is there any legitimate use of blockchains?
-
Could you elaborate a bit how blockchain enables something unique here? I see that it enables trade between users, but if a single company controls the game and I assume supply of new cards, does the blockchain aspect for trading really matter?
Trading itself is basic and doesn't need a blockchain. I guess with it you have it implemented in a public and tamper proof way, but that second part doesn't seem to matter to me if the source is centralized.
So what exactly is gained from this approach over just your average ingame auction house?
wrote last edited by [email protected]but that second part doesn't seem to matter to me if the source is centralized.
That's the thing, it's not centralized - in this game, for the first time ever in a digital TCG, if the company hosting it closes it's doors, you still have something in your ownership that corresponds to your cards, opening up the possibility of others re-implementing everything.
It ain't much, and it's a long shot, but for the first time ever it's possible.
-
How is this different from MODO?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not sure what that is, searching doesn't help
-
No way. There are many ways to introduce artificial scarcity to digital goods, and no it is not a new or good use of the tech.... Artificial scarcity is a huge part of all of the world's problems.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Before we start blaming a digital trading card game for the sins of capitalism, let's both acknowledge that "artificial scarcity" is built into games. Mario suffered "artificial scarcity" when he didn't have a red mushroom at the ready. Anything that requires "unlocking" can be argued to be artifical scarcity. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter because these are aspects of a game and not real world resources.
Every digital TCG - Hearthstone, mtg arena, etc. all already have artificial scarcity.
This is just allowing for you, as a player, to actually have a semblance of ownership over the digital goods you obtain, independent of the company you purchased it from, which is far more than any other digital platform will allow for.
-
Not sure what that is, searching doesn't help
Magic Online with Digital Objects, also known as Magic Online
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
it's really difficult to be anonymous with a credit card
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Why is mining a nessecary part? Is it only to keep the quantity of units in circulation in check? And why is that nessecary? Is there an equivalent fixed amount of USD that is in circulation?
Why can't it just be a ledger of fixed qty where nodes get paid a fee for handling transactions and keeping the blockchain updated instead of proof of busywork? Why does it need to be so wasteful of electricity? Why is it so slow? Will it ever be as fast and cheap as an osko payment? I can (and have) sent $40,000 to another person from my bank account and it took under 10 seconds for them to receive it, even though they bank with a different entity.
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
its always been a ponzi scheme, the people still pedaling it, are right wingers thinking they will still strike it big some day.i once followed a yotbers channel one guy pedal lost 1mil+ from SBF crisis, and hes still doing it to this day.
-
Magic Online with Digital Objects, also known as Magic Online
If wotc closes down modo, you're left SOL.
Because transactions and ownership are not controlled by the hosting company, I believe there's opportunity to keep the game going even after the company closes doors.
Long shot, but it's the first peek at "digital ownership" where you actually own something, independent of the company that gave it to you, they can easily be traded.
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
Yes. Tracking stock shares would prevent dark pools and naked short selling to some degree.
That's also why it will never happen.
-
Git uses signed blocks for centralization... you can see that the official linux kernel is signed by linus torvalds... but all of this is irrelevant because blockchains are a datastructure that is indepenant from the concept of centralization. It is just a chain of blocks... proof-of-work and signing are about centralization but they are different concepts.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm not sure I follow how (de)centralisation can be a different concept from blockchains when the definition of a blockchain is something like a ledger-like data structure which is immutable, decentralised and distributed.
Meanwhile with git, one user can unilaterally change the history by hard resetting and force pushing; then the other "nodes" just have to accept the changes.
-
I'm not sure I follow how (de)centralisation can be a different concept from blockchains when the definition of a blockchain is something like a ledger-like data structure which is immutable, decentralised and distributed.
Meanwhile with git, one user can unilaterally change the history by hard resetting and force pushing; then the other "nodes" just have to accept the changes.
Idk where you got that definition.... a block chain is just a chain of blocks....
If someone unilaterally forces a history change, that will be apparent to everyone and they can choose to reject those changes...
-
because it means that the majority controls the data and not a centralized authority.
Only until it doesn't. A centralized authority could overwhelm and become the majority. Or more concretely, the US government has the resources to more than double the contribution to Bitcoin, thus giving it complete control.
It's cheaper and easier to manipulate the stock markets through politics than to build/take over the majority of the distributed ledger.
-
Idk where you got that definition.... a block chain is just a chain of blocks....
If someone unilaterally forces a history change, that will be apparent to everyone and they can choose to reject those changes...
Ok, I think we've established that we disagree what a blockchain is. Doesn't really matter I suppose, nice talking with you!
-
its always been a ponzi scheme, the people still pedaling it, are right wingers thinking they will still strike it big some day.i once followed a yotbers channel one guy pedal lost 1mil+ from SBF crisis, and hes still doing it to this day.
in the spirit of reddit:
*peddling
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
Yes. Public append-only data structures. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_Transparency
-
Any application where you want to record something publicly without the possibility to alter it and in absence of a central authority.
A database requires a central authority so it doesn’t cover the same use cases.
That was.. Very well said
-
Why is mining a nessecary part? Is it only to keep the quantity of units in circulation in check? And why is that nessecary? Is there an equivalent fixed amount of USD that is in circulation?
Why can't it just be a ledger of fixed qty where nodes get paid a fee for handling transactions and keeping the blockchain updated instead of proof of busywork? Why does it need to be so wasteful of electricity? Why is it so slow? Will it ever be as fast and cheap as an osko payment? I can (and have) sent $40,000 to another person from my bank account and it took under 10 seconds for them to receive it, even though they bank with a different entity.
If you make more money, then you have a larger share of all the money in circulation. That means, you are devaluating everyone else's savings and pretty much gaining some of their money.
