The Tim Berners-Lee NFT that sold for $5.4M might have an HTML error (arstechnica.com) 41
An anonymous reader shares a report: Two weeks ago, World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee sent an NFT of the web's original source code to the auction block with a starting bid of just $1,000. Yesterday, Sotheby's announced that the crypto asset sold for $5.4 million. The sum makes Berners-Lee's work one of the priciest NFTs of all time. The digital package included not just the source code but also a letter from Berners-Lee reflecting on the creation of the web, some original HTML documents, an SVG "poster" of thousands of lines of code, and a 30-minute visualization of the code being typed on a screen.
But there's a twist. An eagle-eyed researcher pointed out on Twitter that the animation initially posted on the Sotheby's site had errors in the code, possibly introduced when the person making the video fed the Objective-C code through an app or web service to produce the typing effect in the animation. Instead of angle brackets that are present in the code (), the HTML codes for the symbols ( & lt; and & gt;) appeared instead. On the poster, which was made by a Python script created by Berners-Lee, the brackets appear correct. Presumably, they are also correct in the code itself. The code was corrected in later animations, raising questions about this particular NFT and NFTs as a whole.
But there's a twist. An eagle-eyed researcher pointed out on Twitter that the animation initially posted on the Sotheby's site had errors in the code, possibly introduced when the person making the video fed the Objective-C code through an app or web service to produce the typing effect in the animation. Instead of angle brackets that are present in the code (), the HTML codes for the symbols ( & lt; and & gt;) appeared instead. On the poster, which was made by a Python script created by Berners-Lee, the brackets appear correct. Presumably, they are also correct in the code itself. The code was corrected in later animations, raising questions about this particular NFT and NFTs as a whole.
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
30-minute visualization of the code being typed on a screen.
That's one of the most boring things I can imagine doing with 30 minutes. Sex with blackjack might be more boring, but wow, that's boring.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the most boring things I can imagine doing with 30 minutes. Sex with blackjack might be more boring, but wow, that's boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as boring as a Linux instillation video from the early days.
Re: (Score:3)
At least Bisqwit [youtube.com] provides narration and screenshots while he codes. Although Some of his older videos was just code with some chiptunes [youtube.com] and ends with a part2 [youtube.com] showing a picture-in-picture view of the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, sometimes I read code for fun. But I am understanding it, jumping around, not just doing a straight read through from line 1 to line 10000.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, normally coding isn't going to be all that interesting to watch as a spectator. I think Bisqwit and others makes it more entertaining by going beyond reading the code top to bottom. Some of the development and prototyping process are shown in the better videos. For example, Bisqwit is rather fond of using QBasic to prototype or visualize an idea, which seems like a good way to make sure to only write "throw-away" code and not get bogged down in boiler plate and excessive details.
Re:LOL @ bitcoin boomer logic (Score:4, Insightful)
People that make NFT's are fucking geniuses. People that BUY NFT's are fucking morons.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying it's modern art in a new package?
Editors gonna not edit... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of angle brackets that are present in the code (), the HTML codes for the symbols ( & lt; and & gt;) appeared instead.
Why am I not surprised that the editors didn't pick up on Slashdot eating the angle brackets that were supposed to be present there...
Re:Editors gonna not edit... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been proven that many of us keep coming back even if the quality of the articles and of the web UI itself is extremely low. All that matters are the clicks and views I think.
Re: (Score:1)
The Slashdot "Editors" have passed the "Annoying Minor Incompitence" stage and are now well into "Hilaros Gros Incopmetents".
Code that has an error? (Score:2)
Perish the thought!
Re: (Score:2)
Perish the thought!
First NFT bug? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So it now got even MORE valuable. After all it's a NFT with a "first" now.
East fix... (Score:2)
This guy is a genius. Now he'll sell them another NFT of source code that translates the HTML entities back to actual characters.
Re: (Score:1)
Nah. A few people having more money than sense is not a risk to normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. A few people having more money than sense is not a risk to normal people.
A few hundred million people around the world who fell victim to the 2008 banking crisis says otherwise.
Try and not be so damn blind next time to the dangers of Greed. Whether you believe me or not, it will likely be the demise of our species.
Solve for the Disease of Greed. Good luck. We've only been infected by it for a few thousand years. Doubt we'll survive a few thousand more.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, yes, of course, nodding, edging away.
Nope. Makes it more valuable... (Score:5, Funny)
The code was corrected in later animations, raising questions about this particular NFT and NFTs as a whole.
Now the one-of-a-kind NFT contains a unique production error from the preparation that was corrected later. This boosts the value from 5.4 to $10.8 Million... Had they only known at the time of sale..
