The General State of Gaming NFTs in 2022 *spawn*
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
Not really. I took some time (a couple of minutes LOL) to educate myself more regarding blockchains outside of cryptocurrency.
One word. Hyperledger. Created by the Linux Foundation and doesn't depend on third party consensus so need for POW or POS. Therefore, it has no native coin and doesn't require mining, which is probably why most people haven't heard of it. LOL
IBM employs Hyperledger as the foundation of its blockchain based solutions and services.
https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blockchain-platform
yea you are correct. Sorry I was referring to block chain distributed currencies/assets.
You can definitely use block chain in that manner. Solutions similar to this are used at banks to replace archiving older contracts/documents instead of holding boxes of documents for 20 years before shredding
There are better solutions than this ... I'm working in that digital archiving sector
Normally blockchain-tech is a waste of resources without any advantages in that sector.
It is like most times. If you need a hammer to get a nail into the wall, you don't buy a sledgehammer. You always need the right tool for the right job.
Crypto as in Cryptography? Or crypto as the concept of cryptography protected databases? Maybe crypto as the concept of protected databases (blockchains) whose incentive to provide network security is economic (you give me your processing/economic power, I give you a coin, which if the network is secure and successful, it may be worth money in the future) ? Or crypto such as block lattice that requires no PoS or PoW, but still requires the token to have monetary value in order to provide security and have transport value?
See, what you are missing, is the concept of having your cake and eating it too. In the concept of decentralized security, there must always be an economic incentive behind it. Otherwise, no one would be drawn to secure the networks. You cannot have a secure network without masses of people, and masses of people wouldn't join your network without incentives.
So, your dislike stems from your narrow view of the tech, not knowing how it works economically nor its use cases. And your solution is the extremist idea it should not exist at all.
On top of that, you invoque the argument poor countries would suffer most from crypto disappearing, not due to them losing the ability to beat inflation (Venezuela etc) and avoid local corrupted barriers that block investment and perpetuate poverty (Africa), but due to your concept that the only benefit blockchain could have, is a get rich ponzi scheme.
Ok, now you realize that this can't work energy efficient. You always need more and more advanced tech to be prepared for a 50+1 attack on the system. You always need the resources. If no one has the "real" control over the network you always need to invest more and more energy into it. And it all falls if e.g. quantum computers might work (I still don't think that this will happen in the near future) or the algorithm is somehow "broken" in the future. Whoever has the "power" can change everything in the chain.
That is just not the case. It might help some people, but most don't have access to that. E.g. the transaction fees are higher than most people in the world can afford especially if the prices are so high. Also crypto currencies don't help you if you don't have an internet connection (e.g. because you can't afford it). This is just another example of an strawman argument.
No free meals. Nothing costs zero energy. Stagnant tech is a dead tech in every corner of the world. As for efficiency, read my response to shiffty.
Your opinion crypto isn't helping poor nations is just your opinion. I'm am actually speaking from experience. Until you make an effort to understand and participate in this world, what you call strawman arguments is just your mind grasping for narrative. In poor countries, cheap access to Internet exists. We are not talking about amazon tribes here.
I guess you really don't get the big picture. The more the computer tech advances the better the network must get to prevent a 50+1 attack. This hardware does not only need to get updated regularly (which already is damaging enough) it also consumes a lot of energy and more and more. It is just pointless to really invest in a "bottomless barrel"-technology that doesn't improve anything.
"experience" .... any studies there? So far I have only seen a few reports sponsored by "fans". Crypto-currencies so far do only "help" people who have enough money to invest into it. Yes it also made some people rich because they had "invested" soon enough but than the "greed" overtook everything there.
btw, wasn't your point that blockchain can be good for gaming. Now we discuss how wastefull bitcoin & co are.
you understood it poorly.
There is absolutely nothing innovative or new in the concept that with faster hardware, security must also evolve. You are applying it to blockchain as if this trade-off was exclusive to it. It isn't. Its almost a law.
As for using the above to try and justify that its pointless to invest in a tech that doesn't improve anything, I believe it does and explained why. If after all you read you are confident to come here and write that it doesn't, we'll have to agree to disagree, this being the most polite way that I an put it.
To you, the only worth of Apple Tesla Microsoft etc, lies in their stock market trades?
They have products and their evaluation comes from the user adoption of their products. Explain to me, why you believe cryptocurrency is removed from that concept?
What do you think the crypto ecosystem even is? No users? vaporware? there are 250 billion dollars locked in DeFi products alone, for regular folks like you and me.
