A lot of pie in the sky horseshit with exorbitant $ numbers being thrown around (especially by Nan )
I can see only three cases where that "real value" has any meaning and only two of those have meaning from a gaming perspective:
The item grows and improves with use. I could care less if Joe Blow killed 3,000 raid bosses with it, but if the item improved with each subsequent boss kill, now you have something I might be interested in for that game.
The item can be taken with you to other games, That can only happen if the various game publishers agree to allow it... and they will only allow it if there is a profit for them in allowing an external asset into their game. I don't see that happening except maybe in games under the same publisher's umbrella and even then, isn't it more profitable for them to start you off naked and getting you to collect good items for that new game all over again?
You collect doo-dahs and get a thrill, a non gaming thrill, from owning something made famous by someone else. Personally I'm a gamer and not a collector and have 0 interest in owning Joe Blow's famous sword that I can't use in any game I play.
Did I miss anything?
Kind of funny how when you point out both sides of an argument. People can assume where you stand lol. I have no idea if this is a good thing. I have just been reading allot about it this week. I find the subject interesting and scary at the same time.
Just keeping it real without speculating about gaming items being worth $1.5 million in the future.
I am only interested in gaming improvements that make my games more enjoyable. I have yet to hear any single solid reason why I should give any kind of shit about blockchain MMOs.
Entropia Universe has been doing this "ownership" and selling items for cash for a long time. I wouldn't touch that P2W shit with a ten foot pole. Why should the same thing with NFTs be any more appealing to anyone who isn't an Entropia fan?
Like I said, just keeping it real.
Entropia really isnt p2w it is best approximated as a casino. I play the game but i would never recommend it to the average gamer.
The game itself is decent, is a sandbox, has uniqueness and unique systems that no other game has.
I mainly play it when i have boring and mindless work to get done.
Also, the more money you spend, the more efficient you get. With best in-game items probably costing 10-20k usd, your efficiency approaches 99%. Meaning you shoot 10000 units of value you will get back 9900 in trade terminal value back. If your net markup is greater than 101% you break even and accrue value with skills.
If you have regular shit, like me, i probably am around 95%. But i dont track my stuff like some players do.
Overall, if i have fun and i can cash out, isnt that superior to wow paying a sub and when you are done you get nothing back in value unless you sell your account.
So how much have you personally spent/earned in Entropia? You breaking even? Making a profit?
I think im probably positive but that is mainly because i bought an item for 3.2k usd that i think i can sell for 5k usd. If i liquidate my shit i should get 0 to 2k more than i spent. But i dpnt remember the total i put in, perhapa 5 to 6k usd in 12 years.
But i would never recommend the game, just wouldnt knock people for playing it.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
It remember me the lineage 2 era when South Korea made laws against selling items from the game on EBay because peoples where selling their house for some epic sword. We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that. That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
Cash is only untraceable in small amounts and only if used in face to face transactions.
The minute someone tries to spend it on larger ticket items, or even high volumes of smaller items know your customer and anti money laundering systems come into play and automated tracking algos kick in all across the financial system.
Try walking into a legitimate car dealer and see what happens if you try to buy a new Lambo with a bag full cash.
Pro tip, expect someone to be taking a hard look into the transaction.
Also, cash might become obsolete in the future as government's are increasingly looking into replacing it with digital versions based on... block chain tech.
China will likely be the first country to move to it with their digital Yuan which is already coming into play. Can the rest of the world really be that far behind?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that. That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
You don't, in most games, actually.
When you "buy a game", you are typically purchasing a license for personal use of it. The actual ownership of the game and everything related to it, including whatever bits and bobs you acquire through play, is retained by the maker of it.
So, this is quite new for the most part, potentially revolutionary.
Whether it is a revolution that benefits the people or condemns them is more the question than the capacity to change gaming blockchain has.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
We shouldn't ban crypto because of it.
But neither should we decide that it's been proven to not be a problem because crypto lobbers tell us so.
Banks and similar have a lot of rules about what they must do to verify the identity of their customer and that the money is legitimate. I see no reason why cryptocurrencies should not eventually have to face same level of legislation.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
Cash is only untraceable in small amounts and only if used in face to face transactions.
