4 ms·

In theory, a crypto project could provide value (not money, they're different things) to its users. For instance, there are experiments with distributed games w

In theory, a crypto project could provide value (not money, they're different things) to its users. For instance, there are experiments with distributed games where assets are NFTs. In theory, this provides the basis for independent games sharing unique assets among themselves. In practice, nobody's doing this (even those game devs who are minting assets as NFTs are keeping the assets to one game, making the whole exercise pointless) and it seems probable that nobody really wants it. But the point being I do believe theoretically there are "legitimate" applications where the decentralization of assets is useful. I just have yet to see an example in the wild (or even to imagine a concrete thing I could make where this would really be the case).

ganafagol 5y ago
There is still no value over a trusted third party, keeping all this in a central database. These games you are talking about just agree on this third party and that's it. And they already do that. The third party is states backing traditional banking systems.
- xur17 5y ago
  > There is still no value over a trusted third party, keeping all this in a central database. These games you are talking about just agree on this third party and that's it. There is value - with a trusted third party, you are "trusting" that the third party will stick around, won't block you, and won't arbitrarily change the rules on you.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    And who hosts those assets? How does this not apply to them?
  - ganafagol 5y ago
    Same goes for all makers of those "independent games". If just one of those goes rogue, th system is void. You need trust in all of them, not just those that you are playing. Worse, if your game currency is a decentraliced ledger, then it's much harder to do something about the rogue participant. That's by design. If it's instead a central entity, they can kick out that party on a whim.
arcticbull 5y ago
An NFT is simply a signed URL to an image. That the assets are NFTs are meaningless, because (a) they're only relevant in the context of that game and (b) there's no guarantee the hosting will remain (c) they don't come with a license to use or display the asset. No other game developer could create a game leveraging these NFT assets without being on the receiving end of a DMCA claim. [edit] Just try and leverage some NBA Top Shots on your own website and let me know how that goes. > But the point being I do believe theoretically there are "legitimate" applications where the decentralization of assets is useful. It's been 14 years, it's not still early, there's just no "there" there.
- indigochill 5y ago
  > It's been 14 years, it's not still early, there's just no "there" there. Although I agree with everything else you wrote, I don't think this follows. As a counterexample, Secure Scuttlebutt was created for a specific problem, which was that the creator was a sailor and wanted an offline-friendly social media platform. By using a blockchain, users would have a copy of the database locally that they could interact with and then synchronize when they either cross paths with other sailors (because as long as there's a local network, they can synchronize with peers without the need for internet access) or reconnect to the internet. In this case, the blockchain is relevant in that it enables the network to work independently of internet access and provides decentralized eventual consistency guarantees. A centralized solution would unavoidably require internet access. It's not a million-dollar idea, and further development is fragmented due to there deliberately being no centralized leadership of the project, but it seems to fit its intended niche use case.

ganafagol 5y ago

There is still no value over a trusted third party, keeping all this in a central database. These games you are talking about just agree on this third party and that's it. And they already do that. The third party is states backing traditional banking systems.

xur17 5y ago
> There is still no value over a trusted third party, keeping all this in a central database. These games you are talking about just agree on this third party and that's it. There is value - with a trusted third party, you are "trusting" that the third party will stick around, won't block you, and won't arbitrarily change the rules on you.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  And who hosts those assets? How does this not apply to them?
- ganafagol 5y ago
  Same goes for all makers of those "independent games". If just one of those goes rogue, th system is void. You need trust in all of them, not just those that you are playing. Worse, if your game currency is a decentraliced ledger, then it's much harder to do something about the rogue participant. That's by design. If it's instead a central entity, they can kick out that party on a whim.

arcticbull 5y ago

An NFT is simply a signed URL to an image. That the assets are NFTs are meaningless, because (a) they're only relevant in the context of that game and (b) there's no guarantee the hosting will remain (c) they don't come with a license to use or display the asset. No other game developer could create a game leveraging these NFT assets without being on the receiving end of a DMCA claim. [edit] Just try and leverage some NBA Top Shots on your own website and let me know how that goes. > But the point being I do believe theoretically there are "legitimate" applications where the decentralization of assets is useful. It's been 14 years, it's not still early, there's just no "there" there.

indigochill 5y ago
> It's been 14 years, it's not still early, there's just no "there" there. Although I agree with everything else you wrote, I don't think this follows. As a counterexample, Secure Scuttlebutt was created for a specific problem, which was that the creator was a sailor and wanted an offline-friendly social media platform. By using a blockchain, users would have a copy of the database locally that they could interact with and then synchronize when they either cross paths with other sailors (because as long as there's a local network, they can synchronize with peers without the need for internet access) or reconnect to the internet. In this case, the blockchain is relevant in that it enables the network to work independently of internet access and provides decentralized eventual consistency guarantees. A centralized solution would unavoidably require internet access. It's not a million-dollar idea, and further development is fragmented due to there deliberately being no centralized leadership of the project, but it seems to fit its intended niche use case.