Re: (Score:2)
Why was that voted funny? That's very likely what's going to happen. Just think of the most valuable items in existence, most of them being misprints.
Then again, a NFT already was unique.
But now it's not only the only one of its kind, it's also a "first" of a kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't an NFT just a pointer to the storage location of said electronic trinket? What is stopping Berners-Lee from just updating the video in that storage location?
NFTs 2.0 (Score:2)
Right now we're seeing the first round of NFTs, and a very big theme is people cashing in on their fame or reputation for the first time (and deservedly so).
Though I see a problem when some of these folks decide to try going back to the well a second time.
One of the things that makes a painting valuable is the fact the painter can only paint so many pictures, and even then the value can jump a lot when they stop.
NTFs are trying to create the same scarcity... but the Tim Berners-Lee's NFT isn't selling an ar
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons why art tends to appreciate after the artist dies is precisely because there is a guarantee that no more copies will be made.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons why art tends to appreciate after the artist dies is precisely because there is a guarantee that no more copies will be made.
Exactly. And an NFT is much easier for the "artist" to copy and therefore dilute than a painting. The record setting Everydays — The First 5000 Days [nytimes.com] is a very interesting concept. But what happens in 5-10 years when the artist's lifestyle has evolved to the point where they decide they'd like a few more millions of dollars. Could they make a "First 100 days", or "Year 1", etc. It wouldn't have the same value as the first, and would certainly cause the value of the original to plummet.
And since NFTs ar
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying that art is about equally dysfunctional. Art is not priced for its quality, but for who made it. If a painting is discovered to be a forgery and only painted in the style of one of the masters, it immediately loses most of its value. Despite looking exactly the same as it did before the forgery was discovered.
When someone buys expensive art, what they really buy is bragging rights. Owning an NFT seems to achieve the same goal. So I say good for the buyers and good for the sellers, everyone w
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying that art is about equally dysfunctional. Art is not priced for its quality, but for who made it. If a painting is discovered to be a forgery and only painted in the style of one of the masters, it immediately loses most of its value. Despite looking exactly the same as it did before the forgery was discovered.
When someone buys expensive art, what they really buy is bragging rights. Owning an NFT seems to achieve the same goal. So I say good for the buyers and good for the sellers, everyone wins.
If the buyer is hoping to make a windfall from the purchase, I have a bridge in Second Life for sale that would make a much better investment for them...
Kind of. Part of art is stories, and part of a painting is the story of the painting including the story of the painter. So it's legit that a forgery isn't worth the same as the original since even though the picture is the same the story is lacking. And that's really why the NFTs work as much as they do, because they create some of that story.
But I think the story ends of being a lot more fluid and hard to define with NFTs, and I really think that's going to undercut their ability to deliver value.
Oh I'm sorry! (Score:3)
If you wanted the tech support package that's extra to the $5.4 million you already paid for nothing :)
5.4 million ... (Score:2)
Tam-Lin commented at Arstechnica:
Did the NFT sell for 5.4 million dollars, or did it sell for “5.4 million dollars,” meaning that it was bought with crypto currency valued at 5.4 million dollars, often a cryptocurrency controlled by the buyer somehow, or that the buyer has an interest in inflating, such as much of Beeple’s artwork was sold?
Sad to see that Tim Berners-Lee is lending legitimacy to NFT nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for him!
If I could sell an NFT for half that much I would be retired right now. I can't begrudge him if he goes that route either. He can do advocacy as a hobby and never worry about work interfering with what he wants to do again.
Re: (Score:2)
"Good for him!"
I don't know if it's really good for anybody, but I can't say I wouldn't do the same if I had the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad to see that Tim Berners-Lee is lending legitimacy to NFT nonsense.
Technically he's profiting off of nonsense, but I can't say I wouldn't do the same. If anyone wants to buy any of my public code in Github, let me know. I'll cut you a deal.
"Look at these idiots who lost the angle brackets" (Score:1)
Erm, msmash, ...
What NFTs REALLY are. (Score:2)
The code was corrected in later animations, raising questions about this particular NFT and NFTs as a whole.
Given the fucking obscene final selling price, there is only ONE explanation for NFTs. Especially in the 21st Century.
NFTs are a tax writeoff at best, and a fucking corrupt money laundering scheme at worst. They have ZERO actual value.
This bullshit, makes insider trading, look 100% legitimate.
Parenthesis or Angle Brackets? (Score:3)
So the editor doesn't know the difference between a parenthesis and an angle bracket it seems.
Eagle-eyed? (Score:1)
There was no SVG... (Score:2)
There was no SVG.
There was no Objective-C.
That's not how this worked.
That's not how any of this worked!
Who cares? (Score:2)
Who cares? It's more useful to find errors people make in mowing their lawns.