The minute someone tries to spend it on larger ticket items, or even high volumes of smaller items know your customer and anti money laundering systems come into play and automated tracking algos kick in all across the financial system.
Try walking into a legitimate car dealer and see what happens if you try to buy a new Lambo with a bag full cash.
Pro tip, expect someone to be taking a hard look into the transaction.
Also, cash might become obsolete in the future as government's are increasingly looking into replacing it with digital versions based on... block chain tech.
China will likely be the first country to move to it with their digital Yuan which is already coming into play. Can the rest of the world really be that far behind?
In Sweden, cash is nowadays used for about 12% of all retail payments while the rest is digital.
In Finland we've got law that in normal circumstances all salaries must be paid to bank account.
The world in not necessarily moving towards blockchain tech, but our traditional currencies are more and more becoming digital. And as that progresses, we'll also likely slowly get legislation that limits the situations where you can use physical cash.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
Cash is only untraceable in small amounts and only if used in face to face transactions.
The minute someone tries to spend it on larger ticket items, or even high volumes of smaller items know your customer and anti money laundering systems come into play and automated tracking algos kick in all across the financial system.
Try walking into a legitimate car dealer and see what happens if you try to buy a new Lambo with a bag full cash.
Pro tip, expect someone to be taking a hard look into the transaction.
Also, cash might become obsolete in the future as government's are increasingly looking into replacing it with digital versions based on... block chain tech.
China will likely be the first country to move to it with their digital Yuan which is already coming into play. Can the rest of the world really be that far behind?
That's true, but that's why criminals launder cash.
I imagine cryptos have the same problem.
The real problem in all of this, in my mind, is that there's no value pinned to a real currency once it's shifted into cryptos. It's important for a country's currency to be held accountable to the way it's "made." Think of money printing here. If you remove that accountability, then a country can print money wildly and as it goes down in value, they save said value when they've shifted in into cryptos. When that happens, there is no longer any accountability for the creation of money. And then, a country like China, has in effect a government credit system, doled out and reeled in at their whim. And if that spreads around the world as the new way of currencies, we all will be under total control of the governments. With no rights to ownership of money, savings, or eventually anything else.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Criminals use cash more than anything because it's untraceable. For criminal activity they also use iphones, burner phones, cars, bikes, houses, buildings... let's ban everything just in case criminals want to use them!
Cash is only untraceable in small amounts and only if used in face to face transactions.
The minute someone tries to spend it on larger ticket items, or even high volumes of smaller items know your customer and anti money laundering systems come into play and automated tracking algos kick in all across the financial system.
Try walking into a legitimate car dealer and see what happens if you try to buy a new Lambo with a bag full cash.
Pro tip, expect someone to be taking a hard look into the transaction.
Also, cash might become obsolete in the future as government's are increasingly looking into replacing it with digital versions based on... block chain tech.
China will likely be the first country to move to it with their digital Yuan which is already coming into play. Can the rest of the world really be that far behind?
In Sweden, cash is nowadays used for about 12% of all retail payments while the rest is digital.
In Finland we've got law that in normal circumstances all salaries must be paid to bank account.
The world in not necessarily moving towards blockchain tech, but our traditional currencies are more and more becoming digital. And as that progresses, we'll also likely slowly get legislation that limits the situations where you can use physical cash.
The thing is, that digital currency is tied directly to the real currency. When that goes away, see my post above.
We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that. That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
You don't, in most games, actually.
When you "buy a game", you are typically purchasing a license for personal use of it. The actual ownership of the game and everything related to it, including whatever bits and bobs you acquire through play, is retained by the maker of it.
So, this is quite new for the most part, potentially revolutionary.
Whether it is a revolution that benefits the people or condemns them is more the question than the capacity to change gaming blockchain has.
