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’.

  • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s just called a database.

    That’s the rub. Eventually blockchain will be useful for tracking ownership of things like land and cars, whose current ownership is tracked by an analog token minted by a a validator and stored offline (which is to say, the government has a piece of paper on file). I recently bought a house, and I had to buy mortgage insurance in case it turns out that 50 years ago someone fraudulently or mistakenly sold this house to someone else when they didn’t actually own it, and then I bought it from the guy who bought it from the guy who bought it from the guy who bought it from the guy who bought it from the guy who sold it illegally, so it’s not really mine. Blockchain will eliminate that. Game companies mint tokens to represent digital “assets” that they say you “own” but in reality it’s the asset creator that can make more of the asset, destroy the asset or deny others usage of the asset (which is the real, functional definition of “own”).

    I’m still working my way through my thoughts on this after Bored Ape Money Pit but I think that blockchain is one of the infinite number of ways that traditional ownership models are trying to impose themselves on digital assets when it’s the fundamental nature of digital assets to be infinitely replicable for a cost so low as to approach $0/per, and to make it very hard to exclude people from having or using these replicas. I work in software. We’re getting to a point where the real value in software is in designing ways to stop people from using it unless they’ve met certain conditions (usually, having paid for a license). Most of what I do is authentication and authorization. That is to say, determining who a user is and what they’re allowed to do. These are external, artificial controls. In real life when you eat an apple the apple is gone. When you and your family live in a house, that house is full of people. When you “eat” (or in some other way extract the value from) a digital apple that apple can still be there. An infinite number of people can exist in one digital space via instantiation without ever having to acknowledge one another. Digital assets defy exclusivity, and without exclusivity their can’t be ownership. So what we end up with is a million people who have the same bit-for-bit perfect picture of a monkey, but one guy who has a certificate from the monkey picture center that says he’s the “owner” of the monkey picture when ownership doesn’t really confer any rights, privileges or abilities that everyone else didn’t already get for free.

    • ricecake@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I agree with your mortgage insurance example.

      The problem isn’t record keeping, but answering the question “if you use an asset as collateral for a loan to purchase that asset, what happens to the loan if the purchase is invalidated”?

      Block chain might make title searches easier, but it wont have any impact whatsoever on the existence of a legal system that can independently audit and invalidate contracts after the fact.

      The asset isn’t digital, so ownership can’t be enforced digitally.
      The current system is a pile of digital databases and paper records that need to be checked before sales can happen. Actual questions or disputes are handled by the courts. Block chain can’t change that, only change the underlying way we store the data.

      • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem isn’t record keeping, but answering the question “if you use an asset as collateral for a loan to purchase that asset, what happens to the loan if the purchase is invalidated”?

        And the solution to that problem is good record keeping. Blockchain can improve the record keeping by making it public and verifiable.

        • ricecake@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, it’s not a record keeping problem, it’s a problem with people being able to dispute the records, and transactions being able to be nullified.
          The records are public today, and you can go check them. It’s usually even accessible via the Internet.
          Part of buying a house is the mortgage company checking all those records, and other ways things can go sideways.

          Issues usually aren’t because someone misread the records, but because a record was created that was invalid, or things you can’t record on the block chain, like “back taxes” or “grandma had two wills”.

          The block chain doesn’t add anything that a public website doesn’t provide more simply, and it’s just as susceptible to the courts coming in and saying that a transaction was invalid because the estate executed the wrong will, or something like that.

          • DataDecay@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Your two examples of the causes, “back taxes” and “grandma has two wills” would be solved still in the case of Blockchain. I’m no die hard fan of crypto currency. However if taxes were verifiable on chain, wills were verifiable and unique globally, then there would be no second will.

            Say what you will about Blockchain being one big slow database, it is still one big slow database of huge magnitude, that enforces global uniqueness. Again I’m not entirely sold on the premise but look at how our taxes are done, social security numbers, identities. All these problems stem from a lack of a decentralized authority. If some random credit agency says bill down the street is me, we have no concrete and secure means of verifying uniqueness.

            Personally, i have been saying for years that identity should be tied to asymmetric encryption. Definitely do not need Blockchain exclusively to solve these problems, but it’s better than what we have now.

    • jrandomhacker@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is - how will your blockchain-based mortgage be enforced? What happens if I start squatting on your blockchain-property? At the end of the day, the answer is “people with guns” - we agree that contracts have legal weight, and there are legal structures (and ultimately law enforcement and their threat of force) that keep you on your land and me out of it. And if we already have to involve all that, what good is blockchain doing that “a database” can’t do?

        • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          that’s fair, but it’s a question of external authority. the idea behind blockchain is that there are contracts digitally built into the token that won’t allow the transfer unless the conditions are met.

      • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        blockchain provides a publicly verifiable transaction history. of course enforcing exclusivity eventually boils down to giving some group a monopoly on violence, but the difference between using blockchain and a database in tracking who has the right to use that monopoly on violence to enforce their exclusivity is whether there’s a verifiable public record of all transactions or just the current state of the data. It allows for the dispute of falsified records, and the automatic verification that all terms of the transfer between owners were met. It doesn’t allow someone to sneak behind the scenes and do a quick “DELETE FROM home_owners WHERE owner_name=‘jrandomhacker’” and then go “Sorry, we don’t have a record of your transaction 🤷🤷”. You could make the logs of the database public, of course, but then the question just expands from “who has access to the database?” to “who has access to the database and logs?”