4 ms·

No, the chain only has authority over itself. It's the same issue as with NFTs. Yes, you can store on the blockchain stuff like "User 0xabcdef owns the Godslay

No, the chain only has authority over itself. It's the same issue as with NFTs. Yes, you can store on the blockchain stuff like "User 0xabcdef owns the Godslayer of Hitpoints sword". And a game can look at the blockchain, and make use of that record. But absolutely nothing whatsoever stops it from deciding to stop caring, or replacing your fancy sword with a rubber duck, or deciding that screw this particular user, they're banned regardless of what the chain says. Also even to the extent this stuff works it's not nice to use. If the blockchain has you have some sort of resource (money, quota, etc), then if somebody ever gets their hands on your account they're now the rightful owner as far as the blockchain is concerned. So if per the chain you're owed say, 1 year worth of GPU time or something, that automatically becomes a self-paying bounty. Everyone can see it, and has an incentive to try and hack you.

em-bee 3y ago
how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? sure it can be lost, so that's a different issue. if the chain itself is trusted and it says that, say a movie that has this signature is owned by this studio then noone can replace the movie or even steal it because they need the chain to access it. if the studio doesn't keep a copy of their movie and they loose it that's their own fault. same with NFTs. i think the idea is stupid, but i don't see the risks you are suggesting. to your last point, that's only an issue if you pay in advance, not if you pay after use. and stealing money on the blockchain is nothing new. that's of course a problem, but one that affects the whole ecosystem, so it will eventually have to be fixed. adding computing resources into the mix doesn't change anything. i am not really interested in discussing why something should or should not be done. because i do not know enough about how it actually works before i can argue about that. so i really first want to understand how it works so i can make up my own mind on whether it is a good idea or not.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? It's very simple. You ignore the chain. The chain isn't magic, if it has any authority it's only because something else decides to consult the chain and to care about what can be found there. Any actual usefulness of the blockchain is limited to things that reside exclusively in the blockchain. Anything external, like some service that determines ownership of movies (not sure what scheme you're envisioning exactly) can arbitrarily decide to stop caring about the chain at any time, or to even selectively stop caring about parts of it.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    of course you can ignore the chain, but i already said that. if you have assets outside the chain you need to watch them yourself. but if the key to open that asset is on the chain, then even if you get a copy of the asset you can't do anything with it without using the chain. you can't replace it either because that would change the signature, and the owner can just reupload his original copy with the correct signature.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      > if you have assets outside the chain you need to watch them yourself. but if the key to open that asset is on the chain How is that supposed to work? Blockchains are public, they don't keep secrets. > then even if you get a copy of the asset you can't do anything with it without using the chain. Sure can. Take the key off the public chain, put it on pastebin. Done. > you can't replace it either because that would change the signature, Sure can. Yeah, signatures may change. But that only matters to the extent that people do. The chain has no effect. > and the owner can just reupload his original copy with the correct signature. What owner? I still have no idea what you're envisioning here. What's this for? What purpose does it serve? How does it do that technically?
      - em-bee 3y ago
        Blockchains are public, they don't keep secrets you can store encrypted data on the chain. if i sell you a movie, i can give you the encrypted movie and use your public key to store an encrypted message with the key to open the movie. that way i can use a smart contract on the chain to track if you opened the movie. Yeah, signatures may change. But that only matters to the extent that people do. The chain has no effect. if the signature is on the chain and the chain is used to verify your ownership claim, then how exactly does the chain have no effect? What owner? the owner of the digital asset. an NFT for example, let's ignore for a moment that NFTs are stupid. or a movie. the purpose that it serves is to track the ownership of an asset. sure, you can make a copy of it. but you don't own that copy. if i discover that you made a copy, i can charge you with theft (see piracy) because i'll use the chain as proof of ownership and i can prove that you don't own your copy. i am not saying that we want this. i am not a fan of blockchains. but to my understanding this is how they can be used.

em-bee 3y ago

how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? sure it can be lost, so that's a different issue. if the chain itself is trusted and it says that, say a movie that has this signature is owned by this studio then noone can replace the movie or even steal it because they need the chain to access it. if the studio doesn't keep a copy of their movie and they loose it that's their own fault. same with NFTs. i think the idea is stupid, but i don't see the risks you are suggesting. to your last point, that's only an issue if you pay in advance, not if you pay after use. and stealing money on the blockchain is nothing new. that's of course a problem, but one that affects the whole ecosystem, so it will eventually have to be fixed. adding computing resources into the mix doesn't change anything. i am not really interested in discussing why something should or should not be done. because i do not know enough about how it actually works before i can argue about that. so i really first want to understand how it works so i can make up my own mind on whether it is a good idea or not.

dale_glass 3y ago
> how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? It's very simple. You ignore the chain. The chain isn't magic, if it has any authority it's only because something else decides to consult the chain and to care about what can be found there. Any actual usefulness of the blockchain is limited to things that reside exclusively in the blockchain. Anything external, like some service that determines ownership of movies (not sure what scheme you're envisioning exactly) can arbitrarily decide to stop caring about the chain at any time, or to even selectively stop caring about parts of it.
- em-bee 3y ago
  of course you can ignore the chain, but i already said that. if you have assets outside the chain you need to watch them yourself. but if the key to open that asset is on the chain, then even if you get a copy of the asset you can't do anything with it without using the chain. you can't replace it either because that would change the signature, and the owner can just reupload his original copy with the correct signature.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    > if you have assets outside the chain you need to watch them yourself. but if the key to open that asset is on the chain How is that supposed to work? Blockchains are public, they don't keep secrets. > then even if you get a copy of the asset you can't do anything with it without using the chain. Sure can. Take the key off the public chain, put it on pastebin. Done. > you can't replace it either because that would change the signature, Sure can. Yeah, signatures may change. But that only matters to the extent that people do. The chain has no effect. > and the owner can just reupload his original copy with the correct signature. What owner? I still have no idea what you're envisioning here. What's this for? What purpose does it serve? How does it do that technically?
    - em-bee 3y ago
      Blockchains are public, they don't keep secrets you can store encrypted data on the chain. if i sell you a movie, i can give you the encrypted movie and use your public key to store an encrypted message with the key to open the movie. that way i can use a smart contract on the chain to track if you opened the movie. Yeah, signatures may change. But that only matters to the extent that people do. The chain has no effect. if the signature is on the chain and the chain is used to verify your ownership claim, then how exactly does the chain have no effect? What owner? the owner of the digital asset. an NFT for example, let's ignore for a moment that NFTs are stupid. or a movie. the purpose that it serves is to track the ownership of an asset. sure, you can make a copy of it. but you don't own that copy. if i discover that you made a copy, i can charge you with theft (see piracy) because i'll use the chain as proof of ownership and i can prove that you don't own your copy. i am not saying that we want this. i am not a fan of blockchains. but to my understanding this is how they can be used.