I poorly explained my point. The fact is you can already sell items or complete account using third party softwar it was done for Lineage 2 items almost 20 years ago throug EBay and it may not be the first time. The fact you don't own your items is only a license problem not a technical issue for me or in game mechanics like bound items that stop you to sell your sword and a contract (license) don't relly stop you or make it illegal depending where you live to sell items or full acount you just risk a ban due to game policy not because you where laking a blockchain to own your item. Gold sellers are selling items and in game curency for 20 years and devs tryed to push them away since. Blockchain mecanics is basicaly developing games for gold sellers and taking a cut on their buisness. I like good games, I'm no gold seller and I don't see anything revolutionary on item ownership that is a license choice. When the game die and no one play it anymore your block chain will be as dead as in non blockchain games and you don't need a blockchain to give the ownership of the items to your players.
I'm not sure about the next part but if I understood well, due to the blockchain, there is no way to shut down a MMO as long as there are players "mining" the blockchain and we can keep playing as long as there is a player base. So ain't playing a MMO out of devlopement I don't see any progress in blockchain. There are multiplayers games where your pc is the server since before blockchain, VTM:R in 2000 for exemple, with the party maker as the host server so it only share the server charge amongst the players instead of one having to host the party, ain't on MMO there is no need of that since one PC can handle the charge of a bunch pf players. And then how many player are needed on a dead MMO for it to run? Don't seams to be that promissing to me. Zombies out of devlopement gold sellers marketed MMOs is the progress we're offered?
Anyway, these posts on blockchain games are realy interesting in understanding this new trend better. Before, I thought blockchain games just aimed at making us mining cryptomoney will playing to pay fake free games on our electricity bill due to the increse of pressure on our CPUs and GPUs. It's aparently a bit more complex.
As far as ownership, I have too few real items to be worrying about virtual items. And pretty much, if I don't own a virtual item but had it, I'll check my password security (again).
How much would you pay for a +1 sword in a game? What if that +1 sword had a verified history of being victorious in 20 dragon raids? What's it worth then?
Knowing the story of an item is worth nothing to me. Specifically, knowing the history another player made with an item isn't interesting to me. If I want one, I'll get one if possible. If not, I'll find something else. Pay for it? Forget it.
I have been waiting for someone to say something like this to poise two questions.
If you earned that sword in game just for playing and after playing the game for 5 years, that history on that sword was every raid boss you killed and that sword became to be worth 1.7 million.
Would you object then? Would you sell that sword for RL money?
I totally discount the idea that a virtual asset would be worth 1.7 million dollars. A non-tangible object, especially one that is fixed in a given frame (a specific game), has no material worth outside that framework. Do I want a material gain from that? No. I'd rather let whatever item stay forever on that unused and retired character. Who knows when I'll want to return to that character?
If someone wants to buy my character or its possessions, I'd not sell. I had people want to buy my Mendel character (at the time an EQ1 35 level enchanter). I thought about it, but decided that selling would cheapen my memories of that character, and that selling would deprive the buyer from developing similar memories of their own.
So, the Mendel character, now 92, is stuck in my inventory, ravaged by going off All Access back to f2p. All his prestige gear is useless; he's essentially naked. All his all Rk2 spells are now unusable (and can't be overwritten with a RK1 version); he's an enchanter without spells. His AutoGrant AAs were refunded and misspent (that's on me); he couldn't function in any environment to earn XP. The character is totally crippled, but I can access him if I want to.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Cash is only untraceable in small amounts and only if used in face to face transactions.
The minute someone tries to spend it on larger ticket items, or even high volumes of smaller items know your customer and anti money laundering systems come into play and automated tracking algos kick in all across the financial system.
Try walking into a legitimate car dealer and see what happens if you try to buy a new Lambo with a bag full cash.
Pro tip, expect someone to be taking a hard look into the transaction.
Also, cash might become obsolete in the future as government's are increasingly looking into replacing it with digital versions based on... block chain tech.
China will likely be the first country to move to it with their digital Yuan which is already coming into play. Can the rest of the world really be that far behind?
In Sweden, cash is nowadays used for about 12% of all retail payments while the rest is digital.
In Finland we've got law that in normal circumstances all salaries must be paid to bank account.
