listen to it on youtube - and the phonograph technology is outdated completely, there is only this historical sentiment that comes with the creation. Obviously if you have any Phonograph record it might have some value, but the first one that was published has the most value.

I will summon this up: 1. Ownership is virtual by definition. 2. Value is virtual by definition. 3. NFTs are about owning something minted by someone in point of time that has historical sentiment, just like any other art or collectible. It's not about owning "nothing" - it's about owning id that is attached to a historical event, a sentiment valued by some community, like any other value in the world.

First off, thank you for clarifying what NFTs really are about. However, I have zero, possibly negative, interest in the whole process. I see no point in paying extra for something because it was the first of something. (Also see: The recent controversy about price scalping in thr retro video game market, with auctioneers artificially inflating the prices of games based on arbitrary criteria until they reach the millions. A sealed "special" "limited edition" copy of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time with a typo in the title is no more valuable to me than a battered used copy that has been in someone's attic for 17 years: both are the same game.) Similarly, I see no point in paying any money for an NFT, no matter what sentiments (real or artificial) are attached to it. Other people might, but I don't work that way. If I want to make money from CGOL, I make and sell physical merchandise. There are other ways (like Patreon, which you mentioned) to support CGOL creators. However, CGOL is an academic discipline. People do this for fun, for the thrill of discovering new stuff. Not for money.

[silversmith]

In a simplified analysis of the potential market for CA based NFTs, there seem to be four types of people, which are the various combinations of people who understand how CA work or don’t, and the people willing to pay money to purchase an NFT.

1. Understanding and not willing: This seems to be the vast majority of active members of the forums, who are against the trade of CA based NFTs and therefore unlikely to purchase them

2. Understanding and willing: Similarly I have not yet seen anyone who is offering to purchase NFTs, so it seems to be a very small group of people.

3. Not understanding and not willing: Essentially zero market potential.

4. Not understanding and willing: There is little data available on the potential market for NFTs outside of the CA community, which could potentially have a large group of people willing to purchase them. However, this opens up the moral question of selling the NFTs to people who most likely will not understand the CA behind it.

[pcallahan]

However, this opens up the moral question of selling the NFTs to people who most likely will not understand the CA behind it.

I think it's OK if they are getting any satisfaction out of it. We consume a lot of things we don't understand at the level of the producer, including nearly all art and technology. I pay to listen to music I could not possibly play myself and could not explain in terms of chords, etc. It's just not something I have studied enough.

The question in my mind is just whether the market exists at all. Personally, I think there's a viable means to getting more CA in popular culture, but it's a lot of work and investment. It would require evangelizing the interest, potentially at an initial loss, by offering educational programs with hands on experience in CA search and design. This is IMO at least as interesting as building Lego or Arduino robots, but there is simply a much larger community for these (including school programs and summer camps), not only out of intrinsic interest but other incidental factors. Needless to say, FLL robotics benefits from having a big corporation behind it (and familiarity with kids). It's not as clear how Arduino took off, maybe because there are a lot of practical applications for embedded controllers.

Some of the interest in CA, such as for screensavers, has faded. Maybe trying to work it into online games is better. Life universal constructors are really an amazing technology, just for a different universe from our own. The ability to generate glider syntheses on demand is also way beyond what most of the world perceives as CGoL state of the art. Is there a way to drum up excitement that goes beyond watching a pattern for a few minutes and forgetting about it.

[otismo]

I want to buy the NFT of the Simkin Glider Gun minted by Michael Simkin.

I just read this entire thread and I have so much to say but it can wait -

now is the time to be listening to what other people think...

I am glad that we are up and running NFT-wise -

Thank You All for that !

I wish I could mint one, but alas, I have not discovered anything that is noteworthy...

All I can do is hope to be able to buy the tokens of others - so I hope that they will mint them...

Cheers !

[simsim314]

I see no point in paying extra for something because it was the first of something.

Would you pay 5$ for the original Mona Lisa? Why? You can print it from google images for much cheaper. It just the first painting.

Similarly, I see no point in paying any money for an NFT, no matter what sentiments (real or artificial) are attached to it.

This sounds to me as simplistic as the claim you won't accept anything for payment except gold, not even promises of gold in form of paper. If you accept paper money you accept sentiment that comes with them. It's just very common sentiment unlike in case of art pieces that is more rare, but it doesn't really matter.

There are other ways (like Patreon, which you mentioned) to support CGOL creators

What are you buying when you pay creators on Patreon? Isn't this the sentiment attached to the work?

