Cutter wrote on Oct 16, 2021, 14:20:
Won't be long before Epic is selling porn now too. Sweeny is just such a fucking sleazebag.

Sweeny will change name to Sweaty and become their first star

FloodAnxiety wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 22:19:

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 10:09:
This is also 100% illegal so I can't wait for the EGS to get them on the store ;)

This is a pretty compelling argument. Is it illegal though? If it is illegal then I agree that Epic should not allow it.

I'm just a little hazy on the details about what exactly is illegal and where that law is in effect.

I am not a crypto or NFT fan. I am genuinely asking.

It's not illegal, but it creates a space where criminals can commit crimes outside the reach of institutions that operate under the jurisdiction of laws. So, for example, it would not be hard to launder money via NFTs disguised as video game items or XP or characters using the video game's blockchain exchange market. It provides a high degree of obfuscation and even more so if done over constantly changing VPN connections.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 10:09:
This is also 100% illegal so I can't wait for the EGS to get them on the store ;)

This is a pretty compelling argument. Is it illegal though? If it is illegal then I agree that Epic should not allow it.

I'm just a little hazy on the details about what exactly is illegal and where that law is in effect.

I am not a crypto or NFT fan. I am genuinely asking.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 10:09:

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 08:48:

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 02:57:
Quote from Tim Sweeney less than 20 days ago on Twitter:

"We aren't touching NFTs as the whole field is currently tangled up with an intractable mix of scams, interesting decentralized tech foundations, and scams."

Not more than 3 weeks later, and just because Steam has taken a stance on this, they find another opportunity to differentiate their platform- in the worst way possible. It's no secret that blockchain usage in games is mainly centered around NFT "ownership" thus far, and he has openly acknowledged that these are a scam proposition. I think this is super-shady.

And holy shit I've never considered a ad blocker on mobile before commenting on this site from my phone. What an awful experience.. screen moving around constantly blocking what I'm typing as the keyboard and comment box fight for space with these ads attacking from both top and bottom at the same time. Complete shit.

He said NFTs. This is about Blockchain.

You realize those aren't synonyms, no? And he didn't mention NFTs here?

You also realize he sometimes speaks as a game developer, sometimes an engine developer, and sometimes a store executive, and that those aren't always the same statements?

The games he allows now on his store sell NFTs in-game mate, with no age control, with no finance control, with no traceable or accountability.... which is the reason Steam yeeted them into the bin. This is also 100% illegal so I can't wait for the EGS to get them on the store

Yup.

"Blockchain video games are any video game that uses some aspect of cryptographic blockchain technology. As a genre, this typically means the video games are comprised of loosely skinned software designed to get players into the cryptocurrency market.

The items you acquire in blockchain video games — weapons, skins, experience points — have a tangible value that players can trade with other players. Imagine selling your XP to a new player of a game you finished long ago or offloading your excess inventory in Skyrim for real-world money. Blockchain gaming makes this possible.

"Games are basically a perfect vehicle for blockchain," says Toto. "Gaming is one of the areas where blockchain makes sense, where digital ownership makes sense, where NFT's makes sense."

source

"Blockchain's application in gaming is in many ways a no-brainer because gamers are already accustomed to tokenization. Some of the earliest games featured applications of virtual currency. Games evolved and fused with the internet: Now, in-game gold and items can be purchased with real-life (fiat) currency. Transactions often occur outside the game itself and to the chagrin of its creators. Blockchain could establish norms and fairness around in-game currency and asset trading and tie them to the real world in sensible ways. This could be particularly useful for the free-to-play model popularized by Fortnite wherein the majority of gaming revenue is generated by in-game purchases (e.g., skins) funded by digital currency."

source

"If you strip out the cryptocurrency element, you are left with a 'normal' game. I don't see this approach having a long shelf life. However, it does lead on to a much more exciting application - the use of blockchain to underpin the trading and use of in-game resources and characters. There is a huge market for the sale of characters, weapons, and other augmentations in multiplayer and RPGs. Underpinning this market with blockchain could add enhanced transparency and security -- making cheating much harder -- and also potentially open the door to inter-game trading and transfers,"" - Managing director of emerging technology training and education company Binary District is Alena Burdock.

source

I like the idea that blockchain affords full ownership of things you obtained in games, including intangible assets like XP and so forth. In a non-blockchain market exchange of video game assets, a player typically buys and sells gold, leveling services, items, and characters. These are narrowly defined things only exist within the universe of the game. However, in an exchange market based on blockchain video games, criminals can exploit this to engage in crimes such as selling stolen credit cards, ID theft, money laundering, all under the guise of in-game assets via NFTs. It is well-known that cryptocurrency has for a while been the domain of criminals. It would not be difficult for them to change their "game."