The world in not necessarily moving towards blockchain tech, but our traditional currencies are more and more becoming digital. And as that progresses, we'll also likely slowly get legislation that limits the situations where you can use physical cash.
The thing is, that digital currency is tied directly to the real currency. When that goes away, see my post above.
Countries can already wildly print any amount of money that they choose. As extreme example, Zimbabwe once printed Z$100,000,000,000,000 bank notes.
It's purely each country's choice on how much new money they decide to print. If it's purely digital it's a bit easier to make new money, but they can make physical money just as well.
In Sweden, cash is nowadays used for about 12% of all retail payments while the rest is digital.
In Finland we've got law that in normal circumstances all salaries must be paid to bank account.
The world in not necessarily moving towards blockchain tech, but our traditional currencies are more and more becoming digital. And as that progresses, we'll also likely slowly get legislation that limits the situations where you can use physical cash.
The thing is, that digital currency is tied directly to the real currency. When that goes away, see my post above.
Countries can already wildly print any amount of money that they choose. As extreme example, Zimbabwe once printed Z$100,000,000,000,000 bank notes.
It's purely each country's choice on how much new money they decide to print. If it's purely digital it's a bit easier to make new money, but they can make physical money just as well.
So where currency is concerned, you have some digital crypto currencies that are backed by particular assets, such as real world money, gold, or something else that has a value that doesn't drastically change. Stable coins are created to do, just that, be stable.
Then you have some crypto currencies that limit supply. In these situations they say something like.. "We only have 1 billion coins" and when the supply is gone, obviously the "value" of the coin will increase due to scarcity.
On the other hand you have crypto currencies with no limit in supply, but usually these coins employ a "burn" meaning that in certain circumstances, an excess of coins is taken out of the pool of currency, which increases the scarcity and keeps the price of the coin high. The more tokens they burn, the more scarce the coin is, and it generally would increase the price.
Obviously some of these practices artificially attempt to fix or increase the value, but countries have attempted to do that with physical currency too.
In Sweden, cash is nowadays used for about 12% of all retail payments while the rest is digital.
In Finland we've got law that in normal circumstances all salaries must be paid to bank account.
The world in not necessarily moving towards blockchain tech, but our traditional currencies are more and more becoming digital. And as that progresses, we'll also likely slowly get legislation that limits the situations where you can use physical cash.
The thing is, that digital currency is tied directly to the real currency. When that goes away, see my post above.
Countries can already wildly print any amount of money that they choose. As extreme example, Zimbabwe once printed Z$100,000,000,000,000 bank notes.
It's purely each country's choice on how much new money they decide to print. If it's purely digital it's a bit easier to make new money, but they can make physical money just as well.
Do you not understand the affects of printing money? It lowers the value of a currency. Inflation is the result. Runaway inflation is the result of doing it too much.
We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that. That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
You don't, in most games, actually.
When you "buy a game", you are typically purchasing a license for personal use of it. The actual ownership of the game and everything related to it, including whatever bits and bobs you acquire through play, is retained by the maker of it.
So, this is quite new for the most part, potentially revolutionary.
Whether it is a revolution that benefits the people or condemns them is more the question than the capacity to change gaming blockchain has.
I poorly explained my point. The fact is you can already sell items or complete account using third party softwar it was done for Lineage 2 items almost 20 years ago throug EBay and it may not be the first time. The fact you don't own your items is only a license problem not a technical issue for me or in game mechanics like bound items that stop you to sell your sword and a contract (license) don't relly stop you or make it illegal depending where you live to sell items or full acount you just risk a ban due to game policy not because you where laking a blockchain to own your item. Gold sellers are selling items and in game curency for 20 years and devs tryed to push them away since. Blockchain mecanics is basicaly developing games for gold sellers and taking a cut on their buisness. I like good games, I'm no gold seller and I don't see anything revolutionary on item ownership that is a license choice. When the game die and no one play it anymore your block chain will be as dead as in non blockchain games and you don't need a blockchain to give the ownership of the items to your players.
