4 ms·

I think the decentralization only matters in edge cases, I'm guessing 99% of users won't care. But for people who are spending a ton of money on skins, they sho

I think the decentralization only matters in edge cases, I'm guessing 99% of users won't care. But for people who are spending a ton of money on skins, they should care that it is decentralized. If I was the guy who spent $60k on a CS skin I would rather own it in a decentralized database vs Steam. With that said, I don't think this is enough incentive for major gaming platforms to adopt NFTs any time soon.

choward 5y ago
But you use the skin in a game controlled and centralized by steam. Steam could choose not to display your skin. Your skin means nothing without steam existing. The decentralized skin bought you nothing. Now if the game was decentralized too it might make a little more sense.
- almostkorean 5y ago
  I did make some assumptions, lets lay out the the possible scenarios: 1. NFT points to Steam owned URL 2. NFT points to some decentralized storage (IPFS/Arweave) 3. NFT data stored on-chain And the skin data itself has these options: 1. Proprietary format that only Steam can read 2. Some format that is readable by third party software 3. Established standard format like SVG (is there an SVG for 3d stuff?) So if it was steam URL and data is in steam only format then you are mostly correct. IMO, any combination of the other options I think the decentralized skin means more than nothing. The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. There is a lot more to be discussed about composability with NFTs and the second and third skin data options I described, but just trying to explain the optimistic point of view.
  - choward 5y ago
    > The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. That's where you lose me. This is what I'll never understand about NFTs. What does that even mean to own a part of esports history? There's nothing to own. Why do you feel the need to own something? What are you going to do with it if you don't use it in game? What could you do besides say "I own this URL that points to a model". Not trying to be rude but this is one of the main reasons why NFTs baffle me.

choward 5y ago

But you use the skin in a game controlled and centralized by steam. Steam could choose not to display your skin. Your skin means nothing without steam existing. The decentralized skin bought you nothing. Now if the game was decentralized too it might make a little more sense.

almostkorean 5y ago
I did make some assumptions, lets lay out the the possible scenarios: 1. NFT points to Steam owned URL 2. NFT points to some decentralized storage (IPFS/Arweave) 3. NFT data stored on-chain And the skin data itself has these options: 1. Proprietary format that only Steam can read 2. Some format that is readable by third party software 3. Established standard format like SVG (is there an SVG for 3d stuff?) So if it was steam URL and data is in steam only format then you are mostly correct. IMO, any combination of the other options I think the decentralized skin means more than nothing. The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. There is a lot more to be discussed about composability with NFTs and the second and third skin data options I described, but just trying to explain the optimistic point of view.
- choward 5y ago
  > The guy didn't pay $60k to only use the skin while playing CS, he bought it as a piece of esports history. That's where you lose me. This is what I'll never understand about NFTs. What does that even mean to own a part of esports history? There's nothing to own. Why do you feel the need to own something? What are you going to do with it if you don't use it in game? What could you do besides say "I own this URL that points to a model". Not trying to be rude but this is one of the main reasons why NFTs baffle me.