5 ms·

This is one of the few areas where I think there's a legitimately useful role for NFTs. WoTC (the owners of MtG) could "mint" a limited number of cards each ye

This is one of the few areas where I think there's a legitimately useful role for NFTs. WoTC (the owners of MtG) could "mint" a limited number of cards each year, just like today, controlling the rarity of certain ones, etc. People could pay WoTC for them, and they could be traded in the blockchain, which shows the "chain of custody" all the way back to WoTC, which is what makes it "authentic". Online tournaments could check your ownership of cards via the blockchain, and I can even see IRL tournaments checking the blockchain too, if you want to print a copy of your card. They already do this sort of thing with MtG Online, I think you can purchase and trade cards in-game. They also let you send them physical cards, and they will give you the in-game card in your account in return. Not sure if they go the other way around. From WoTC's perspective, one of the downsides of a "public" blockchain would be that they don't get a cut of any transaction beyond the first one.

rideontime 4y ago
> They already do this sort of thing with MtG Online Exactly. They can track all this stuff in their own database. WotC doesn't stand to benefit from putting anything on a blockchain.
- aaroninsf 4y ago
  Generalized case: no one stands to benefit from putting such things on a blockchain. Except the people making money by running or grifting off a blockchain.
- foerbert 4y ago
  I think it's possible they might see some benefit. It would basically hinge on people's faith in WotC vs a blockchain to administer that data. If the blockchain was more trusted - say because of concerns WotC might go out of business one day, etc - then using it might entice people to put more money in.
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    If gameplay is also mediated through WotC's servers, though, then the cards would lose any intrinsic value when/if WotC goes under or stops supporting the game. And if others are allowed to create their own servers so that the game can live outside of WotC's auspices, that would also undermine the value of the NFT cards, since anyone who is able to create their own implementation of the game could just as easily start creating non-NFT versions of the cards that people can use.
    - foerbert 4y ago
      I don't think that's the case. It's also a tabletop game so the rules are all out there in public and not even inhumanely complex. Even if WotC's servers go down, you could use the blockchain to prove ownership of a card for use in a live tournament. It's also possible for a third party to create their own server to implement the game, and then refer back to the blockchain for ownership. As for non-official cards, I mean, yeah? That's the case with physical Magic cards too. Not even actual counterfeits have held the MTG secondary market back from astounding prices. Meanwhile non-NFT cards would be the equivalent of proxy cards - cards that aren't X, but both players agree to treat as X - which haven't been any more successful than counterfeits in holding Magic prices down. I'm not claiming there would be greater faith in a blockchain than WotC, I'm just saying I see it as possible.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        > It's also possible for a third party to create their own server to implement the game No, it wouldn't be possible because the concept of IP and copyright exists regardless of blockchains.
        foerbert 4y ago
        Neither apply to game mechanics. Even if all the WotC IP ends up with the most determined patent troll ever, the game itself could still be implemented. As for the card art... who knows what the legal situation would end up being. But even if it's totally legally off limits, the ability to load custom art would render it practically moot anyway.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The collectibles WotC issues could be much more valuable if they are issued on the blockchain where both exchangeability and access to provenance are guaranteed.
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    I would argue it's the opposite. The physical copies are unique objects that only one person can own and enjoy. With the way NFTs work, the blockchain version of one would be an infinitely copyable file that just happens to have a scoreboard somewhere that says that only one person can "own" it in some very specific sense. But everyone else can still enjoy it just as easily. Unless it's hosted on some WotC server where only the NFT owner can access it. But that also undermines its value, since then you don't really own it any more than someone "owns" a Kindle book: barring breaking DRM, as soon as Amazon decides to shut the Kindle service down, its either gone now, or its days are numbered.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      Note I'm comparing digital collectibles with provenance determined by WotC servers to digital collectibles issued on the blockchain, i.e. NFTs. I'm suggesting the latter could prove to be more valuable than the former. I am not comparing digital collectibles to physical collectibles. >>With the way NFTs work, the blockchain version of one would be an infinitely copyable file that just happens to have a scoreboard somewhere that says that only one person can "own" it in some very specific sense. There are already NFTs worth tens and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars of ETH (see CryptoPunks NFTs) so we know people are willing to pay for something where the image is copyable, but the original can still be authenticated. In the case of the physical copies, people can easily photocopy them or share their images digitally, yet the verifiable original still retains its value. I don't believe inability to copy the image associated with a physical or digital collectible is what imparts the collectible with value.
      - nradov 4y ago
        People are only willing to "pay" for worthless NFT garbage due to the bigger fool theory. The grifters who created scams like CryptoPunks are already running out of fools.
thrown_22 4y ago
I hate it so much that you've outlined a very viable use of a blockchain.
- eaurouge 4y ago
  The obvious question would be why do you hate it so much. I can't recall the viability of any piece of technology affecting me so negatively. We create technology to solve problems. Even if you can't think of a reason why some technology should exist, I can't imagine why it should elicit such strong emotions.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    The CO2 footprint for one.
    - bo1024 4y ago
      You're a day late with that argument... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/15/1059520/the-merge-is-here-ethereum-has-switched-to-proof-of-stake/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/15/1059520/the-merg...
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        So bitcoin has moved to proof of stake?
        LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        Bitcoin doesn’t even have smart contracts. How is it relevant?
        thrown_22 4y ago
        Is it not a blockchain technology?
jihodl 4y ago
The MtG NFTs should be traded on MtGox so we come full circle.
solardev 4y ago
They can do that even more easily with a standard server...