I'm not sure about the next part but if I understood well, due to the blockchain, there is no way to shut down a MMO as long as there are players "mining" the blockchain and we can keep playing as long as there is a player base. So ain't playing a MMO out of devlopement I don't see any progress in blockchain. There are multiplayers games where your pc is the server since before blockchain, VTM:R in 2000 for exemple, with the party maker as the host server so it only share the server charge amongst the players instead of one having to host the party, ain't on MMO there is no need of that since one PC can handle the charge of a bunch pf players. And then how many player are needed on a dead MMO for it to run? Don't seams to be that promissing to me. Zombies out of devlopement gold sellers marketed MMOs is the progress we're offered?
Anyway, these posts on blockchain games are realy interesting in understanding this new trend better. Before, I thought blockchain games just aimed at making us mining cryptomoney will playing to pay fake free games on our electricity bill due to the increse of pressure on our CPUs and GPUs. It's aparently a bit more complex.
It's true that one can break terms that they agreed to and sell what does not belong to them to those that have similar disregard for actual ownership rights. It's also true one can mug people in alleys, take what others own, and sell it to those that don't know or care that is how the goods were obtained.
I was speaking about it being potentially revolutionary in terms of genuine ownership rights, which is quite different to the backdoor antics on ebay and the like, and in terms of legality. Be that as it may, for those inclined to those type of transactions I can see what blockchain offers being next to or completely irrelevant in comparison.
Blockchain is... something. I'm not sure what. I hadn't paid it much mind to it when I've seen it mentioned previously, but with this latest round of discussion I tried to look into it online a bit and was rewarded with greater confusion over it than knowledge, which makes me all the more wary than intrigued.
Still, it costs nothing to observe from the sideline. Perhaps I will be more at ease with it in time, or perhaps over time those open to it will be less at ease than now.
We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that. That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
You don't, in most games, actually.
When you "buy a game", you are typically purchasing a license for personal use of it. The actual ownership of the game and everything related to it, including whatever bits and bobs you acquire through play, is retained by the maker of it.
So, this is quite new for the most part, potentially revolutionary.
Whether it is a revolution that benefits the people or condemns them is more the question than the capacity to change gaming blockchain has.
I poorly explained my point. The fact is you can already sell items or complete account using third party softwar it was done for Lineage 2 items almost 20 years ago throug EBay and it may not be the first time. The fact you don't own your items is only a license problem not a technical issue for me or in game mechanics like bound items that stop you to sell your sword and a contract (license) don't relly stop you or make it illegal depending where you live to sell items or full acount you just risk a ban due to game policy not because you where laking a blockchain to own your item. Gold sellers are selling items and in game curency for 20 years and devs tryed to push them away since. Blockchain mecanics is basicaly developing games for gold sellers and taking a cut on their buisness. I like good games, I'm no gold seller and I don't see anything revolutionary on item ownership that is a license choice. When the game die and no one play it anymore your block chain will be as dead as in non blockchain games and you don't need a blockchain to give the ownership of the items to your players.
I'm not sure about the next part but if I understood well, due to the blockchain, there is no way to shut down a MMO as long as there are players "mining" the blockchain and we can keep playing as long as there is a player base. So ain't playing a MMO out of devlopement I don't see any progress in blockchain. There are multiplayers games where your pc is the server since before blockchain, VTM:R in 2000 for exemple, with the party maker as the host server so it only share the server charge amongst the players instead of one having to host the party, ain't on MMO there is no need of that since one PC can handle the charge of a bunch pf players. And then how many player are needed on a dead MMO for it to run? Don't seams to be that promissing to me. Zombies out of devlopement gold sellers marketed MMOs is the progress we're offered?
Anyway, these posts on blockchain games are realy interesting in understanding this new trend better. Before, I thought blockchain games just aimed at making us mining cryptomoney will playing to pay fake free games on our electricity bill due to the increse of pressure on our CPUs and GPUs. It's aparently a bit more complex.
It's true that one can break terms that they agreed to and sell what does not belong to them to those that have similar disregard for actual ownership rights. It's also true one can mug people in alleys, take what others own, and sell it to those that don't know or care that is how the goods were obtained.
