is there any legitimate use of blockchains?
-
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]it cannot really replace a simple database. it has an integrity guarantee. not in the way that data won't get modified accidentally, but that it won't get modified onesided.
the git version control system also uses a kind of a blockchain structure. git was made by the creator of linux. a major difference is that git does not use proof of work for consensus, I think it just does not use anything for that, other than the web server's access control mechanism.
commits are built on top of a large chain of histories, and the commit ID verifies that the current state and the history of it is the exact same when you checkout that commit ID on any other computer. if you go find in the repository a commit made 3 years ago, and change that commit (this is supported by git but not recommended), either the content or the metadata like time of commit, the whole history after that also need to get rewritten to remain valid, and so all those commits will now have a new commit ID -
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.
No less than 8 spelling or grammar mistakes, and barely on topic.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Just because the artificial scarcity is digital doesn't magically make it different. If the intent is to get more money, it is exactly the same. No wait, it's even more despicable because there's no reason for actual digital scarcity.
Just like most games that were designed to eat quarters in arcade machines do not receive any honor after their time, these decisions invariably go down in history as just greedy fucks being greedy fucks.
-
You know at a point there will no longer be a block reward for miners, instead only fees on transactions
For Bitcoin, you mean. That will be in 2040 or so. Plenty of time to patch it.
-
Just because the artificial scarcity is digital doesn't magically make it different. If the intent is to get more money, it is exactly the same. No wait, it's even more despicable because there's no reason for actual digital scarcity.
Just like most games that were designed to eat quarters in arcade machines do not receive any honor after their time, these decisions invariably go down in history as just greedy fucks being greedy fucks.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It sounds like your issues are with that of games in general, which is outside of the scope of this discussion, so I don't have much to say in response. Hope you have a good day!
-
For Bitcoin, you mean. That will be in 2040 or so. Plenty of time to patch it.
Yeah I assumed we were talking about bitcoin, scarcity argument goes out the window at that point though.
-
Sure, there are a ton of things the blockchain would be great for. Also, it just so happens that nobody uses them for that because the people developing the tech only dream about using it to join the bitcoin billionaires club.
This is it. This is the real answer. The same goes for AI. The really good uses for both aren't lucrative enough, so the people with the money try to shoehorn it into places that aren't a good fit in order to justify their outrageous valuations. Rinse and repeat until the bottom falls out of the market, then sweep up the pieces and try to come up with a new grift.
-
The linux kernel, which git was created for, uses signed commits...
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's the thing, it's not centralized
But who is able to mint/create those cards? Anyone or just the company? That is what I was primarily getting at.
if the company hosting it closes it's doors, you still have something in your ownership that corresponds to your cards,
Yes, proof that you owned cards in a now defunct game. The question is how much value is left at that point.
opening up the possibility of others re-implementing everything.
Barring copyright/IP law allowing it, or are we disregarding that? If someone wanted to take over they might just buy out the old company and take over.
And even when starting from scratch they'd have to evaluate if honoring/adopting the existing tokens would be worth it (would give an existing player base, but in return you don't get any money from them and probably less than from a customer that starts from scratch).
A third option would be some form of foss project reviving the game. But the game seems independent of the blockchain aspect, which only tracks card ownership. Why would any such effort want to adopt a system build on artificial scarcity and profit?
-
It sounds like your issues are with that of games in general, which is outside of the scope of this discussion, so I don't have much to say in response. Hope you have a good day!
No, you're just proving to be too dumb to understand the nuance I'm aiming for.
Do you think there would be dozens of versions of Mortal Kombat if it stayed as the arcade machine? Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles allow far more people to truly engage and fall in love with it?
I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand the problems of rent seeking from modern corporations, but denying them won't fix anything.
-
No, you're just proving to be too dumb to understand the nuance I'm aiming for.
Do you think there would be dozens of versions of Mortal Kombat if it stayed as the arcade machine? Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles allow far more people to truly engage and fall in love with it?
I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand the problems of rent seeking from modern corporations, but denying them won't fix anything.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles
monetization, verb: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Did they release that shit for free or something? Are you claiming "they" released dozens of versions of it after "they" stopped using the game as a source of profit?
-
Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles
monetization, verb: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Did they release that shit for free or something? Are you claiming "they" released dozens of versions of it after "they" stopped using the game as a source of profit?
wrote last edited by [email protected]You realize making an arcade game that eats quarters for breakfast is a monetization scheme... Don't you? You realize Mortal Kombat and many, many older games started in arcades, right?
How can you be so dense as to fail to realize the similarities between microtransactions and arcade games eating quarters? Except microtransactions are much worse because they do not enable a secondary economy like arcades did.
Again, artificial scarcity is bullshit. It was BS back then, and it's WAY more BS these days. It is not something to celebrate, unless you're a piece of shit that wants to leverage things against other human beings for profit unnecessarily.
