Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 377 posts

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#201

Post by Chabsff »

stale2002 wrote: post #181
Chabsff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not inherently made possible by the blockchain itself though. The mechanisms to transfer a Kitty to the HyperDragons lie within the CryptoKitty Smart Contract. This is not particularly different than a regular API, where the available operations have been chosen, specified, and made available to the public at large by the developers. The only real difference with a public-facing documented traditional API is…

> This is not inherently made possible by the blockchain itself though. It basically is. This is impossible on Eve, if you don't have permission from the people who make Eve. But, with something on the blockchain, you don't need permission from the person who made the original asset, on the blockchain. The asset is on the blockchain, and it is much more difficult to stop me from using that asset, compared to a centra…

Two things are wrong here:

1) The reason it can't be done with EVE is not because EVE is not on the blockchain. It just happens to not be possible because the devs didn't make it so. They could have, but they chose not to.

2) Something being on the blockchain does not make it automatically permission-less. It depends on how the smart contracts involved are coded.

I think point 2) is something that a lot of people don't realise wrt/ NFTs. The NFTs are transferable without the author being involved because the Smart Contract that drives them has a function (aka an API endpoint) that provides that feature. It is not a property of the blockchain itself. It is a property of an arbitrary piece of code that happens to reside on the blockchain. A property that any web service is capable of providing without the blockchain having to be involved.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#202

Post by eaurouge »

thrown_22 wrote: post #186
cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

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

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.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#203

Post by jihodl »

cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #169
pwillia7 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a magic the gathering like trading card game on ethereum that seems neat. I doubt it will get big enough to make sense, but having come from paper MTG as a kid and not being able to really digitally collect cards since... that would be super cool. You would actually 'own' the cards.

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 cou…

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

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#204

Post by eaurouge »

cowtools wrote: post #122
px43 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The status quo in gaming today is that people work thousands, or 10s of thousands of hours building, collecting, exploring, etc, and it's all owned by some emotionless gaming company that might just decide to delete all your stuff, or just disappear all together, without notice. Giving players control of the things they worked hard to get just seems like the natural progression as we assign more and more value to the…

Yeah I guess, but grinding/mining is not sybil proof. So the only thing that cryptocurrency improves is replacing that with buying and trading items with actual money, or mining stuff with PoW. You couldn't have a blockchain equivalent of World-of-Warcraft. You have no meaningful way to testify that you recieve an item from killing a boss, for example. The only thing you can really implement with cryptocurrency is a…

> You couldn't have a blockchain equivalent of World-of-Warcraft. You have no meaningful way to testify that you recieve an item from killing a boss, for example.

Anywhere else and I would assume you were joking. This being HN, I have to assume you're being serious. So, at the risk of stating the obvious, that's the point of the blockchain. That you can provide verifiable proof for things like this.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#205

Post by jy1 »

swalsh wrote: post #195
teraflop wrote: post #3

One thing I don't see addressed in this article is that as far as I know, it's basically impossible to trust the reported price or volume of NFT transactions, because there's no way to distinguish fake wash trades from real ones. So it's hard to draw any conclusions about whether the data reflects an actual peak in user activity, or just a peak in scams.

Can someone tell me how to successfully do a wash trade? because I frankly have no idea. If you fund it from your coinbase account, coinbase is going to tell the taxman about both your wallets... so no buerno. If you fund another wallet from a known wallet... the tax man can still see that. If you use Tornado cash, Coinbase is going to block it. I just don't think it's as easy as people think it is.

You can report everything to the taxman. Wash trading in this context isnt to do with taxes. Its about how you hard it is to verify claimed sale prices since you can transact with yourself.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#206

Post by thrown_22 »

eaurouge wrote: post #202
thrown_22 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

The CO2 footprint for one.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#207

Post by WFHRenaissance »

nicbou wrote: post #194
WFHRenaissance wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is not a good comparison. You frequently use the internet for other things. It seems like crypto is only used for this, with every other use being closer to an edge case.

No post body was provided.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#208

Post by solardev »

cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #169
pwillia7 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a magic the gathering like trading card game on ethereum that seems neat. I doubt it will get big enough to make sense, but having come from paper MTG as a kid and not being able to really digitally collect cards since... that would be super cool. You would actually 'own' the cards.

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 cou…

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

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#209

Post by stale2002 »

Chabsff wrote: post #201
stale2002 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not inherently made possible by the blockchain itself though. It basically is. This is impossible on Eve, if you don't have permission from the people who make Eve. But, with something on the blockchain, you don't need permission from the person who made the original asset, on the blockchain. The asset is on the blockchain, and it is much more difficult to stop me from using that asset, compared to a centra…

Two things are wrong here: 1) The reason it can't be done with EVE is not because EVE is not on the blockchain. It just happens to not be possible because the devs didn't make it so. They could have, but they chose not to. 2) Something being on the blockchain does not make it automatically permission-less. It depends on how the smart contracts involved are coded. I think point 2) is something that a lot of people don…

> It just happens to not be possible because the devs didn't make it so. They could have, but they chose not to.

And then they could change it at any time, as they would be the central authority. There would be not way to stop them from changing it.

Well, thats not true technically. I guess one way that they could implement it, such that they cannot change their mind in the future, would be if the game was run on some sort of decentralized public ledger, with a consensus mechanism.... oh wait, what does that sound like? Oh yeah, we have a word for that. Its called a blockchain.

> Something being on the blockchain does not make it automatically permission-less.

If I read the code, and the code makes it permissionless, the author can't change it later, if the code was written in a way that I can verify that.

Thats the point. Yes, someone can always say "yep, I totally pretty please promise that I won't change anything! Just trust me!"

And it is quite another thing for it to be a smart contract, that verifiably cannot be changed by the original author. Thats the difference.

> (aka an API endpoint) that provides that feature.

> A property that any web service is capable of providing

Oh? A feature, such as a public, immutable ledger, that is decentralized in such a way, using a consensus algorithm (such as PoW or PoS), such that there is no central authority that can change it unilaterally?

That feature? The feature that is, by definition, a blockchain?

Yes, it is true that if you add all the features that a blockchain has, to your software, then by definition it has all the features of the blockchain.

But that makes it a blockchain. You just re-invented the blockchain.

Re: The collapse of cryptokitties, the first big blockchain game

#210

Post by [deleted] »

swalsh wrote: post #195
teraflop wrote: post #3

One thing I don't see addressed in this article is that as far as I know, it's basically impossible to trust the reported price or volume of NFT transactions, because there's no way to distinguish fake wash trades from real ones. So it's hard to draw any conclusions about whether the data reflects an actual peak in user activity, or just a peak in scams.

Can someone tell me how to successfully do a wash trade? because I frankly have no idea. If you fund it from your coinbase account, coinbase is going to tell the taxman about both your wallets... so no buerno. If you fund another wallet from a known wallet... the tax man can still see that. If you use Tornado cash, Coinbase is going to block it. I just don't think it's as easy as people think it is.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN