Talking of Blockchain, what do yall think of THIS?

It seems pretty cool to ME, whatever little I understood :slight_smile: What do YOU make of it??

I don’t trust buzzwords, and ‘blockchain’ is about as big a buzzword as they come.

But I’m also old now, so the idea of monetizing games by distributing digital content and lootboxes seems really weird, regardless of the backend they use to authenticate it.


They have a whitepaper (in the top right) where they discribe a bit more in depth how they plan to utilize their blockchain.
It is an eos based token so you would probably also have to read the eos white paper if you want a more educated opinion about this company.

Personally I think a blockchain/cryptocurrency based gaming platform could be very interesting. Allowing trading and contracts between different games as well as from external sources and making very tiny transactions among different types of users (players, developers, advertisers… ) possible sounds great.

If you like mtx in games, I could see the benefit, I guess.

Seems like a whole lot of overkill for my character to wear a leopard print vest though…

1 Like

“At the end of the ‘California Gold Rush™’ day, who actually wound up as Governor of California?”

Uh huh … Leland Stanford … who got his start (along with the other “Bigs”) as the proprietors of a hardware store.

Yes, they sold thousands of shovels, pans, and “god-knows-what-else” to gullible would-be miners who somehow imagined that they would “strike it rich.”

(As it turns out, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was just-a-bit more conscionable, a few years later.)

Otherwise, nothing has really changed. "A reliable sucker," not-at-all informed about the details of the enterprise that he is supposedly “investing in,” simply gets fleeced … and, at least for a brief time, doesn’t even know it.

(And, “for immemoriable time thereafter,” will surely and steadfastly continue to insist that ‘(s)he made a sound business decision.™’) … “and two to take him.”

1 Like

99% of what is not Bitcoin is snake oil. Bitcoin itself has many problems. What is not decentralized, doesn’t need a blockchain. Centralized database will do just fine, and is much more honest. If it’s not proof of work, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Of course people want to print their own money and get rich. That’s all there is to this.


It appears that eos is an ethereum token which means that it is decentralized and proof of work.

Someday, block-chain technologies might prove to be just as revolutionary as “public key encryption.” They could (maybe …) revolutionize many existing schemes for financial transfers – and other applications – which right now are vulnerable to so-called “race conditions.” But, before they can do that, we’ve got to solve the computability problem. We can generate a new public/private key pair in a couple milliseconds; we can’t do that (yet) with blockchain tokens.

Eventually, we’ll figure out a way to generate these tokens by the millions, and once we can do that I think we’ll see them popping up everywhere. The infrastructure that is most desperate for this sort of thing is “credit cards.” Financial institutions write off billions of dollars in losses every year, but right now they have no choice but to continue to use a system that was basically architected in the 1960’s. The fraud happens, the customer is protected by law, so the bank eats it. Blockchain could slash those losses … if we knew how to produce suitable tokens in sufficient quantity. Eventually, someone will figure out a way – and richly deserve the Nobel Prize which will follow.

At least one Important Guy, whose book I happen to be reading right now, seems to think it’ll change the world…?

I betcha that important guy is going to make a lot of money off of it, as long as he can convince a bunch of other people to buy into it.

Well, you know what they say about “a Fool and his Money.” Leland Stanford made a ton of money – perfectly legitimately – by cashing in on a temporary over-supply of ignorant people who had no idea what they needed to buy but who felt compelled to buy it anyway. And, truth be known, he wasn’t a “huckster.” He was simply the proprietor of a hardware store, at the right place at the right time. Naturally, he profited immensely by positioning his enterprise in a town full of hucksters and their “marks.” (As did the purveyors of every single thing that he sold.)

“Will blockchain ‘change the world?’” I’m actually very certain that it will – much as “public-key cryptography” did. But only when it reaches a commensurate state of algorithmic development. The innovation that gave you “the little padlock on your browser menu-bar” was not obviously not easily achieved. It took a very, very long time for very-clever folks to work out something that was practical. Blockchain – an unquestionably brilliant and valuable concept – is destined to follow the same course.

Meanwhile: “hucksters” have identified a set of “marks” who – just as every “mark” does – “want to get rich quick.” They’re going to have their harvest.

But then: “the necessary new innovation will happen.” A practical approach (such as “RSA”) will be discovered and patented. Then, over the course of still-more years, it will be successfully applied. (“The padlock.”) And it will save billions, if not trillions, of dollars in financial losses that now occur in the world’s on-line financial settlement systems.

"Although the hucksters are deceiving, they are strictly-speaking not lying." One day, this will be “huge.” Meanwhile: "caveat emptor!"

The primary issue with Blockchain is that it scales up quite poorly. A blockchain can only grow, and it eventually gets to where it becomes quite costly and unwieldy due to the amount of processing power needed to parse it and the amount of space needed to store it. Eventually, it would become impossible for anyone to have a copy of said chain on home hardware.

There needs to be a system where older links are culled away without compromising too much of its security potential.

I dunno, I think the primary issue with blockchain in this context is that people are trying to shoehorn it in everywhere they possibly can, even though it makes no sense to do so.

Seriously, does ‘games distribution’ really require such a complex and heavy algorithmic backend? Sounds a lot like heavy handed DRM to me…

Looking at the commercial I only see “yet another game distribution platform”, with a “blockchain” stick slapped over it…
There’s plenty of them and I cannot see any real advantage in a blockchain one.

I always thought that the advantage with ANYTHING Blockchain was - “no central authority”. Isn’t that true here, ie. it’s cutting out the middleman?

in that sense only, yes. I thought you were meaning it related to video gaming.
p2p games are not new. It’d be good if you could have faster transaction, less latency, no payment gates…
Technically, as far as multiplayer synchronicity is concerned, a central point is necessary… only non-realtime games could work without it.