4 ms·
> None of these are realistic examples. Do you think Nintendo won't want a piece of that digital trading market? Or Amazon, for ebooks? This sounds a lot like
by chipgap98 9y ago
> None of these are realistic examples. Do you think Nintendo won't want a piece of that digital trading market? Or Amazon, for ebooks?
This sounds a lot like arguing in 1995 that people wouldn't buy stuff online because entrenched retail stores are where everyone does their shopping. Its so simple to buy stuff in a store why add the complexity of online shopping?
There are undoubtedly benefits for consumers when you have a decentralized marketplace/ architecture. As the technology matures it should become easier to build these kinds of architectures
Amazon has a to
- deckard1 9y ago> undoubtedly benefits for consumers when you have a decentralized marketplace I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the idea that corporations are willing to give up that much control over their copyright so that consumers get some false impression that they "own" a Pikachu. Where are you going to see that Pikachu? Through officially-licensed Nintendo software. Not through third party apps and websites. They will get hit with the DMCA hammer. There is no benefit of the blockchain, when all representation of that data is centralized. Nintendo won't do it because, who cares. Other than a buzzword, the blockchain is irrelevant. That's like caring about whether a website is running on Ruby or Node, or some other stack. It doesn't matter. It's an implementation detail.
- ThomPete 9y agoYou are reading this too literally. Pokemon was just an example there will be others based on the blockchain and yes it does have the same benefits that physical cards have. It's unique and doesn't need a centralized place to work. Implementation details are not what's relevant here.