What studies? You think you are in r/nutrition?
I don't understand what new observation you think you are implying with this quote, that hasn't already become obvious from simply reading the entire topic before posting.
I think you should go back and read it again, it says that a NFT is a "pointer" stored on the blockchain, basically a URL, that is not a representation of anything. That is a direction to something and that something can not be verified to be a specific thing. If you buy monkey.jpeg that shows a gorilla, when using your phone. It's not none fungible or unique if shows a donkey when using your computer to follow the url/pointer/direction.
So please enlighten me with how that a None Fungible Token of an URL can have a value, to me it reads like its very not "none fungible".
How is the guy who did the writeup I linked to, being dumb? He pointed out problems with NFT as he saw them and he broke the premiss of the system. From what I read, he did the equivalent of creating collisions in a hashing algorithm, basically said that it does not work as intended.
As for NFT being a good investment, any ponzi scheme is if you get in the ground floor, except for the possible criminal liability you run.
Do I wish I had not sold my bitcoins at 1000 USD, hell yes, do I wish I got into the NFT world early and earned a gazillion bucks, sure, who does not like money.
But it does not make it the best thing since sliced bread.
Last edited:
The value NFTs bring, is dubious at best, a scam at worst...
When someone implies that you can buy an NFT and use it in any game, or that you can own it for life, he is actually trying to con you.
It would be a lot more sincere, if they said, you can use it in "our" games (although I highly doubt that whoever they are can actually keep that promise) and that it will hold a value assigned by a free market until the game is no longer supported and said value will go to zero.
An interesting thing, in my opinion, would be, random drops (that can be owned digitally at acquisition) that can be resold amongst players with the developer keeping a percentage of the sale.
It is something that is already being done, and I'm not really sold on the idea that blockchain tech is needed (especially for huge publishers) other than not having to burden themselves with the hustle of logistics (for a small studio on the other hand, it might be useful?).
I remain agnostic (as in, I haven't made up my mind yet) on a lot of things when it comes to blockchain tech.
As I've said before, I am not convinced that the comparisons between the energy consumption of a blockchain vs the traditional financial sector are fair.
I would really like to see a study, that explains the methodology with which this is measured.
Right now (in the pandemic) I'm using my computer at home, and my pc at work to develop and provide support for our systems.
7000 people are doing the same thing.
Granted, our remote systems were not designed with the possibility of a pandemic in mind (a few people used to need that kind of access, for a substantially less amount of time), but that doesn't mean that a bank does not require huge amounts of energy to run.
Nor that it does not require the services of many other service providers, with their own energy costs.
Every service provider in the card payment industry must be PCI-DSS compliant.
For banks, well, it's a poorly kept secret that they don't really have to.
What I'm trying to say, is that banks are like huge ships, that change course slowly in a world that changes with unprecedented speeds.
Our back end, is 20 years old (software side obviously, IBM does not like having their customers keep the same Zseries mainframe forever).
Even mammoths like Deutsche, Goldman and Barkley's, would rather brute force their problems than modernize their systems.
The smaller ones, are even worse.
They are not well oiled, efficient, machines.
Quite the contrary...
Anyway, long story short, I'm just not convinced...
If anyone has a study that explains how this energy cost is measured, I would like to know.
We have a system in place right now (the traditional financial sector), that is working.
Having a second system (blockchain) that might be better is a luxury.
If that luxury is worse or the same then it stands to reason that it is redundant and should not exist.
You will not hear me fighting over this.
I just need a sufficient amount of evidence that this is the case so as to have a nuanced personal opinion (in the grand scheme of things I don't think it matters what I think).
When someone implies that you can buy an NFT and use it in any game, or that you can own it for life, he is actually trying to con you.
It would be a lot more sincere, if they said, you can use it in "our" games (although I highly doubt that whoever they are can actually keep that promise) and that it will hold a value assigned by a free market until the game is no longer supported and said value will go to zero.
An interesting thing, in my opinion, would be, random drops (that can be owned digitally at acquisition) that can be resold amongst players with the developer keeping a percentage of the sale.
It is something that is already being done, and I'm not really sold on the idea that blockchain tech is needed (especially for huge publishers) other than not having to burden themselves with the hustle of logistics (for a small studio on the other hand, it might be useful?).
I remain agnostic (as in, I haven't made up my mind yet) on a lot of things when it comes to blockchain tech.
As I've said before, I am not convinced that the comparisons between the energy consumption of a blockchain vs the traditional financial sector are fair.
I would really like to see a study, that explains the methodology with which this is measured.