-
You realize making an arcade game that eats quarters for breakfast is a monetization scheme... Don't you? You realize Mortal Kombat and many, many older games started in arcades, right?
How can you be so dense as to fail to realize the similarities between microtransactions and arcade games eating quarters? Except microtransactions are much worse because they do not enable a secondary economy like arcades did.
Again, artificial scarcity is bullshit. It was BS back then, and it's WAY more BS these days. It is not something to celebrate, unless you're a piece of shit that wants to leverage things against other human beings for profit unnecessarily.
wrote last edited by [email protected]And is "releasing it on consoles" not a monetization scheme? If they didn't give it away from free, they....sold it for money, which means it's a monetization scheme.
What's worse is that on consoles it's simply a digital copy of a file being made - at least arcades needed maintenance, justifying an ongoing cost. Arguably your example of games being released on consoles is an even worse example of artificial scarcity - why should they charge for a digital copy of a game that costs them nothing to copy? Is that not a textbook example of "artificial scarcity"?
Except microtransactions are much worse because they do not enable a secondary economy like arcades did.
Are we in agreement that digital cards as NFTs does enable a secondary market, especially when compared to digital cards not associated with NFTs?
-
That's the thing, it's not centralized
But who is able to mint/create those cards? Anyone or just the company? That is what I was primarily getting at.
if the company hosting it closes it's doors, you still have something in your ownership that corresponds to your cards,
Yes, proof that you owned cards in a now defunct game. The question is how much value is left at that point.
opening up the possibility of others re-implementing everything.
Barring copyright/IP law allowing it, or are we disregarding that? If someone wanted to take over they might just buy out the old company and take over.
And even when starting from scratch they'd have to evaluate if honoring/adopting the existing tokens would be worth it (would give an existing player base, but in return you don't get any money from them and probably less than from a customer that starts from scratch).
A third option would be some form of foss project reviving the game. But the game seems independent of the blockchain aspect, which only tracks card ownership. Why would any such effort want to adopt a system build on artificial scarcity and profit?
Full disclosure, I've never played the game, just stumbled across it in the past and acknowledged that it was the only "use" of an NFT that leveraged the aspects of the technology well, or at least better than the ones linked to jpegs.
But who is able to mint/create those cards? Anyone or just the company?
Probably just the company, but your ownership of that card (or something that a community can acknowledge represents the card) is independent of it
Yes, proof that you owned cards in a now defunct game. The question is how much value is left at that point.
Regardless of the value of the NFT, the technology enables something that wasn't possible before.
Barring copyright/IP law allowing it, or are we disregarding that?
Not a lawyer, so the easiest solution is just to wait until it's in public domain. Might be impractical, but again, we're just talking about what this technology enables.
If someone wanted to take over they might just buy out the old company and take over.
The secondary market of the "cards" can take place in between someone buying the company out, which is another boon.
At the end of the day, I'm just sharing a neat use of Blockchain. You can argue it's not popular enough to be useful, etc., but it's undeniable that the technology is enabling something that wasn't possible before. I'm not going to due on the hill defending it, just thought it's neat.
-
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.
I haven't played the game before either - I just know that for once folks can own a digital aspect of a game independent of the creators of the game, which I think is notable and qualifies as a "legitimate use of Blockchain".
That's real neat re: MTGOexchange! I played in the past and knew about card redemption, I didn't know about drugs lmao
-
And is "releasing it on consoles" not a monetization scheme? If they didn't give it away from free, they....sold it for money, which means it's a monetization scheme.
What's worse is that on consoles it's simply a digital copy of a file being made - at least arcades needed maintenance, justifying an ongoing cost. Arguably your example of games being released on consoles is an even worse example of artificial scarcity - why should they charge for a digital copy of a game that costs them nothing to copy? Is that not a textbook example of "artificial scarcity"?
Except microtransactions are much worse because they do not enable a secondary economy like arcades did.
Are we in agreement that digital cards as NFTs does enable a secondary market, especially when compared to digital cards not associated with NFTs?
wrote last edited by [email protected]No, it artificially creates a psudo-second market by introducing scarcity. Why is this concept so fucking difficult for you?
-
No, it artificially creates a psudo-second market by introducing scarcity. Why is this concept so fucking difficult for you?
wrote last edited by [email protected]it artificially creates a psudo-second market by introducing scarcity.
So we are in agreement that the Blockchain aspect of the game creates a secondary market, but via artificial scarcity, which is the big bad boogie man of your entire argument. Makes sense to me. We're once again circled back to "most popular digital games have artificial scarcity built in, this is not unique to a game that is a legitimate use of Blockchain, which OP asked about, so it seems like your beef is with most digital games in general"
While you're taking a breath between each vitriolic insult you throw out, did you give any thoughts to the idea that the positive example you brought up, mortal Kombat being released on consoles, is also a form of artificial scarcity, since they're charging relatively high prices for a mere copy of the code?