And all that says nothing about tax evasion for people not reporting their income from the sell of NFTs.

This comment was edited on Oct 18, 2021, 01:10.

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 02:57:
Quote from Tim Sweeney less than 20 days ago on Twitter:

"We aren't touching NFTs as the whole field is currently tangled up with an intractable mix of scams, interesting decentralized tech foundations, and scams."

Not more than 3 weeks later, and just because Steam has taken a stance on this, they find another opportunity to differentiate their platform- in the worst way possible. It's no secret that blockchain usage in games is mainly centered around NFT "ownership" thus far, and he has openly acknowledged that these are a scam proposition. I think this is super-shady.

"If you are willing to abandon your principles for convenience, or social acceptability, they are not your principles, they are your costume."

Jonjonz wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 06:27:
Sweeny is an interesting study, sometimes he leads the charge against modern absurdities like Crapples move to own all microtransactions, other times he just blows total moronic BS he has no clue about.

Some fold confuse secrecy with privacy and security. They are not the same thing, and promoting anonomous secrecy is highly subversive and only serves to nurture evil and chaos.

Because he has lacks principles.

Tim Sweeny's Epic support blockchain or whatever the next thing is not because Epic believe in it (or " welcome innovation in the areas of technology and finance"), it is because Steam said NO to it. I don't care which company is good or bad. You must be blind or stupid not to see that. I think EPIC should be the first to do these blockchain things into their system first.

Jonjonz wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 06:27:
Sweeny is an interesting study, sometimes he leads the charge against modern absurdities like Crapples move to own all microtransactions, other times he just blows total moronic BS he has no clue about.

Some fold confuse secrecy with privacy and security. They are not the same thing, and promoting anonomous secrecy is highly subversive and only serves to nurture evil and chaos.

Sweeny is like Donald Trump in that he's entirely self serving. Sometimes that works out for the greater good, but usually not.

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 08:48:

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 02:57:
Quote from Tim Sweeney less than 20 days ago on Twitter:

"We aren't touching NFTs as the whole field is currently tangled up with an intractable mix of scams, interesting decentralized tech foundations, and scams."

Not more than 3 weeks later, and just because Steam has taken a stance on this, they find another opportunity to differentiate their platform- in the worst way possible. It's no secret that blockchain usage in games is mainly centered around NFT "ownership" thus far, and he has openly acknowledged that these are a scam proposition. I think this is super-shady.

And holy shit I've never considered a ad blocker on mobile before commenting on this site from my phone. What an awful experience.. screen moving around constantly blocking what I'm typing as the keyboard and comment box fight for space with these ads attacking from both top and bottom at the same time. Complete shit.

He said NFTs. This is about Blockchain.

You realize those aren't synonyms, no? And he didn't mention NFTs here?

You also realize he sometimes speaks as a game developer, sometimes an engine developer, and sometimes a store executive, and that those aren't always the same statements?

The games he allows now on his store sell NFTs in-game mate, with no age control, with no finance control, with no traceable or accountability.... which is the reason Steam yeeted them into the bin. This is also 100% illegal so I can't wait for the EGS to get them on the store

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 02:57:
Quote from Tim Sweeney less than 20 days ago on Twitter:

"We aren't touching NFTs as the whole field is currently tangled up with an intractable mix of scams, interesting decentralized tech foundations, and scams."

Not more than 3 weeks later, and just because Steam has taken a stance on this, they find another opportunity to differentiate their platform- in the worst way possible. It's no secret that blockchain usage in games is mainly centered around NFT "ownership" thus far, and he has openly acknowledged that these are a scam proposition. I think this is super-shady.

And holy shit I've never considered a ad blocker on mobile before commenting on this site from my phone. What an awful experience.. screen moving around constantly blocking what I'm typing as the keyboard and comment box fight for space with these ads attacking from both top and bottom at the same time. Complete shit.

He said NFTs. This is about Blockchain.

You realize those aren't synonyms, no? And he didn't mention NFTs here?

You also realize he sometimes speaks as a game developer, sometimes an engine developer, and sometimes a store executive, and that those aren't always the same statements?

BoP, thanks for a good explanation of a non-crypto use of blockchain -- as is common for you an informative post. I do have to point out what seems like a small mistake though. Pretty sure you meant, "it costs very few" instead of "it costs zero" here.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 00:58:
I have started using blockchain to insure and verify the security of my backups both here and at work. It costs zero additional cycles, and therefore power, to do so. We waste much more power for playing games. You can even add blocks on to a chain or create a chain from a very low power device like a Raspberry Pi. It would take a while because of a Raspberry Pi's relatively slow speed, but it is doable.

