Mar 10, 2021 10:55 PM
https://earther.gizmodo.com/i-sold-a-twe...1846442763
EXCERPTS (Tom McKay): . . . This weekend, we finalized arrangements to adopt Larry [a cat], and I was so excited I tweeted some of his shelter-provided photos [...] He also attracted the attention of Twitter user @FatRaccoon, who offered to buy the rights to my tweet for $50 in Etherium’s cryptocurrency, ether...
[...] The blockchain is a system of creating immutable databases via a distributed cryptographic process—networks of computers that compete to solve complex math problems in a way that generates accurate records that can’t be changed retroactively. It theoretically has many uses, but is predominantly deployed to convert raw computational power into semi-imaginary internet money (like bitcoin and ether) hoarded by speculators who hope to become unimaginably rich with the same degree of non-effort as some guy on Wall Street.
Those cryptocurrencies are fungible, meaning they’re indistinguishable from one another—one bitcoin can be traded for another identical bitcoin. NFTs are little bits of data that are encoded onto a blockchain (usually Ethereum) sort of like a unit of cryptocurrency, but are instead totally unique. They’re still tradeable, which makes them sort of like a signed baseball card.
In theory, pretty much anything digital can be packaged and sold as an NFT—comments on this article, random photos of my future cat uploaded to Twitter, clips of NBA games, or works of art. It’s that last use that has attracted the most attention lately. A number of artists have made millions lately by selling NFTs of digital artwork for staggeringly high prices; the buyers get the blockchain-encoded trading card rather than a physical copy of the art, which may not exist...
[...] the bigger the NFT sale, the more work needs to be done to encode it onto the blockchain, and the more “work” needs to be put into future transactions on the blockchain.
[...] According to CryptoArt.wtf, the Larry transaction used the equivalent of about 11 kilowatt-hours. That’s equivalent to the average electrical consumption of a European Union resident for an entire day—or approximately 21 miles (34 kilometers) of driving with a gas-powered vehicle, one month of laptop use, or a week and a half of desktop computer usage.
[...] Those figures don’t count ... the energy cost of “production or storage of the works, or even web hosting.” Nor do they include the energy cost of reselling the NFT, and they don’t include the infinitesimal amount I just contributed to making the blockchain suck up even more juice in the future, which I’m assuming is incalculable.
Defenders have argued that NFTs and blockchains in general actually comprise a very small amount of the overall worldwide fuel consumption, and that it’s more ecologically friendly than selling an equivalent dollar amount of more cheaply produced merch like shirts and prints. The first defense is like insisting coal-rolling is fine compared to the dang power plants, a lazy whataboutism that doesn’t address the fact that NFTs still have a toll on the climate. In the second scenario, the higher carbon footprint is because people actually got hundreds of t-shirts, i.e. objects that exist in reality... (MORE - details)
EXCERPTS (Tom McKay): . . . This weekend, we finalized arrangements to adopt Larry [a cat], and I was so excited I tweeted some of his shelter-provided photos [...] He also attracted the attention of Twitter user @FatRaccoon, who offered to buy the rights to my tweet for $50 in Etherium’s cryptocurrency, ether...
[...] The blockchain is a system of creating immutable databases via a distributed cryptographic process—networks of computers that compete to solve complex math problems in a way that generates accurate records that can’t be changed retroactively. It theoretically has many uses, but is predominantly deployed to convert raw computational power into semi-imaginary internet money (like bitcoin and ether) hoarded by speculators who hope to become unimaginably rich with the same degree of non-effort as some guy on Wall Street.
Those cryptocurrencies are fungible, meaning they’re indistinguishable from one another—one bitcoin can be traded for another identical bitcoin. NFTs are little bits of data that are encoded onto a blockchain (usually Ethereum) sort of like a unit of cryptocurrency, but are instead totally unique. They’re still tradeable, which makes them sort of like a signed baseball card.
In theory, pretty much anything digital can be packaged and sold as an NFT—comments on this article, random photos of my future cat uploaded to Twitter, clips of NBA games, or works of art. It’s that last use that has attracted the most attention lately. A number of artists have made millions lately by selling NFTs of digital artwork for staggeringly high prices; the buyers get the blockchain-encoded trading card rather than a physical copy of the art, which may not exist...
[...] the bigger the NFT sale, the more work needs to be done to encode it onto the blockchain, and the more “work” needs to be put into future transactions on the blockchain.
[...] According to CryptoArt.wtf, the Larry transaction used the equivalent of about 11 kilowatt-hours. That’s equivalent to the average electrical consumption of a European Union resident for an entire day—or approximately 21 miles (34 kilometers) of driving with a gas-powered vehicle, one month of laptop use, or a week and a half of desktop computer usage.
[...] Those figures don’t count ... the energy cost of “production or storage of the works, or even web hosting.” Nor do they include the energy cost of reselling the NFT, and they don’t include the infinitesimal amount I just contributed to making the blockchain suck up even more juice in the future, which I’m assuming is incalculable.
Defenders have argued that NFTs and blockchains in general actually comprise a very small amount of the overall worldwide fuel consumption, and that it’s more ecologically friendly than selling an equivalent dollar amount of more cheaply produced merch like shirts and prints. The first defense is like insisting coal-rolling is fine compared to the dang power plants, a lazy whataboutism that doesn’t address the fact that NFTs still have a toll on the climate. In the second scenario, the higher carbon footprint is because people actually got hundreds of t-shirts, i.e. objects that exist in reality... (MORE - details)