CGOL is an academic discipline. People do this for fun, for the thrill of discovering new stuff. Not for money.

This is false dichotomy. People would be doing it more with more time and effort dedicated to it if there was money involved. I would personally work more time and discover more patterns if I would be payed for doing so (and many others are like me I guess). Except the immense amount of effort put into discoveries that I'm doing for fun, I need to work on real job doing something someone is willing to pay for. This takes a lot of my time for patterns and research even if I want to do this work for free. Other than that: because I'm doing it for fun, I would prefer doing something simple and relaxing and not writing huge amount of code needed for some discoveries. This is real work that needs a lot of time and dedication. Even in the academia they get grants for their research and are not doing it for free.

It's the virtual equivalent of being a street busker relying on people to drop money in your hat.

I can agree Patreon is such a model. NFTs is more like virtual equivalent of selling a printed painting of your digital art (although the buyer can print it too). The all similar indeed.

4. Not understanding and willing:

Most of art collectors don't understand - this is why the get advice from art specialists. This is at least where the money for art is coming from.

[mniemiec]

Would you pay 5$ for the original Mona Lisa? Why? You can print it from google images for much cheaper. It just the first painting.

If I wanted to hang a Mona Lisa on my wall, I'd be perfectly fine paying $5 for a google print rather then $5M for the original.

If you accept paper money you accept sentiment that comes with them. It's just very common sentiment unlike in case of art pieces that is more rare, but it doesn't really matter.

The difference is that money is fungible; one coin/bill bill is identical to any other, except to numismatic collectors and government accountants (who care about the serial numbers, to prevent counterfeiting).

People would be doing it more with more time and effort dedicated to it if there was money involved.

I would probably spend LESS time working on it, if I knew there was a whole army of young Turks doing the same for profit, and knowing that they would be much more likely to successfully monetize it than I could ever be.

Even in the academia they get grants for their research and are not doing it for free.

Exactly. Grants pay you to do research. They don't include a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head requiring you to pay the money back unless your research produces something commercially viable. NFTs only pay if you can get someone to buy them.

[bubblegum]

Would you pay 5$ for the original Mona Lisa? Why? You can print it from google images for much cheaper. It just the first painting.

Legal concerns aside, $5 for the original Mona Lisa is a ridiculously good deal for the buyer, while the Google Images print is a scam.

[simsim314]

If I wanted to hang a Mona Lisa on my wall, I'd be perfectly fine paying $5 for a google print rather then $5M for the original.

You missed the point there. I was talking about sentiment we attach to the first creation and not million of copies that comes to them afterwards. This was in response to "I see no point in paying extra for something because it was the first of something."

The difference is that money is fungible

You missing the point here too. Why it's not common to come to the store and hear "this is just paper" - pay me with something of real value! Fungible or not there is still sentiment involved in it. Sort of socially accepted trust in the coin. This can be broken easily, many countries lost value of their local fungible currency. You are talking about mechanics I'm talking about social aspect of it. I'm certain you will buy Mona Lisa for 5$ although there is nothing fungible about it, because you know you can easily sell it for several millions.

I would probably spend LESS time working on it, if I knew there was a whole army of young Turks doing the same for profit

OK, how is this bad for the research field? I see how it's bad for you - but it's good for cgol field as a whole. This same thing happened to many fields, like chess for example. People for hundreds of years were playing it for fun, but the real progress was achieved when it became profitable. This is true for music too.

They don't include a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head requiring you to pay the money back unless your research produces something commercially viable. NFTs only pay if you can get someone to buy them.

Grants is more like kickstarter sponsorship. It's just a little bi different monetization strategy. Research is not done for interest and not money.

original Mona Lisa is a ridiculously good deal for the buyer,

Why do you have any sentiment to the original Mona Lisa, it's just the first Mona Lisa, there are millions others.

[mniemiec]

You missed the point there. I was talking about sentiment we attach to the first creation and not million of copies that comes to them afterwards. This was in response to "I see no point in paying extra for something because it was the first of something."

If you want to pay $5M for sentimental value, you're perfectly entitled to do so. When I buy art, I do so for its utility value (i.e. because I want to look at it), not for bragging rights.

The difference is that money is fungible

Fungible or not there is still sentiment involved in it.

The difference is that between relying on the whims of individual collectors, vs. an entire country's economy. Yes countries do fail, but currency markets tend to be much more reliable and stable than those of collectibles.

