>>47136170>What is an NFT?It's a series of numbers—a blockchain, like bitcoin—which is "proof" that you own an image. Except you don't even own the physical artwork, just a series of numbers that says you do. It's like if you commissioned a painter $10,000 to paint something, then instead of giving you that painting, they gave you a strip of paper saying you own it. Not only that, but there's nothing to stop anyone else from copy pasting that same image or having their own copy of it. Oh, and also the artwork doesn't even need to be original; you could take any image, even OP's image, and attach an NFT to it and claim you own it.
Basically what I'm saying is no one cares. The only people who care about NFTs are people who are invested in it, but someone like you or me? Why would we care? If someone walked up to you, took out a strip of paper that had a string of numbers on it and claimed that was proof they owned the Mona Lisa, would you believe them? Would you even care? It's the same thing.
Now here's where the controversy begins: to create a single NFT requires a tremendous amount of electricity. Far more than it takes to create a bitcoin. According to picrel, one artist's NFTs used up enough energy to be equal to a car driving 838,000 kilometers. It goes without saying that's a lot of damage to the environment.
>Is Sarah pro or against NFTs?She is pro NFT, saying it gives artists the ability to earn money by selling NFTs of their own artworks. She then doubled down and claimed NFTs did not have that severe an impact on the environment, despite the fact that literally every scientific study says it does.