Sweeny is an interesting study, sometimes he leads the charge against modern absurdities like Crapples move to own all microtransactions, other times he just blows total moronic BS he has no clue about.

Some fold confuse secrecy with privacy and security. They are not the same thing, and promoting anonomous secrecy is highly subversive and only serves to nurture evil and chaos.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 00:58:

jdreyer wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 00:32:
Does blockchain by definition require massive amounts of power? I know Bitcoin is designed that way in order that it maintain its value, but does it always mean that blockchain must use successively more resources?

In short, no.

In layman's terms, "blockchain" is just nothing more than a trustworthy ledger because each block, and the data therein, is checksummed and cryptographically signed. I won't say it's impossible to forge the veracity of any one block, just very, very unlikely and it would take someone from a incredibly tiny pool of mathematicians to pull it off.

Most people automatically equate "blockchain" with "cryptocurrency" or NFTs. Those items use blockchain technology but they are not blockchain in and of themselves. Here's an example of using a private blockchain that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency or NFTS:

Let's say you, Bob, Inez, and Ibrihim are working on a very sensitive project and you are all working out of your home offices in disparate parts of the world. You get your part done. You use blockchain to insure that the data you send to Bob is both good and secure. Bob adds his part in a new block and sends it to Inez. She can doublecheck that the parts you and Bob have sent her have not been tampered with in anyway because the data in the block matches its checksum and it matches the cryptographic signatures of you and Bob. She then adds her block and sends it on to Ibrihim who does the same thing. So all of you turn your project in and, because you have people who went to school somewhere other than ITT, they audit the entire chain. All the signatures and checksums match and the end result of your project can be determined to be true, correct, and secure.

I have started using blockchain to insure and verify the security of my backups both here and at work. It costs zero additional cycles, and therefore power, to do so. We waste much more power for playing games. You can even add blocks on to a chain or create a chain from a very low power device like a Raspberry Pi. It would take a while because of a Raspberry Pi's relatively slow speed, but it is doable.

This is an interesting post, and I've never knowingly used any program involving a blockchain, but how expensive is it (computationally) for each of the parties in your example to verify the blocks? It's more than just comparing checksums (as far as I understand it), and decoding whatever cryptography is attached has to take some computational power each time. I concede that it's probably less than a lot of other programs and of course games in your example, but as you say, slow Raspberry Pis would take a long time to perform whatever calculations are required. Does that imply that as the blockchain increases in length, it requires more and more computations, as well as more and more space, aka the main problems with Bitcoin currently? (Aside from the straight mining issues) I get that your example is far smaller in scale than Bitcoin, but on a longer timescale, won't all blockchain programs have to take more computational power to read/encode/decode/verify/whatever quickly? How expensive is it computationally for the final audit of the entire chain? Obviously your company wouldn't be using it if it was terrible, but it seems impossible that it's zero additional cycles for proof-of-work or proof-of-stake? (My apologies if that was just exaggeration to demonstrate the point)

Then, for some massive global corporation like Epic, how expensive over time would their version of whatever they are planning to do with Blockchains get? Extra verification/decoding by potentially millions of users, either games companies, resellers, or just players/customers. At that sort of company scale, it seems logical that it would get computationally expensive a lot quicker than for smaller team applications. On top of that, how many extra millions of computers(mostly users) have to end up with hundreds of gigabytes of blockchain ledger on their computers if they use EGS? (Worst case scenario)

Then the question becomes what data is Epic going to try to store in whatever Blockchains they will create; they have already come under fire for harvesting user data a couple of times.

On your private blockchains you use at your job, I'm sure it makes sense: everybody has a built in backup, whatever project's chain won't ever get too cumbersome and you can just start a new one for the next project. Somehow I don't think Epic's version is going to be that similar.

Quote from Tim Sweeney less than 20 days ago on Twitter:

"We aren't touching NFTs as the whole field is currently tangled up with an intractable mix of scams, interesting decentralized tech foundations, and scams."

Not more than 3 weeks later, and just because Steam has taken a stance on this, they find another opportunity to differentiate their platform- in the worst way possible. It's no secret that blockchain usage in games is mainly centered around NFT "ownership" thus far, and he has openly acknowledged that these are a scam proposition. I think this is super-shady.