Right now (in the pandemic) I'm using my computer at home, and my pc at work to develop and provide support for our systems.
7000 people are doing the same thing.
Granted, our remote systems were not designed with the possibility of a pandemic in mind (a few people used to need that kind of access, for a substantially less amount of time), but that doesn't mean that a bank does not require huge amounts of energy to run.
Nor that it does not require the services of many other service providers, with their own energy costs.
Every service provider in the card payment industry must be PCI-DSS compliant.
For banks, well, it's a poorly kept secret that they don't really have to.
What I'm trying to say, is that banks are like huge ships, that change course slowly in a world that changes with unprecedented speeds.
Our back end, is 20 years old (software side obviously, IBM does not like having their customers keep the same Zseries mainframe forever).
Even mammoths like Deutsche, Goldman and Barkley's, would rather brute force their problems than modernize their systems.
The smaller ones, are even worse.
They are not well oiled, efficient, machines.
Quite the contrary...
Anyway, long story short, I'm just not convinced...
If anyone has a study that explains how this energy cost is measured, I would like to know.
We have a system in place right now (the traditional financial sector), that is working.
Having a second system (blockchain) that might be better is a luxury.
If that luxury is worse or the same then it stands to reason that it is redundant and should not exist.
You will not hear me fighting over this.
I just need a sufficient amount of evidence that this is the case so as to have a nuanced personal opinion (in the grand scheme of things I don't think it matters what I think).
Last edited:
In the nft art market I was involved, what nft offered that's helping the artists are actually not t he nft itself but the ecosystem.
For example, by selling a painting as NFT on opensea, international people can buy their art easily and quickly. Each auctions also provide royalty to the artist.
All with just a few clicks.
The price also affected tremendously via online marketing, thus helping small time artists to rise as the barrier of entry is lower (make a discord server or nurture a follower on Twitter).
---
From the side of the speculators, the market is super easy to manipulate. Allowing them to easily build hype and rise prices.
---
From the side of the collectors, it allows the instant gratification of collecting stuff and getting into the community in just a few clicks.
------
So despite the hype was about decentralization, in reality the people using NFT services are using centralized service. Be it opensea and their ilk for handling royalties, or game nft with their own nft marketplace.
For example, by selling a painting as NFT on opensea, international people can buy their art easily and quickly. Each auctions also provide royalty to the artist.
All with just a few clicks.
The price also affected tremendously via online marketing, thus helping small time artists to rise as the barrier of entry is lower (make a discord server or nurture a follower on Twitter).
---
From the side of the speculators, the market is super easy to manipulate. Allowing them to easily build hype and rise prices.
---
From the side of the collectors, it allows the instant gratification of collecting stuff and getting into the community in just a few clicks.
------
So despite the hype was about decentralization, in reality the people using NFT services are using centralized service. Be it opensea and their ilk for handling royalties, or game nft with their own nft marketplace.
And yet the resulting fiasco for artist is anyone taking their work from various art sites and selling them as NFTs themselves. Opensea doesn't do any verification of the seller or their ownership of the artwork. It's become so bad now that Opensea is no longer doing any takedowns of artist's materials unless they provide considerable personal information, which they state will be passed onto the seller. Obviously to deter the original artist from pursuing it any further.
Yeah, NFTs are great for the artists!
Yeah, NFTs are great for the artists!
I would like to add a few things, after reading some of the comments in this thread.
Quantum computing in regards to cryptography, would not hurt primarily the cryptocurrency space.
It would hurt e-commerce first and foremost in general.
It would also hurt our means of day to day payment.
Asymmetric cryptography is used widely in every aspect of our internet lives, and is prevalent in our payment systems.
The RSA algorithm, is commonly used for the certification of the Issuing banks with the schemes being the certification authority (VISA Mastercard or any other scheme, there are a lot, if anyone here is from Serbia, I can safely say I have cursed your central bank a lot trying to pass DINA certification).
These certificates are embossed in the chip of the card during the personalization process.
The RSA algorithm is indeed very vulnerable to quantum computing, generally every mathematical asymmetric encryption algorithm is vulnerable, and that includes elliptic curve ECDSA algorithms as well.
On the other hand, symmetric algorithms, like AES 256, or hashing algorithms are considered safe.
To tie this with my previous post, the banks, being the heavy, slow moving organisms that they are, are primarily using triple DES symmetric encryption (it is ancient), and they will continue to do so, unless a mandate by EMVco forces their hand.
Their asymmetric encryption is using the RSA algorithm, with the modulus length, being dictated primarily by the chip manufacturers (a modulus length of 2048 bits might not fit in the chip).
