5 ms·

or just let Web3 and onchain NFT's happen, accepting one of the reasons why the incremental improvement is being seen as valuable. Even if a company offered a

or just let Web3 and onchain NFT's happen, accepting one of the reasons why the incremental improvement is being seen as valuable. Even if a company offered a convenience service, the ideal implementation allows people to restore their account from the current function state onchain, which is what most web3 services do in an increasingly standardized and predictable way right now. regarding the NFT's and where they store the images, many NFT classes have getter methods that tell enough about what the implementation of the digital item should look like, usually when I'm talking to people I get the impression that they haven't looked. there are so many ways to do this right, even if they aren't passing muster right now.

endisneigh 5y ago
I don't understand how NFTs would solve the problem I described. Even if all of my Oculus games are NFTs - if I'm banned and can't access my account to download the games then I'm out of luck.
- vmception 5y ago
  the games wouldn't be released on exclusively on a closed system because they have other paths to monetize the games you possess and the digital items you possess would have an independent record of your possession and continued access if you did use a company's platform because of its convenient UI, even if you lost access to that company's platform you should still be able to access all of your games and items in the Web3 paradigm and idea, the closed systems build themselves around open systems just to make them convenient, and aren't strictly necessary. the open system allows the records of assets to be tapped into and re-rendered in other games, or marketplaces. Think about it like Web 1.0 with updated technology and requisite pieces that were missing back then.
  - anamexis 5y ago
    In the NFT scenario , what would prevent people from sharing licenses?
    - vmception 5y ago
      address signing. if you give someone your address in order to access the game, they are also accessing all of your digital items and can transfer them to their own address. this is risky enough for the user that they won't do that, or learn not to. there won't be a customer support to help them, you can try to build that kind of customer support if you want though. the system would check your signature and/or check for current possession of the necessary NFT. trusting a friend to experience that is up to the user at their own risk. the game producer's goals are not really about preventing shared access any longer, as they are still selling items and doing things for creation of items (engagement), just like the most lucrative games already do now.
      - anamexis 5y ago
        So the game would check against a blockchain that the signature is valid every time you want to play? What prevents you from just keeping a snapshot of the blockchain at a point when you owned it?
        vmception 5y ago
        verification signatures don't use the blockchain, this is just public private key cryptography the same as PGP. the blockchain, for this purpose, just helped proliferate a standard application of that in a few years, where PGP failed at that for 25 years and counting as it has stayed very niche. many Web3 services use this for determining a user, or even accepting terms and conditions, while logging them in. the client and the server would be checking nearest nodes for the latest block height. so any mismatch would prevent the user from keeping a snapshot of an old blockchain state as the max height would be too different. it is also easy to disconnect a user if the assets moved when reading the current blockheight. many web3 applications just keep a websocket open to several nodes, this is boilerplate code at this point. reading from a blockchain is free. many services already check for onchain tokens to enable or disable access, for several years now. you can try gaming them to trick for access and see if you find anything.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago

endisneigh 5y ago

I don't understand how NFTs would solve the problem I described. Even if all of my Oculus games are NFTs - if I'm banned and can't access my account to download the games then I'm out of luck.

vmception 5y ago
the games wouldn't be released on exclusively on a closed system because they have other paths to monetize the games you possess and the digital items you possess would have an independent record of your possession and continued access if you did use a company's platform because of its convenient UI, even if you lost access to that company's platform you should still be able to access all of your games and items in the Web3 paradigm and idea, the closed systems build themselves around open systems just to make them convenient, and aren't strictly necessary. the open system allows the records of assets to be tapped into and re-rendered in other games, or marketplaces. Think about it like Web 1.0 with updated technology and requisite pieces that were missing back then.
- anamexis 5y ago
  In the NFT scenario , what would prevent people from sharing licenses?
  - vmception 5y ago
    address signing. if you give someone your address in order to access the game, they are also accessing all of your digital items and can transfer them to their own address. this is risky enough for the user that they won't do that, or learn not to. there won't be a customer support to help them, you can try to build that kind of customer support if you want though. the system would check your signature and/or check for current possession of the necessary NFT. trusting a friend to experience that is up to the user at their own risk. the game producer's goals are not really about preventing shared access any longer, as they are still selling items and doing things for creation of items (engagement), just like the most lucrative games already do now.
    - anamexis 5y ago
      So the game would check against a blockchain that the signature is valid every time you want to play? What prevents you from just keeping a snapshot of the blockchain at a point when you owned it?
      - vmception 5y ago
        verification signatures don't use the blockchain, this is just public private key cryptography the same as PGP. the blockchain, for this purpose, just helped proliferate a standard application of that in a few years, where PGP failed at that for 25 years and counting as it has stayed very niche. many Web3 services use this for determining a user, or even accepting terms and conditions, while logging them in. the client and the server would be checking nearest nodes for the latest block height. so any mismatch would prevent the user from keeping a snapshot of an old blockchain state as the max height would be too different. it is also easy to disconnect a user if the assets moved when reading the current blockheight. many web3 applications just keep a websocket open to several nodes, this is boilerplate code at this point. reading from a blockchain is free. many services already check for onchain tokens to enable or disable access, for several years now. you can try gaming them to trick for access and see if you find anything.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago