6 ms·

> An NFT is just a fancy signed receipt. That may be how some NFTs are utilized. But it’s probably better to think of an ERC20 (tokens) and ERC721 (NFTs) as s

> An NFT is just a fancy signed receipt. That may be how some NFTs are utilized. But it’s probably better to think of an ERC20 (tokens) and ERC721 (NFTs) as self executing code on the Ethereum Virtual Machine. The difference between the two is that ERC20 standard is self-similar and the ERC721 standard is uniquely identifiable. Sure you can mint an NFT with “whatever record” you want in theory, if the NFT isn’t minted within a given self-executing smart contract, then your NFT is immediately recognizable as bullshit. You are simultaneously suggesting there is no need for a technological solution, the answer if forcing Ubisoft to act a certain way, whereas the technological solution removes the need to trust Ubisoft to act a certain way or force them to when they don’t.

cedilla 5y ago
How exactly would the embedded program force Ubisoft to act?
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  Self-executing programs on EVM would entirely remove the need to force anything, which is OPs “solution”. We have seen it time and again with centralized services right? Just take any one of the horror stories where PayPal has shutdown/frozen accounts. People have been frozen for months/years/indefinitely with funds they need to live and feed their families. You don’t need to force PayPal to unlock you account/funds if you can take your seed phrase/private key and access my funds on any other wallet.
  - cedilla 5y ago
    I understand the frustration with centralized services. What I don't understand is how an embedded program on a blockchain service would guarantee my access to a Ubisoft service or game.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Is the game distributed and executing on the blockchain? If not, you're close to understanding how NFTs very expensively do not solve this problem: the blockchain state doesn't remove Ubisoft's control of their software and servers. What would help is a legal contract with user-friendly terms (which they could offer now if they wanted to, but they don't) or consumer protection regulation (which has no need for a blockchain).
    - throwawaycities 5y ago
      > Is the game distributed and executing on the blockchain? If not, you're close to understanding how NFTs very expensively do not solve this problem… Games can be deployed on IPFS right? Access to play games on IPFS be trustless, such as holders of NFTs, right? That is not the only way to employ blockchain technology to avoid a centralized company removing access to games you paid for, but not knowing your familiarity with the current state of the technology that is low hanging fruit. Also let’s not pretend there isn’t a legal contract between Ubisoft and users, but it’s that very contract that gives them the legal right to take away access to games you have paid for by the rules they dictate. Even if Ubisoft breached the contract, no one is going to hire a lawyer to sue Ubisoft over breach of contract over the cost of a game…don’t forget to take into account legal fees and costs when calling the blockchain expensive.
      - acdha 5y ago
        > Games can be deployed on IPFS right? They could, but IPFS is not a blockchain and putting it on IPFS would be a competitive disadvantage since you'd still need to pay for hosting but your users would see lower performance than competing options. > Access to play games on IPFS be trustless, such as holders of NFTs, right? No. If it's on IPFS, it's globally accessible to everyone on the internet. You could host encrypted blobs but publishers are unlikely to do that because it would mean that any breach of any purchased decryption key would mean that people who did not purchase it could download the same thing paid customers get, and there'd be no way to rotate the keys without breaking access for paying customers. Moreover, IPFS would only matter if the game is either completely standalone or allows you to run your own servers. If that's not true, what really matters for most people is whether the servers will allow you to login, where again Ubisoft would have complete control about whether they care about your NFT. In the absence of a signed contract, that's “hahaha, no”. > Also let’s not pretend there isn’t a legal contract between Ubisoft and users, but it’s that very contract that gives them the legal right to take away access to games you have paid for by the rules they dictate. Even if Ubisoft breached the contract, no one is going to hire a lawyer to sue Ubisoft over breach of contract over the cost of a game…don’t forget to take into account legal fees and costs when calling the blockchain expensive. That is rather the point: Ubisoft has those terms because they created the game and the legal systems in most of the world give them a lot of control over how they grant access to their work. Blockchains aren't magic pixie dust which allow you to redesign their business how you want it to work and, as we've already seen from this same company, if they chose to use a blockchain they would structure the terms to preserve the same favorable position they currently enjoy. If, as I do, you think that games should have resale rights or there should be some required process & means of recourse before terminating access, what you want are laws. Copyright is a legal creation and your elected officials can adjust the terms for it. Sure, that's won't happen without hard work but a blockchain has no authority to make anything happen at all so why not spend your effort on something which has a chance of working?
Lazare 5y ago
> But it’s probably better to think of an ERC20 (tokens) and ERC721 (NFTs) as self executing code on the Ethereum Virtual Machine. Right, and Ubisoft is making NFTs right now, that will use that self-executing code to implement customer unfriendly restrictions on who can own and transfer the NFTs. If your self-executing smart contract says "you lose the games when Ubisoft bans you or goes out of business", then you've gained nothing. "Ah", you say, "but what if Ubisoft decided to be nice and customer friendly?" But this is Ubisoft. That's not going to happen. :)

cedilla 5y ago

How exactly would the embedded program force Ubisoft to act?