So to sum up, be careful what you wish for.
The other thing I would like to touch upon, is money laundering.
Cryptocurrencies are indeed used to launder money from illegal activities.
It is not the only way, nor is it the prevalent way.
As with any other money laundering technique, it falls to the banks to identify and combat money laundering, because it is through them, that those funds are recirculated into the economy.
The "know your customer" moto, is there for a reason.
This combined with digitalized central governance will minimize ML.
As I'm sure we are all painfully aware, big banks don't care about money laundering, or funding of terrorism passing through them.
The fines are such, that it is better business to turn a blind eye (or actually facilitate these kinds of transactions willfully), than do something about it.
Quantum computing in regards to cryptography, would not hurt primarily the cryptocurrency space.
It would hurt e-commerce first and foremost in general.
It would also hurt our means of day to day payment.
Asymmetric cryptography is used widely in every aspect of our internet lives, and is prevalent in our payment systems.
The RSA algorithm, is commonly used for the certification of the Issuing banks with the schemes being the certification authority (VISA Mastercard or any other scheme, there are a lot, if anyone here is from Serbia, I can safely say I have cursed your central bank a lot trying to pass DINA certification).
These certificates are embossed in the chip of the card during the personalization process.
The RSA algorithm is indeed very vulnerable to quantum computing, generally every mathematical asymmetric encryption algorithm is vulnerable, and that includes elliptic curve ECDSA algorithms as well.
On the other hand, symmetric algorithms, like AES 256, or hashing algorithms are considered safe.
To tie this with my previous post, the banks, being the heavy, slow moving organisms that they are, are primarily using triple DES symmetric encryption (it is ancient), and they will continue to do so, unless a mandate by EMVco forces their hand.
Their asymmetric encryption is using the RSA algorithm, with the modulus length, being dictated primarily by the chip manufacturers (a modulus length of 2048 bits might not fit in the chip).
So to sum up, be careful what you wish for.
The other thing I would like to touch upon, is money laundering.
Cryptocurrencies are indeed used to launder money from illegal activities.
It is not the only way, nor is it the prevalent way.
As with any other money laundering technique, it falls to the banks to identify and combat money laundering, because it is through them, that those funds are recirculated into the economy.
The "know your customer" moto, is there for a reason.
This combined with digitalized central governance will minimize ML.
As I'm sure we are all painfully aware, big banks don't care about money laundering, or funding of terrorism passing through them.
The fines are such, that it is better business to turn a blind eye (or actually facilitate these kinds of transactions willfully), than do something about it.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yup, it's ridiculously funny ... or scary if you're an artist. Anyone can just copy the Image you attach to an NFT and then attach it to their own NFT and sell an exact duplicate of your Artwork, just attached to their NFT instead of yours.
While the NFT itself shouldn't be copyable, anything attached to an NFT can be freely and easily copied and attached to anther NFT.
That goes in the opposite direction as well. If you buy an NFT, you can freely change what is attached to that NFT. Or worse, someone else could potentially change what is attached to the NFT that you paid for, meaning that your NFT now refers to something different than what you originally purchased it for.
Oh yeah, this is an incredible minefield for any game developer that implements it in their games.
It's funny watching NFT sales sites. Most NFT owners of NFT associated artworks have already lost 10's of thousands of USD because the artwork associated with their NFT was copied and resold attached to another NFT, greatly devaluing the NFT they bought.
So in the end, scammers make more money from an artist's artwork than the artist themselves since revenue from the copied artwork on another NFT obviously doesn't go to the original artist.
And because NFT's are decentralized, there is absolutely nothing an artist can do if someone wants to copy their artwork and attach it to another NFT and sell it.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Some nft artists have a stance where after you've bought it, you can do anything you want with it.
As for pirated nft, it's truly a wild west. So the artists need to verify them manually for their community that bought it (e.g. When they join their discord server). So some basically just regard piracy as part of the business risk and just accept that there will be piracy.
As for pirated nft, it's truly a wild west. So the artists need to verify them manually for their community that bought it (e.g. When they join their discord server). So some basically just regard piracy as part of the business risk and just accept that there will be piracy.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure, but then you don't need an NFT for that. The NFT does nothing WRT their artwork or the sale of their artwork. The only thing the NFT does for them is jump on the current hype for NFTs which almost all of their community likely don't really understand other than NFT is the new blockchain hotness.
They can still sell their artwork to their community regardless of whether they use NFTs or not and it has the exact same end result.
Regards,
SB