rideontime 4y ago

> They already do this sort of thing with MtG Online Exactly. They can track all this stuff in their own database. WotC doesn't stand to benefit from putting anything on a blockchain.

aaroninsf 4y ago
Generalized case: no one stands to benefit from putting such things on a blockchain. Except the people making money by running or grifting off a blockchain.
foerbert 4y ago
I think it's possible they might see some benefit. It would basically hinge on people's faith in WotC vs a blockchain to administer that data. If the blockchain was more trusted - say because of concerns WotC might go out of business one day, etc - then using it might entice people to put more money in.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  If gameplay is also mediated through WotC's servers, though, then the cards would lose any intrinsic value when/if WotC goes under or stops supporting the game. And if others are allowed to create their own servers so that the game can live outside of WotC's auspices, that would also undermine the value of the NFT cards, since anyone who is able to create their own implementation of the game could just as easily start creating non-NFT versions of the cards that people can use.
  - foerbert 4y ago
    I don't think that's the case. It's also a tabletop game so the rules are all out there in public and not even inhumanely complex. Even if WotC's servers go down, you could use the blockchain to prove ownership of a card for use in a live tournament. It's also possible for a third party to create their own server to implement the game, and then refer back to the blockchain for ownership. As for non-official cards, I mean, yeah? That's the case with physical Magic cards too. Not even actual counterfeits have held the MTG secondary market back from astounding prices. Meanwhile non-NFT cards would be the equivalent of proxy cards - cards that aren't X, but both players agree to treat as X - which haven't been any more successful than counterfeits in holding Magic prices down. I'm not claiming there would be greater faith in a blockchain than WotC, I'm just saying I see it as possible.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > It's also possible for a third party to create their own server to implement the game No, it wouldn't be possible because the concept of IP and copyright exists regardless of blockchains.
      - foerbert 4y ago
        Neither apply to game mechanics. Even if all the WotC IP ends up with the most determined patent troll ever, the game itself could still be implemented. As for the card art... who knows what the legal situation would end up being. But even if it's totally legally off limits, the ability to load custom art would render it practically moot anyway.
ETH_start 4y ago
The collectibles WotC issues could be much more valuable if they are issued on the blockchain where both exchangeability and access to provenance are guaranteed.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  I would argue it's the opposite. The physical copies are unique objects that only one person can own and enjoy. With the way NFTs work, the blockchain version of one would be an infinitely copyable file that just happens to have a scoreboard somewhere that says that only one person can "own" it in some very specific sense. But everyone else can still enjoy it just as easily. Unless it's hosted on some WotC server where only the NFT owner can access it. But that also undermines its value, since then you don't really own it any more than someone "owns" a Kindle book: barring breaking DRM, as soon as Amazon decides to shut the Kindle service down, its either gone now, or its days are numbered.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    Note I'm comparing digital collectibles with provenance determined by WotC servers to digital collectibles issued on the blockchain, i.e. NFTs. I'm suggesting the latter could prove to be more valuable than the former. I am not comparing digital collectibles to physical collectibles. >>With the way NFTs work, the blockchain version of one would be an infinitely copyable file that just happens to have a scoreboard somewhere that says that only one person can "own" it in some very specific sense. There are already NFTs worth tens and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars of ETH (see CryptoPunks NFTs) so we know people are willing to pay for something where the image is copyable, but the original can still be authenticated. In the case of the physical copies, people can easily photocopy them or share their images digitally, yet the verifiable original still retains its value. I don't believe inability to copy the image associated with a physical or digital collectible is what imparts the collectible with value.
    - nradov 4y ago
      People are only willing to "pay" for worthless NFT garbage due to the bigger fool theory. The grifters who created scams like CryptoPunks are already running out of fools.

thrown_22 4y ago

I hate it so much that you've outlined a very viable use of a blockchain.

eaurouge 4y ago
The obvious question would be why do you hate it so much. I can't recall the viability of any piece of technology affecting me so negatively. We create technology to solve problems. Even if you can't think of a reason why some technology should exist, I can't imagine why it should elicit such strong emotions.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  The CO2 footprint for one.
  - bo1024 4y ago
    You're a day late with that argument... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/15/1059520/the-merge-is-here-ethereum-has-switched-to-proof-of-stake/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/15/1059520/the-merg...
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      So bitcoin has moved to proof of stake?
      - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        Bitcoin doesn’t even have smart contracts. How is it relevant?
        thrown_22 4y ago
        Is it not a blockchain technology?

jihodl 4y ago

The MtG NFTs should be traded on MtGox so we come full circle.

solardev 4y ago

They can do that even more easily with a standard server...