I was speaking about it being potentially revolutionary in terms of genuine ownership rights, which is quite different to the backdoor antics on ebay and the like, and in terms of legality. Be that as it may, for those inclined to those type of transactions I can see what blockchain offers being next to or completely irrelevant in comparison.
Blockchain is... something. I'm not sure what. I hadn't paid it much mind to it when I've seen it mentioned previously, but with this latest round of discussion I tried to look into it online a bit and was rewarded with greater confusion over it than knowledge, which makes me all the more wary than intrigued.
Still, it costs nothing to observe from the sideline. Perhaps I will be more at ease with it in time, or perhaps over time those open to it will be less at ease than now.
Time will tell.
I don't like gold sellers either by the way, they ruin games imo.
My point is, ownership of items don't need blockchain so on that it bring nothing new. We have all the tools to sell items and account and they are used for at least 20 years legaly or not.
We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that. That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
You don't, in most games, actually.
When you "buy a game", you are typically purchasing a license for personal use of it. The actual ownership of the game and everything related to it, including whatever bits and bobs you acquire through play, is retained by the maker of it.
So, this is quite new for the most part, potentially revolutionary.
Whether it is a revolution that benefits the people or condemns them is more the question than the capacity to change gaming blockchain has.
I poorly explained my point. The fact is you can already sell items or complete account using third party softwar it was done for Lineage 2 items almost 20 years ago throug EBay and it may not be the first time. The fact you don't own your items is only a license problem not a technical issue for me or in game mechanics like bound items that stop you to sell your sword and a contract (license) don't relly stop you or make it illegal depending where you live to sell items or full acount you just risk a ban due to game policy not because you where laking a blockchain to own your item. Gold sellers are selling items and in game curency for 20 years and devs tryed to push them away since. Blockchain mecanics is basicaly developing games for gold sellers and taking a cut on their buisness. I like good games, I'm no gold seller and I don't see anything revolutionary on item ownership that is a license choice. When the game die and no one play it anymore your block chain will be as dead as in non blockchain games and you don't need a blockchain to give the ownership of the items to your players.
I'm not sure about the next part but if I understood well, due to the blockchain, there is no way to shut down a MMO as long as there are players "mining" the blockchain and we can keep playing as long as there is a player base. So ain't playing a MMO out of devlopement I don't see any progress in blockchain. There are multiplayers games where your pc is the server since before blockchain, VTM:R in 2000 for exemple, with the party maker as the host server so it only share the server charge amongst the players instead of one having to host the party, ain't on MMO there is no need of that since one PC can handle the charge of a bunch pf players. And then how many player are needed on a dead MMO for it to run? Don't seams to be that promissing to me. Zombies out of devlopement gold sellers marketed MMOs is the progress we're offered?
Anyway, these posts on blockchain games are realy interesting in understanding this new trend better. Before, I thought blockchain games just aimed at making us mining cryptomoney will playing to pay fake free games on our electricity bill due to the increse of pressure on our CPUs and GPUs. It's aparently a bit more complex.
It's true that one can break terms that they agreed to and sell what does not belong to them to those that have similar disregard for actual ownership rights. It's also true one can mug people in alleys, take what others own, and sell it to those that don't know or care that is how the goods were obtained.
I was speaking about it being potentially revolutionary in terms of genuine ownership rights, which is quite different to the backdoor antics on ebay and the like, and in terms of legality. Be that as it may, for those inclined to those type of transactions I can see what blockchain offers being next to or completely irrelevant in comparison.
Blockchain is... something. I'm not sure what. I hadn't paid it much mind to it when I've seen it mentioned previously, but with this latest round of discussion I tried to look into it online a bit and was rewarded with greater confusion over it than knowledge, which makes me all the more wary than intrigued.
Still, it costs nothing to observe from the sideline. Perhaps I will be more at ease with it in time, or perhaps over time those open to it will be less at ease than now.
Time will tell.
I don't like gold sellers either by the way, they ruin games imo.
My point is, ownership of items don't need blockchain so on that it bring nothing new. We have all the tools to sell items and account and they are used for at least 20 years legaly or not.