And there's some system where people who have joined through you, somehow also produce to you some small percentage of the money they mine. So, the ones who got in first are getting richer and richer out of others' work.
-
Why is mining a nessecary part? Is it only to keep the quantity of units in circulation in check? And why is that nessecary? Is there an equivalent fixed amount of USD that is in circulation?
Why can't it just be a ledger of fixed qty where nodes get paid a fee for handling transactions and keeping the blockchain updated instead of proof of busywork? Why does it need to be so wasteful of electricity? Why is it so slow? Will it ever be as fast and cheap as an osko payment? I can (and have) sent $40,000 to another person from my bank account and it took under 10 seconds for them to receive it, even though they bank with a different entity.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lotsa questions. I'll give brief answers that will be a little incomplete.
Why is mining a nessecary part? Is it only to keep the quantity of units in circulation in check? And why is that nessecary?
Transactions need to be recorded so that it is known who controls how many crypto coins. This service needs to be paid. That is done by creating new coins or alternatively by subtracting a fee from transactions. Creating new coins has the advantage that it spreads coins to people with a stake in the success of the cryptocurrency. If there was only a fee, then you would have to find some other way to get coins to the people wanting to use them.
Crypto is for transferring money outside the banking system and thus beyond the reach of the law. People buy and sell crypto coins for that purpose.
The value of coins depends on how much money people want to transfer and how many coins are on the market. If people want to transfer $10M and there are 10M coins available, then the price of a coin is $1. If there are only 5M coins, then the price is $2. People wanting to transfer money do not need to consider the price. If you want to transfer $20, you buy that amount of coins. It does not matter how many coins that is.
When miners sell new coins, that causes a little bit of inflation. That way, real money is transferred from the users to the miners. If someone holds a large amount of coins, they can extract a lot of money without having to do anything. So people will not be very keen on promoting that currency because that person can skim off the gains. That means it's simply preferable to slowly introduce new coins to a wide audience.
People who "invest" in crypto cause a bit of deflation. They spread real money to the users but there is no actual value created.
Removing coins from circulation increases the price in a purely mechanical way. If the price rises further, they are able to make a profit by selling the coins and skimming off money from the users. That does create an incentive to promote that crypto coin. That's why we are seeing so much crypto spam.
It's not necessary for adoption to increase to see a profit. If other people can be convinced to buy and hold coins, then the price increases mechanically. This makes it possible to skim off more money from actual users than was spread to them by buying the coins. Obviously, that's economically nonsense. It's another fatal design flaw.
instead of proof of busywork? Why does it need to be so wasteful of electricity?
The record of transactions, the ledger, is public and unprotected. You could have different, competing versions of that record. The version that is adopted by the majority is adopted as the correct one. This creates a problem. It would be possible to spam the system with lots of copies of a fraudulent record. Proof of work mitigates that risk. Originally, it was an idea to combat email spam by increasing the cost of sending each mail.
A more efficient alternative would be to only allow a limited number of known entities to keep the ledger. If they attempt manipulation, they can be prosecuted for fraud. That's basically the banking system.
But the whole point of crypto is not to do that. If governments could prosecute the people involved, then they could also be made to crack down on ransomware, drug dealing, tax evasion, and so on.
A more crypto-compatible scheme is proof of stake. Miners have to put up a certain amount of cryptocurrency as a stake. If other miners find that one is not following the rules, then they can be fined. Also, because they own a substantial amount of currency, they can be assumed not to act in ways that harms the network. That would lower the price of their crypto.
Why is it so slow? Will it ever be as fast and cheap as an osko payment?
The overhead necessary to avoid law enforcement means that it will always be slower and more expensive than mainstream systems.
Bitcoin, in particular, is just not suited for such wide adoption. It's actually amazing how well it does actually work, considering its humble origins. Because of the amount of money that rests on its reputation and its decentralized nature, it is extremely difficult to get people to agree on updates.
Is there an equivalent fixed amount of USD that is in circulation?
No. Money is created every time someone takes out a loan and destroyed when it gets paid back. Physical currency (called central bank money) is manufactured as needed.
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
Not really, blockchain technically has been around for almost two decades and there still isn't a good use for them. It's very interesting piece of tech that could potentially be useful, but still isn't in a practical sense.
Think of it this way, blockchain tech is a solution looking for a problem to solve rather than the other way around.
-
If wotc closes down modo, you're left SOL.
Because transactions and ownership are not controlled by the hosting company, I believe there's opportunity to keep the game going even after the company closes doors.
Long shot, but it's the first peek at "digital ownership" where you actually own something, independent of the company that gave it to you, they can easily be traded.
I know this is dodging your point, but WotC has already divested themselves of MODO and a third party now runs it. I know what you mean, a central server going down destroys access to the game you pay for. And indeed we see that happening with plenty of live service games, to the point that its starting to weigh down the entire industry, or at least that sector of it.
But I ask, is it really that different? Various NFT projects have come and gone, and most of the NFTs people have paid for have succumbed to link rot already my guy. The average life span for a live service game is like, what? 2 years? And even the successful ones, what? Like 7? I haven't played God's Unchained, but I can't imagine being a blockchain game will make any difference, especially because the games that do survive and are remembered have the following factors:
Can easily be modded/ hacked
Can be easily emulated
Were cherished and belovedDeus Ex can be downloaded for free. Pokemon red and Sim Tower and Oregon Trail can be run in a browser. Breakout can be run in a search engine. As far as the comparison to MODO, those cards were fungible. When you completed a whole set, you could contact WotC to take them out of your account, and they would send you a copy of the whole set in paper. It's why MTGOexchange was called that; before bitcoin, you could trade magic cards for drugs.
