3 ms·

> I didn't say it would be. You said it would enable it. But the stopper about that implementation is not ownership tracking, it's integration. So it's an use

> I didn't say it would be. You said it would enable it. But the stopper about that implementation is not ownership tracking, it's integration. So it's an use case that's not enabled by NFTs, just an use case where you could use NFTs but also any other ownership tracking technology. > If it's easier to think about, try applying the same solution to unique avatars or something, where the display mechanism is solved. I can move my avatar image between games without requiring NFTs. Now, if you want "uniqueness", then again the problem is not solved by NFTs, but by some kind of DRM tech. What stops me from copying the image and using it? Or from minting my own NFT with the same image? Do you think that game platforms going to implement complex DRM solutions to avoid people from using avatars they don't own? The overall point is a trend that I wrote in another comment [1]: just because X has not been done and crypto/NFTs can be used for X, that doesn't mean that crypto enables X. You might find that there are other issues that explain why X hasn't been done. To this day, 99% of the times I see someone propose crypto/NFTs applications they haven't asked themselves the questions of whether you can do that (or a 90% similar thing) without crypto and why hasn't that been done yet. Possibly because when you ask those questions most of crypto use cases are not "use cases enabled by crypto" but "use cases where I can use crypto or other storage technology". 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29295514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29295514

onion2k 5y ago
What stops me from copying the image and using it? Games would need to implement a mechanism so users could only use an NFT as an avatar. Or it'd attach a little tick to show you're the verified owner. Or something. I've thought about this for about five minutes. I don't have a full working solution. You might find that there are other issues that explain why X hasn't been done. "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. It could simply be that no one has tried yet. Or the wrong people tried. Or people are trying right now and you haven't heard about it yet. Not seeing something is not evidence it can't be done. That's beyond ridiculous.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if something has not been done yet, you should think why that is. And if it turns out that someone could have already done it with existing technology, one should really consider why is that. Yes, maybe it's one of your reasons, or maybe is that it isn't worth it, or that there are implementation issues that are independent of the storage technology, or whatever. It's a basic step before evaluating any solution and it is missing constantly in crypto discussions. And the worst thing is that, when we point out that there are other issues apart from crypto/nocrypto, the only response we get is "but it could work" and "don't be defeatist". That basic question could be applied to your avatar example. A game developer could implement a similar system where the only allowed avatars are the "official" ones, and you need to buy them. You don't need NFTs for that, and yet you don't see it a lot. I think PlayStation had only official avatars, but they discontinued them in the latest PS5. Could it be that it isn't a feature users want? That the development costs are greater than the possible profits?

onion2k 5y ago

What stops me from copying the image and using it? Games would need to implement a mechanism so users could only use an NFT as an avatar. Or it'd attach a little tick to show you're the verified owner. Or something. I've thought about this for about five minutes. I don't have a full working solution. You might find that there are other issues that explain why X hasn't been done. "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. It could simply be that no one has tried yet. Or the wrong people tried. Or people are trying right now and you haven't heard about it yet. Not seeing something is not evidence it can't be done. That's beyond ridiculous.

gjulianm 5y ago
> "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if something has not been done yet, you should think why that is. And if it turns out that someone could have already done it with existing technology, one should really consider why is that. Yes, maybe it's one of your reasons, or maybe is that it isn't worth it, or that there are implementation issues that are independent of the storage technology, or whatever. It's a basic step before evaluating any solution and it is missing constantly in crypto discussions. And the worst thing is that, when we point out that there are other issues apart from crypto/nocrypto, the only response we get is "but it could work" and "don't be defeatist". That basic question could be applied to your avatar example. A game developer could implement a similar system where the only allowed avatars are the "official" ones, and you need to buy them. You don't need NFTs for that, and yet you don't see it a lot. I think PlayStation had only official avatars, but they discontinued them in the latest PS5. Could it be that it isn't a feature users want? That the development costs are greater than the possible profits?