Yeah, I got it. You can make illegal real world gaming transactions. If nobody finds out, everybody is fine. If the actual owner finds out the buyer will be screwed at the least.
What you are speaking of has nothing to do with actual ownership by the player, whereas blockchain does. That puts it at a whole different level than the black market transactions you are going on about. It could allow for legitimate transactions on a massive scale.
Your point is essentially as though you brought up Monopoly money in a discussion about genuine currency. While it exists, it has nothing to do with what is actually being talked about in terms of nature and potential scope.
Bitcoin is hugely riddled with criminal proceeds. It's a huge money laundering exercise to convert proceeds from drugs, prostitution and piracy ransoms into supposedly legit money. Like a casino, criminals buy bitcoin with their criminal proceeds, then sell it to innocent people, washing the dirty money.
Interestingly enough this has proven to be false just a couple of months ago. There is 3 times as much criminal activity concerning regular money then there is with crypto, 2% versus 6%
I don’t know, most ‘lots of criminality in crypto’ articles seem to be pretty heavily “sponsored” by the other side so…..
See what I did there? I have no reason to call this research BS or subjective any more then other research about it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I'm not the one claiming that there's proof of how much Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are used for criminal activity. I think we should treat it as uncertain.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
Lets agree to disagree on the trustworthiness of the article then. Thanks for the edit, that was the main point I was trying to make.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
^ And that is the main reason why I want nothing to do with it. Once you start going that route, the boundary between what is "real" and purely virtual becomes blurred. And once you start talking about something having real value, our beloved government begins to take an interest.
I don't want anything in my games to be associated with real value.
Never thought of that before, maybe governments will start taxing NFTs land you would with owning RL land? Its like the start of the internet, its the wild wild west again.
Various governments have looked into the feasibility of taxing certain transactions before, but the lack of RL value has kept them at bay. But, if virtual items begin having RL value that is retained outside of the game and can be transferred... well, taxation and/or regulation won't be far behind.
CAn you imagine the government taxing people for owning many retro games because they have high value in RL?
Comments
But i would never recommend the game, just wouldnt knock people for playing it.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
You're the one claiming it's been proven, and when asked for source you proceeded to give us information made by lobbyists.
EDIT: But I admit that the claims about Bitcoin and other cryptos being used "mainly for criminal activity" have been proven false well enough. It's not mainly a criminal tool. It's just also usable in illegal activities and we don't know how much it's used for them.
We already own our items. Nothing new. They may be character bound but basicaly they weren't. I don't see how owning our items is a blockchain question, it's a game policy one and we don't need blockchain for that.
That's like a step back imo. What an advance and a progress.
I tell them as soon as the Nigerian prince sends me his money I'll get right on it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The minute someone tries to spend it on larger ticket items, or even high volumes of smaller items know your customer and anti money laundering systems come into play and automated tracking algos kick in all across the financial system.
Try walking into a legitimate car dealer and see what happens if you try to buy a new Lambo with a bag full cash.
Pro tip, expect someone to be taking a hard look into the transaction.
Also, cash might become obsolete in the future as government's are increasingly looking into replacing it with digital versions based on... block chain tech.
China will likely be the first country to move to it with their digital Yuan which is already coming into play. Can the rest of the world really be that far behind?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
When you "buy a game", you are typically purchasing a license for personal use of it. The actual ownership of the game and everything related to it, including whatever bits and bobs you acquire through play, is retained by the maker of it.
So, this is quite new for the most part, potentially revolutionary.
Whether it is a revolution that benefits the people or condemns them is more the question than the capacity to change gaming blockchain has.
But neither should we decide that it's been proven to not be a problem because crypto lobbers tell us so.
Banks and similar have a lot of rules about what they must do to verify the identity of their customer and that the money is legitimate. I see no reason why cryptocurrencies should not eventually have to face same level of legislation.
In Finland we've got law that in normal circumstances all salaries must be paid to bank account.
The world in not necessarily moving towards blockchain tech, but our traditional currencies are more and more becoming digital. And as that progresses, we'll also likely slowly get legislation that limits the situations where you can use physical cash.
I imagine cryptos have the same problem.