OK, how is this bad for the research field? I see how it's bad for you - but it's good for cgol field as a whole.

It would be bad, because it would priorities those research fields that are deemed to be financially profitable over those that are mathematically interesting and useful. E.g. there are many aspects of CA that are abstract mathematical proofs that aren't really pretty to look at, or otherwise comprehensible. E.g. Matthew Cook's proof that rule 110 is computationally universal - very foundational in terms of CA theory, but over the heads of even most avid CA enthusiasts.

This same thing happened to many fields, like chess for example. People for hundreds of years were playing it for fun, but the real progress was achieved when it became profitable. This is true for music too.

But note that in each of these things, the professionalism and big money are in very focused subfields - e.g. playing chess to win, rather than studying chess as an NP(complete) problem, or playing music for enjoyment of an auditorium audience or purchasers of studio recordings, rather than mathematical analysis. Rock stars make millions; musicologists do not.

[bubblegum]

it's just the first Mona Lisa, there are millions others.

Well, the first Mona Lisa is a masterpiece and a perfect demonstration of the artistic skills of the famous and influential Leonardo da Vinci, while the millions of other Mona Lisas are demonstrations of just how easy and common it is to get a worthless reproduction of absolutely anything.

[calcyman]

I think what's missing for CGoL is a large enough popular interest in this content to receive any remuneration. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. If it gets going, I will certainly observe with interest.

The user 'point618' (who seems to be an established NFT collector) just bought the blockdragger (smallish c/5d spaceship I recently found with ikpx2) for 0.02 ETH ($80), definitively demonstrating that there's interest outside the core community for buying NFTs of GoL patterns for >= $80.

https://opensea.io/assets/0xe4fa7749611 ... 7016819b/7

Considering the fact that this project has only been live for 8 days now and hasn't been advertised at all, I'd say that this is pleasantly surprising.

[pcallahan]

Considering the fact that this project has only been live for 8 days now and hasn't been advertised at all, I'd say that this is pleasantly surprising.

Wow. I am surprised. Let's see if it repeats.

The animated gifs may help make something like this attractive to a buyer outside this community.

[calcyman]

Considering the fact that this project has only been live for 8 days now and hasn't been advertised at all, I'd say that this is pleasantly surprising.

Wow. I am surprised. Let's see if it repeats.

The animated gifs may help make something like this attractive to a buyer outside this community.

Yes, I think that the aesthetic appeal is important. The buyer does appear to have collected some other mathematical artworks (such as variants of the Mandelbrot set and other fractals).

[pcallahan]

Yes, I think that the aesthetic appeal is important. The buyer does appear to have collected some other mathematical artworks (such as variants of the Mandelbrot set and other fractals).

Well, if it takes off, then this NFT has the historical value of being the first CGoL NFT ever purchased (as far as I know), and point618 may have made a very savvy investment. Hmm... unless point618 is really someone we know in disguise... my conspiracy alarm was buzzing until I realized that 314 times 2 is 628, not 618 (I need to take remedial arithmetic some day).

(Updated: but I suspect it's a math reference after all, in this case an approximation to 1/phi, the golden ratio. And there is a twitter account for point618 with a lot of retweets of Cliff Pickover.)

Now if we can only get Elon Musk to retweet it (never mind, then he'll just sell for more than anyone here can get).

[calcyman]

I think what's missing for CGoL is a large enough popular interest in this content to receive any remuneration. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. If it gets going, I will certainly observe with interest.

The user 'point618' (who seems to be an established NFT collector) just bought the blockdragger (smallish c/5d spaceship I recently found with ikpx2) for 0.02 ETH ($80), definitively demonstrating that there's interest outside the core community for buying NFTs of GoL patterns for >= $80.

User '0xA47' (another established NFT collector) has bought the NFT of Michael Simkin's p60 oscillator for 0.05 ETH ($200) within 2 days of it being listed:

https://opensea.io/assets/0xe4fa7749611 ... 7016819b/8

Does anyone else feel like getting involved and creating an NFT of a pattern that they've discovered? As I've said, what I need to know is:

• Which pattern (at the moment, only smallish oscillators, spaceships, still-lifes, and glider guns are supported);
• The colour of the subtle glow in the animated GIF (optional -- if you don't specify, I'll choose something randomly);
• Your Ethereum address (if you're unfamiliar with blockchains, this is a hashed public key), so that you receive the NFT when it's minted.