And holy shit I've never considered a ad blocker on mobile before commenting on this site from my phone. What an awful experience.. screen moving around constantly blocking what I'm typing as the keyboard and comment box fight for space with these ads attacking from both top and bottom at the same time. Complete shit.

jdreyer wrote on Oct 17, 2021, 00:32:
Does blockchain by definition require massive amounts of power? I know Bitcoin is designed that way in order that it maintain its value, but does it always mean that blockchain must use successively more resources?

In short, no.

In layman's terms, "blockchain" is just nothing more than a trustworthy ledger because each block, and the data therein, is checksummed and cryptographically signed. I won't say it's impossible to forge the veracity of any one block, just very, very unlikely and it would take someone from a incredibly tiny pool of mathematicians to pull it off.

Most people automatically equate "blockchain" with "cryptocurrency" or NFTs. Those items use blockchain technology but they are not blockchain in and of themselves. Here's an example of using a private blockchain that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency or NFTS:

Let's say you, Bob, Inez, and Ibrihim are working on a very sensitive project and you are all working out of your home offices in disparate parts of the world. You get your part done. You use blockchain to insure that the data you send to Bob is both good and secure. Bob adds his part in a new block and sends it to Inez. She can doublecheck that the parts you and Bob have sent her have not been tampered with in anyway because the data in the block matches its checksum and it matches the cryptographic signatures of you and Bob. She then adds her block and sends it on to Ibrihim who does the same thing. So all of you turn your project in and, because you have people who went to school somewhere other than ITT, they audit the entire chain. All the signatures and checksums match and the end result of your project can be determined to be true, correct, and secure.

I have started using blockchain to insure and verify the security of my backups both here and at work. It costs zero additional cycles, and therefore power, to do so. We waste much more power for playing games. You can even add blocks on to a chain or create a chain from a very low power device like a Raspberry Pi. It would take a while because of a Raspberry Pi's relatively slow speed, but it is doable.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 16, 2021, 21:19:
Ah yes, blockchain, the buzzword resulting in the excess waste of obscene amounts of energy to crunch useless numbers. Of course Epic would jump in on this.

Does blockchain by definition require massive amounts of power? I know Bitcoin is designed that way in order that it maintain its value, but does it always mean that blockchain must use successively more resources?

FloodAnxiety wrote on Oct 16, 2021, 16:37:
I'm not a fan of cryptocurrency or NFTs, but I see no problem with allowing those things to fail on their own (or perhaps, even find a long term nitch; though I remain skeptical that they will survive another 10 years). I don't think it should be up to a store front to dictate what technology should be used to manage transactions within a game ecosystem.

I essentially agree. Not a fan of NFT/block chain myself but so long as it's legal and clearly labeled, let it sink or swim on its own merits.

WaltSee wrote on Oct 16, 2021, 19:29:
"Though Epic's not using crypto in our games, we welcome innovation in the areas of technology and finance."

I've heard that the innovation and technological advance behind counterfeiting and other types of fraud these days is incredible!...;)

Innovation and technological advances were also used to create CDOs and then synthetic CDOs that ultimately led to the 2008 global housing market crash.

Ah yes, blockchain, the buzzword resulting in the excess waste of obscene amounts of energy to crunch useless numbers. Of course Epic would jump in on this.

"Though Epic's not using crypto in our games, we welcome innovation in the areas of technology and finance."

I've heard that the innovation and technological advance behind counterfeiting and other types of fraud these days is incredible!...;) I think that Sweeney has bitten off more than he will be able to chew--opening the door here is a floodgate that will be sure to put Epic under the microscopes of law-enforcement agencies globally. It looks as if Epic's main rationale here is to differentiate himself from Newell's recent stance against blockchain at Valve--Steam won't touch it, and that's a very wise move, imo. Sweeney will find himself dragged into to all kinds of crap that apparently he cannot presently even imagine, and I have to say that is surprising and somewhat deflates my earlier opinion of the guy's business acumen, so to speak. Sweeney seems to be opening the door in saying that he will peddle blockchain software through other venues aside from the games Epic sells through its store.

This...

As a technology, the blockchain is just a distributed transactional database with a decentralized business model that incentivize investment in hardware to expand the database's capacity. This has utility whether or not a particular use of it succeeds or fails.

...sounds a lot like a common pyramid rationale construct or other kind of scheme philosophy to me, so I'm not sold on it. I'll have to side with Valve on this. Definitely. Nobody is going to dive into this on the strength of the *hardware* sales he thinks he can sell to house the database's growing capacities--don't need blockchain for that...;)

This post is unique. It is arts. You can buy the original from some Blockchain arts project. It is totally worth 1,000,000 watts being used for it. As long as you pay me $1,000,000 for it.
Brave new world "arts".
Maybe the last word is missing an "f".