3 ms·

> overjustification effect Fair enough but not a flaw. > There is no reason why a game would accept any non-worthless NFT object minted by a different publish

by mxwsn 4y ago

> overjustification effect Fair enough but not a flaw. > There is no reason why a game would accept any non-worthless NFT object minted by a different publisher No reason? Surely you can be more creative than that. > The longer the blockchain, the more time it takes to check if someone owns an NFT Not true on Ethereum. > Dupe bugs are ruinous The general point of bug damage and lack of central control is valid and dangerous yes. Duping though is not a practical concern. NFT contracts have stood the test of public interest and time. > Tax implications Finally, an actual flaw.

Lazare 4y ago
> > overjustification effect > Fair enough but not a flaw. ...a lot of game developers want people to enjoy their games, either out of a sense of artistry, or just because enjoyable games attract players and make money. If you're considered implementing a piece of tech and it reduces the enjoyment players get from the games, that's a huge drawback that needs to be balanced out by a major advantage. If there is no such counterweight, then yes, it's a flaw. > > There is no reason why a game would accept any non-worthless NFT object minted by a different publisher > No reason? Surely you can be more creative than that. I mean, we've been talking about the idea for years now, and no one has articulated a single plausible reason so far, but... > Duping though is not a practical concern. NFT contracts have stood the test of public interest and time. The concern isn't duplicating an NFT, eg, when it is transferred, it's about incorrectly minting too many NFTs if they're being minted by in-game actions. Imagine if you, say, kill a boss that drops rare loot and it mints an NFT for each drop. A replay attack against a poorly coded game server might mint multiple NFTs as if you had actually killed the boss multiple times. A traditional game architecture makes this easy to rollback. More broadly, if you've ever played a large MMO, you might have noticed that there's a fair amount of support requests to resolve things like: "I killed the boss, but a bug meant I didn't get loot" or "I accidentally sold a piece of loot and I want it back" or "I picked up a piece of loot that cannot be traded, but I meant to let my friend pick it up instead, can you transfer the item to them" or "I finished a quest that gave me a choice between two items, but now I've changed my mind" or "my account was compromised and all my gold and items are gone". Popular games have good customer service, which routinely resolve all those issues, hundreds or even thousands of times a day. If loot is represented by NFTs on a blockchain, and the blockchain is the actual source of truth, then none of that can be done, certainly not easily, and in most cases at all.
mark242 4y ago
> Duping though is not a practical concern. NFT contracts have stood the test of public interest and time. A large number of contracts have had multi-million-dollar vulnerabilities. Even one vulnerability in a cross-game-item contract would affect not just the game where the item was created, but literally every single "connected" game. Those in-game-economies would all die simultaneously, and players would abandon en masse. Bartle's point is valid; this is not something you just issue a patch for in a game. It is a fundamental catastrophic flaw with trying to transfer objects from one virtual world to another, blockchain or no.

by mxwsn 4y ago

Lazare 4y ago

> > overjustification effect > Fair enough but not a flaw. ...a lot of game developers want people to enjoy their games, either out of a sense of artistry, or just because enjoyable games attract players and make money. If you're considered implementing a piece of tech and it reduces the enjoyment players get from the games, that's a huge drawback that needs to be balanced out by a major advantage. If there is no such counterweight, then yes, it's a flaw. > > There is no reason why a game would accept any non-worthless NFT object minted by a different publisher > No reason? Surely you can be more creative than that. I mean, we've been talking about the idea for years now, and no one has articulated a single plausible reason so far, but... > Duping though is not a practical concern. NFT contracts have stood the test of public interest and time. The concern isn't duplicating an NFT, eg, when it is transferred, it's about incorrectly minting too many NFTs if they're being minted by in-game actions. Imagine if you, say, kill a boss that drops rare loot and it mints an NFT for each drop. A replay attack against a poorly coded game server might mint multiple NFTs as if you had actually killed the boss multiple times. A traditional game architecture makes this easy to rollback. More broadly, if you've ever played a large MMO, you might have noticed that there's a fair amount of support requests to resolve things like: "I killed the boss, but a bug meant I didn't get loot" or "I accidentally sold a piece of loot and I want it back" or "I picked up a piece of loot that cannot be traded, but I meant to let my friend pick it up instead, can you transfer the item to them" or "I finished a quest that gave me a choice between two items, but now I've changed my mind" or "my account was compromised and all my gold and items are gone". Popular games have good customer service, which routinely resolve all those issues, hundreds or even thousands of times a day. If loot is represented by NFTs on a blockchain, and the blockchain is the actual source of truth, then none of that can be done, certainly not easily, and in most cases at all.

mark242 4y ago

> Duping though is not a practical concern. NFT contracts have stood the test of public interest and time. A large number of contracts have had multi-million-dollar vulnerabilities. Even one vulnerability in a cross-game-item contract would affect not just the game where the item was created, but literally every single "connected" game. Those in-game-economies would all die simultaneously, and players would abandon en masse. Bartle's point is valid; this is not something you just issue a patch for in a game. It is a fundamental catastrophic flaw with trying to transfer objects from one virtual world to another, blockchain or no.