throwawaycities 5y ago
Self-executing programs on EVM would entirely remove the need to force anything, which is OPs “solution”. We have seen it time and again with centralized services right? Just take any one of the horror stories where PayPal has shutdown/frozen accounts. People have been frozen for months/years/indefinitely with funds they need to live and feed their families. You don’t need to force PayPal to unlock you account/funds if you can take your seed phrase/private key and access my funds on any other wallet.
- cedilla 5y ago
  I understand the frustration with centralized services. What I don't understand is how an embedded program on a blockchain service would guarantee my access to a Ubisoft service or game.
- acdha 5y ago
  Is the game distributed and executing on the blockchain? If not, you're close to understanding how NFTs very expensively do not solve this problem: the blockchain state doesn't remove Ubisoft's control of their software and servers. What would help is a legal contract with user-friendly terms (which they could offer now if they wanted to, but they don't) or consumer protection regulation (which has no need for a blockchain).
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    > Is the game distributed and executing on the blockchain? If not, you're close to understanding how NFTs very expensively do not solve this problem… Games can be deployed on IPFS right? Access to play games on IPFS be trustless, such as holders of NFTs, right? That is not the only way to employ blockchain technology to avoid a centralized company removing access to games you paid for, but not knowing your familiarity with the current state of the technology that is low hanging fruit. Also let’s not pretend there isn’t a legal contract between Ubisoft and users, but it’s that very contract that gives them the legal right to take away access to games you have paid for by the rules they dictate. Even if Ubisoft breached the contract, no one is going to hire a lawyer to sue Ubisoft over breach of contract over the cost of a game…don’t forget to take into account legal fees and costs when calling the blockchain expensive.
    - acdha 5y ago
      > Games can be deployed on IPFS right? They could, but IPFS is not a blockchain and putting it on IPFS would be a competitive disadvantage since you'd still need to pay for hosting but your users would see lower performance than competing options. > Access to play games on IPFS be trustless, such as holders of NFTs, right? No. If it's on IPFS, it's globally accessible to everyone on the internet. You could host encrypted blobs but publishers are unlikely to do that because it would mean that any breach of any purchased decryption key would mean that people who did not purchase it could download the same thing paid customers get, and there'd be no way to rotate the keys without breaking access for paying customers. Moreover, IPFS would only matter if the game is either completely standalone or allows you to run your own servers. If that's not true, what really matters for most people is whether the servers will allow you to login, where again Ubisoft would have complete control about whether they care about your NFT. In the absence of a signed contract, that's “hahaha, no”. > Also let’s not pretend there isn’t a legal contract between Ubisoft and users, but it’s that very contract that gives them the legal right to take away access to games you have paid for by the rules they dictate. Even if Ubisoft breached the contract, no one is going to hire a lawyer to sue Ubisoft over breach of contract over the cost of a game…don’t forget to take into account legal fees and costs when calling the blockchain expensive. That is rather the point: Ubisoft has those terms because they created the game and the legal systems in most of the world give them a lot of control over how they grant access to their work. Blockchains aren't magic pixie dust which allow you to redesign their business how you want it to work and, as we've already seen from this same company, if they chose to use a blockchain they would structure the terms to preserve the same favorable position they currently enjoy. If, as I do, you think that games should have resale rights or there should be some required process & means of recourse before terminating access, what you want are laws. Copyright is a legal creation and your elected officials can adjust the terms for it. Sure, that's won't happen without hard work but a blockchain has no authority to make anything happen at all so why not spend your effort on something which has a chance of working?

Lazare 5y ago

> But it’s probably better to think of an ERC20 (tokens) and ERC721 (NFTs) as self executing code on the Ethereum Virtual Machine. Right, and Ubisoft is making NFTs right now, that will use that self-executing code to implement customer unfriendly restrictions on who can own and transfer the NFTs. If your self-executing smart contract says "you lose the games when Ubisoft bans you or goes out of business", then you've gained nothing. "Ah", you say, "but what if Ubisoft decided to be nice and customer friendly?" But this is Ubisoft. That's not going to happen. :)