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

211–220 of 377 posts

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

#211

Post by pcthrowaway »

Chabsff wrote: post #121
alanfalcon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I've been thinking about this and working on this for years, so I have a different perspective. Is everything fully better for having blockchain integration? Clearly no. Are the benefits worth the trade-offs? I'd argue yes, on the whole. 1. The global worldwide market place. While this introduces commerce/real money, which come with very real downsides, it also makes the game high stakes (meaning most people play…

Thank you for the verbose answer, though I disagree with most points. 1) "having everything trading for essentially real money doesn't change that underlying level of engagement." It has been long established that this is absolutely the case. A classic example of this would be Diablo 3's RMAH effectively destroying the game by having the entire economy be driven by real-world profit-seeking grind 2) I consider this t…

> 1) "having everything trading for essentially real money doesn't change that underlying level of engagement." It has been long established that this is absolutely the case. A classic example of this would be Diablo 3's RMAH effectively destroying the game by having the entire economy be driven by real-world profit-seeking grind

It doesn't need to be "real" money, just something people value (even if its in-game assets). But having something at stake definitely does alter the gameplay

Try playing poker for "fun" (without real money), and then agin with money at stake. People play a lot more seriously, the psychology of the game changes.

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

#212

Post by polygamous_bat »

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.

Now think about whether anything at all would be amiss if "the blockchain" were to be replaced by a good old trusted database.

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

#213

Post by hnick »

naet wrote: post #117
secretsatan wrote: post #45

I read these articles sometimes about crypto games, but they all never seem to describe the actual game, it’s like crypto is the primary concern, and game is secondary, and i’m getting the distinct impression none of these games are any fun and everyone in the space has to avoid mentioning it. I think that the people writing these things only have a very slim grasp of gaming, but they know it would be a good market t…

Check https://www.cryptokitties.co/guide/ways-to-play The reason it seems like they didn't describe the "actual game" is that there is no actual "gameplay". You just pay to collect cats. You can trade the cat tokens with other people, try to sell them on the marketplace, pay to generate semi randomized new cat tokens via "breeding", and... just have them under your wallet / name. There is no action, no RPG, no platfo…

Has anyone done something similar for a "gacha waifu" type game ala Genshin Impact? If they get the random generator making nice looking characters, I can see the ability to trade unique and attractive characters appealing to some. But it has to be backed by a decent game.

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

#214

Post by everfree »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #183
everfree wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of an artist signing their work in a cryptographically unique way is not new or revolutionary, and it certainly doesn't need a blockchain. It creates a provable, transferable, composable, tamper-proof "ownership" record of the digital signature.

doesn't gpg do a pretty decent job of that? i guess it's not transferable but... why do you need that?

I'm getting voted down for talking about the value-add here, but I'll give it another shot. I hope I get some replies this time if people find anything unclear.

Transferability is useful for key rotation. If you can't transfer your ownership to a new key, then if the old key becomes compromised, you can't prove ownership anymore because anyone else can sign using your key. To fix this you have to rely on the original signer to provide you with a revocation and an updated signature, which they may not be willing or able to do (and what if they themselves have rotated their key?)

Basically, to get key rotation to work properly you have to get revocation to work, which means ultimately you have to recreate a trustworthy timestamping service for digitally signed events, which is what a blockchain definitionally does.

Either that, or everyone has to agree on a third party to keep track of revocations, much like with OCSP or the MIT key server. Then, trust that third party not to tamper with the timestamps, and trust them to continue providing their timestamping service far into the future.

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

#215

Post by mumblemumble »

foerbert wrote: post #188
rideontime wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

#216

Post by p1necone »

ryukoposting wrote: post #51
simsla wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that always the case? My friend was talking about a rare Magic The Gathering card being worth a silly amount of money... Except the card had only been sold once or twice at that price. Unless you have enough comparable items (e.g. paintings by the Dutch masters) it's really difficult to determine the value of something that's rarely sold.

Trading cards and NFTs have a lot in common. - Scarcity, artificial or otherwise. - Subjective value. Neither an NFT or a trading card provides substantial, measurable utility to its owner. But, we can agree they have "value" of some kind. - Lack of oversight. Governments doesn't have entire offices monitoring irregular sale prices for Obelisk the Tormentor or Mickey Mantle. - Low transaction volume. If you're the on…

> Subjective value. Neither an NFT or a trading card provides substantial, measurable utility to its owner.

Trading cards kind of do - TCG card prices generally hinge on actual play utility as much as rarity.

Outside of really old cards that are just valuable because of their extreme rarity lots of cards that are technically rare are still only worth pennies because they aren't actually any good in the game. While cards that are no rarer or older, but are much better in play are worth tens or hundreds of dollars.

And even those cards that are mostly expensive because they're exceptionally old and hard to find, like from first print runs of games that weren't popular yet still differ in price quite heavily based on their utility in actual gameplay. Albeit mostly from the cachet that that gives them rather than from buyers desire to actually play them. e.g. Black Lotus is more valuable than other cards printed in the same quantity in the same set because it's also the most powerful card.

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

#217

Post by [deleted] »

secretsatan wrote: post #45

I read these articles sometimes about crypto games, but they all never seem to describe the actual game, it’s like crypto is the primary concern, and game is secondary, and i’m getting the distinct impression none of these games are any fun and everyone in the space has to avoid mentioning it. I think that the people writing these things only have a very slim grasp of gaming, but they know it would be a good market t…

[deleted]

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

#218

Post by mumblemumble »

ETH_start wrote: post #198
rideontime wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

#219

Post by UncleEntity »

jaywalk wrote: post #22
polygamous_bat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine you have $X million from a hack on wallet A, and you want to launder it. First, you run it through tornado cash (RIP) a few times and move them to wallets B1 to B1000. Then, you mint an "exciting NFT collection" on your public, KYC'd wallet C, list them on a "decentralized exchange", and have wallets B1 to B1000 buy those NFTs. Even better, seeing how fast your NFTs are selling out, a few suckers join in on t…

> Well, now on wallet C you have $(X - gas fees - minting fees) etc., that is totally legal and clean. It's not "legal" at all, because it's still proceeds of crime. Although it may "appear" legal and be very difficult to trace back to the source, it's still not actually legal.

It is legal until proven illegal -- just like you are innocent until proven guilty.

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

#220

Post by bo1024 »

thrown_22 wrote: post #206
eaurouge wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're a day late with that argument... https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/15/1059520/the-merg...
Post reply on HN