However, this risks situations where someone attempts to evade this. For example, suppose that person A discovers a p19 oscillator and mints the original version, then person B mints thirty or so stator variants. (For simplicity, I shall assume that each distinct pattern can be minted a maximum of one time. This isn't the case, but the general principle that I am attempting to express still applies.) Selling thirty-one patterns instead of one decreases the market price because the person who wants an NFT of a p19 the 31st-most isn't willing to pay as much money as the person who wants an NFT of a p19 the most. Is person B stealing from person A? I would say yes, but this "yes" would become less enthusiastic (although I would continue to say yes) if the stator variants had some special property, such as having a lower population or being welds that are useful for compacting LCM oscillators. Would this harm the community? Yes, I'm sure that it would harm the community at least a little, but the extent is debatable. Would person B draw ire from the community? Yes, but I doubt that that would discourage person B since the fact that this is stealing should have already been obvious. Would person A take legal action against person B? It's possible, but it depends on person A's psychology. If this does indeed happen, it could harm the community further, depending on factors such as what the ruling is and how broadly it applies.A for awesome wrote: ↑October 8th, 2021, 5:37 pmEven if it did change and NFTs gave people control, it would only be over other NFTs, so they're still only valuable if people agree they are).
Based on the fact that the current implementation of CGoL NFTs does not seem to respect the original discovers at all (for instance not giving them money or asking for their approval), I doubt that most people will care about the discoverers enough to pay them more money for CGoL NFTs. If we were starting CGoL NFTs from scratch, it would probably be possible to change this, but I think that by this point, the current culture of CGoL NFTs is ingrained enough that it cannot be changed, at least not practically.A for awesome wrote: ↑October 8th, 2021, 5:37 pmI would imagine NFTs minted/sold by discoverers would be much more valuable than those minted by random people seeking to capitalize on others' work, at least if we marketed them right.
While I can certainly see people (including me) being annoyed by this, it should be easy to at let get most of them to move on since they aren't being harmed. However, I think that it's plausible that some discoverers will not mint their patterns initially but then will want to do so a while later (e.g. once they want the money more, have a cryptocurrency account, or have passed the legal threshold age of adulthood), and something should be done to protect those people. In fact, that might be at least part of the root cause of the annoyance of the first category of people whom I mentioned in this paragraph (although it would probably be murky either way).A for awesome wrote: ↑October 8th, 2021, 5:37 pmThe main problem I see with this is that discoverers who don't want to deal with anything NFT-related will still have to deal with other people making NFTs of their patterns, which would be more valuable than normal in the absence of an "official copy".
The fact that Michael Simkin continues to push for NFTs despite the the vast majority of the creator community not supporting them could indicate that "community" actually refers to the buyers. If this is the case, I suppose that that's true because selling NFTs won't work without people to buy them, but do we really want to ignore the discoverers? I, for one, don't want to be ignored, and the opinions that others have expressed in this thread, as well as common sense, suggests that I'm not the only one.
By the way, I recommend that anyone who wants to discuss the potential of a market for CGoL NFTs and has not done so already read this this post by calcyman how the lack of monetization may have allowed to the CGoL community to persist for over half of a century and the page that calcyman linked about how the potential for monetization tends to invite sociopaths, who then destroy the subculture.