The real problem in all of this, in my mind, is that there's no value pinned to a real currency once it's shifted into cryptos.
It's important for a country's currency to be held accountable to the way it's "made."
Think of money printing here.
If you remove that accountability, then a country can print money wildly and as it goes down in value, they save said value when they've shifted in into cryptos.
When that happens, there is no longer any accountability for the creation of money.
And then, a country like China, has in effect a government credit system, doled out and reeled in at their whim.
And if that spreads around the world as the new way of currencies, we all will be under total control of the governments. With no rights to ownership of money, savings, or eventually anything else.
Once upon a time....
When that goes away, see my post above.
Once upon a time....
I'm not sure about the next part but if I understood well, due to the blockchain, there is no way to shut down a MMO as long as there are players "mining" the blockchain and we can keep playing as long as there is a player base. So ain't playing a MMO out of devlopement I don't see any progress in blockchain. There are multiplayers games where your pc is the server since before blockchain, VTM:R in 2000 for exemple, with the party maker as the host server so it only share the server charge amongst the players instead of one having to host the party, ain't on MMO there is no need of that since one PC can handle the charge of a bunch pf players. And then how many player are needed on a dead MMO for it to run? Don't seams to be that promissing to me. Zombies out of devlopement gold sellers marketed MMOs is the progress we're offered?
Anyway, these posts on blockchain games are realy interesting in understanding this new trend better. Before, I thought blockchain games just aimed at making us mining cryptomoney will playing to pay fake free games on our electricity bill due to the increse of pressure on our CPUs and GPUs. It's aparently a bit more complex.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I always though block chain transactions would be more anonymous, but by what you are saying, it sounds that's not at all the case?
It's purely each country's choice on how much new money they decide to print. If it's purely digital it's a bit easier to make new money, but they can make physical money just as well.
Then you have some crypto currencies that limit supply. In these situations they say something like.. "We only have 1 billion coins" and when the supply is gone, obviously the "value" of the coin will increase due to scarcity.
On the other hand you have crypto currencies with no limit in supply, but usually these coins employ a "burn" meaning that in certain circumstances, an excess of coins is taken out of the pool of currency, which increases the scarcity and keeps the price of the coin high. The more tokens they burn, the more scarce the coin is, and it generally would increase the price.
Obviously some of these practices artificially attempt to fix or increase the value, but countries have attempted to do that with physical currency too.
Once upon a time....
It's true that one can break terms that they agreed to and sell what does not belong to them to those that have similar disregard for actual ownership rights. It's also true one can mug people in alleys, take what others own, and sell it to those that don't know or care that is how the goods were obtained.
I was speaking about it being potentially revolutionary in terms of genuine ownership rights, which is quite different to the backdoor antics on ebay and the like, and in terms of legality. Be that as it may, for those inclined to those type of transactions I can see what blockchain offers being next to or completely irrelevant in comparison.
Blockchain is... something. I'm not sure what. I hadn't paid it much mind to it when I've seen it mentioned previously, but with this latest round of discussion I tried to look into it online a bit and was rewarded with greater confusion over it than knowledge, which makes me all the more wary than intrigued.
Still, it costs nothing to observe from the sideline. Perhaps I will be more at ease with it in time, or perhaps over time those open to it will be less at ease than now.
Time will tell.
I don't like gold sellers either by the way, they ruin games imo.
My point is, ownership of items don't need blockchain so on that it bring nothing new. We have all the tools to sell items and account and they are used for at least 20 years legaly or not.
Yeah, I got it. You can make illegal real world gaming transactions. If nobody finds out, everybody is fine. If the actual owner finds out the buyer will be screwed at the least.
What you are speaking of has nothing to do with actual ownership by the player, whereas blockchain does. That puts it at a whole different level than the black market transactions you are going on about. It could allow for legitimate transactions on a massive scale.
Your point is essentially as though you brought up Monopoly money in a discussion about genuine currency. While it exists, it has nothing to do with what is actually being talked about in terms of nature and potential scope.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Smart people who have always been at the cutting edge of technolohgy.
Love yall