Shuji Utsumi, Sega’s co-CEO, comments in a new statement that there is no point in implementing blockchain technology if it doesn’t make games ‘fun’.

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    But even then, it makes sense to not bother with any sort of mining, and just have an append only ledger with cryptographic signatures. Let anybody who wants download a copy, and you have all the advantages of blockchain.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Right, a blockchain doesn’t require mining, that’s just how many cryptocurrencies happen to encourage transaction processing. But not all of them do it that way. Ethereum, for example, moved to proof of stake for its blockchain (i.e. you put up X coins and you’re trusted as a verifier), so it doesn’t need to do any mining at all.

      A blockchain is just a series of cryptographically verified transactions. How people are trusted and rewarded for verifying transactions is up to the blockchain implementor.

      That said, it’s kind of a buzzword right now, so I assume most, if not all, games that include blockchain either do it as a gimmick or do it in a very predatory/scammy way. But that doesn’t mean the tech is bad (i.e. email isn’t bad because fraudsters use it), it just means it’s very niche in usefulness.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thing is, forming a chain by having each entry reference the checksum of the previous one is also used by the version control system git, which preceded bitcoin, being released in 2005 as opposed to 2009. So technically, it’s not blockchain technology, it’s git technology. In fact, you could easily implement this sort of thing with a git repository. E.g. say you want to keep track of real estate. Have a file for every piece of real estate, and when somebody wants to sell something, they create a branch, and append the file for the real estate they want to sell. They sign the commit. Likely, the buyer and a notary will also add signed commits. Then a clerk at town hall checks if all necesarry signatures are there, and merges it back into the main branch.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess if you take a super abstract view if it, that comparison makes sense. But the whole concept is the nature of verification. It would be like requiring the majority of your team to sign every commit before it becomes part of your git tree. And to do so without any central authority.

          The innovation with blockchain isn’t in the abstract structure, but the decentralized verification system. A game doesn’t need all of that decentralization, but it could use some of it (e.g. players verify transactions outside of the game, but use central servers for a part of the verification process).

          Your git example requires authorized people. Blockchain removes that requirement. Instead of someone deciding something gets merged, everyone (or a majority, plurality, etc) decides what gets merged.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The presence of parties powerful enough to screw you over without using trickery removes the value of decentralized verification. Even if the central authority refuses to merge it, I can proof that they refused to merge it without good reason. The central authority could take my house and disregard the blockchain if they so choose, and at that point, all I could do is prove that they screwed me.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure what your point is. You’re essentially saying you’re screwed with the blockchain, but everything you started implies you’re screwed without the blockchain:

              central authority could take my house and disregard the blockchain

              Sure, and they can do that now. The only thing stopping your city from taking your house is the court system and police enforcement. In a game, there are even fewer protections, so the game devs can take your digital assets if it’s inconvenient. I guess you could sue them in civil court, but they’re also in control of the EULA for the game. We’ve seen cases where games ban players, which essentially takes away the license they bought for the game.

              With blockchain, you could externalize all of those transactions. If the main servers block you, you could join another server that doesn’t recognize the ban. The less control the game companies have over transactions, the more transparent those types of decisions become.

              However, it needs to be built properly to actually take advantage of the benefits of blockchain. Everything I’ve seen has simply been a money grab because there’s little incentive to do it properly.

              • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I typed that right after I got home from a long hike, and i fell and hit my knee on the way back, so I was rather tired when I last replied to you.

                The point being is that since some trust in a central authority is required, the central authority can handle verification. And because of the cryptographic signatures, the only way they could cheat would by ommitting transactions. Invalid transactions, either because its unsigned or because the numbers don’t add up, can be detected trivially. So if we just give all stakeholders a copy of the transaction, they’d be able to prove that the transaction has been ommitted.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I hope your knee is okay. :)

                  I’m more concerned about what happens when the central authority disappears. I think everyone has experienced a game being dropped by the studio, and if it’s an MMO or something, you could lose valuable items you’ve purchased even if third party servers exist.

                  Externalizing transactions means individual servers can decide which transactions (i.e. which central authorities they recognize). So if the game devs act poorly, the community can switch to another authority they prefer. It also gives devs less of a reason to discard transactions between version releases because the community would expect those transactions to remain valid (they are separate from the game after all).

                  So I think they are a lot of good ways it could be used to players’ benefit, but unfortunately it’s usually a gimmick or scam.

                  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My knee is doing better now. Thanks for your concern.

                    I’m more concerned about what happens when the central authority disappears. I think everyone has experienced a game being dropped by the studio, and if it’s an MMO or something, you could lose valuable items you’ve purchased even if third party servers exist.

                    Well, under my model, somebody else could take over for the central authority, as they just need the most recent version of the ledger. Since stakeholders of transactions are supposed to retain copies, that shouldn’t be too difficult.

                    The moment work needs to be done off chain, be that hosting servers or enforcing the law, the blockchain loses its one advantage. I suppose the best verification mechanism would be proof of identity, where key players are known and can’t get a new pseudonym.