Crypto Currency Thread (Vol.2)
Discussion
WY86 said:
In terms of used for, here is a very basic example around NFTS.
now i know you will start drooling at frothing at the mouth at the idea of an expensive cartoon ape...
but what NFTS could do is say for example you download a game or a piece of software and paid money for the download. Now say you complete the game or have no need for the software. currently you are stuck with that you can delete it but you have lost that money.
now with NFTS you could add that into the software so when your use is done you could list on the marketplace and re coupe some of the money.
you can't do that currently with digital downloads.
I know we're meant to be on the same team here, but I don't get it now i know you will start drooling at frothing at the mouth at the idea of an expensive cartoon ape...
but what NFTS could do is say for example you download a game or a piece of software and paid money for the download. Now say you complete the game or have no need for the software. currently you are stuck with that you can delete it but you have lost that money.
now with NFTS you could add that into the software so when your use is done you could list on the marketplace and re coupe some of the money.
you can't do that currently with digital downloads.
In your example, why would a software / gaming company want me to resell my used software / game at a discount rather than direct customers to purchase it from their sites? There would also be some copyright / trademark issues involved as well by selling on the second hand market unless the gaming / software company is on board with the initiative.
I can see that handing over ownership via the blockchain like a user license / key would be a way to combat piracy and stop distribution of .exe / setup files.
Condi said:
This post is one of the best on here recently. Very pragmatic. Most people who talk about how great crypto is are simply talking their book. They need an increasing number of buyers to fuel the system and allow them to make a profit. All this nonsense about use cases and how much the future relies on crypto is quite clearly nonsense because over 10 years after Bitcoin was first used to buy a pizza the number of places which accept it as a currency is tiny and whichever way you look at it, it has totally failed as a medium of exchange. When something truly revolutionary comes along which is as scalable as crypto, it doesn't take 10 years for people to see the benefits and start using it. Once you admit you're just in it for the profits and see it as gambling then fair enough, far better to be upfront about it than pretend you really believe its the future.
Thanks, I'm clear that I'm in it for the profits but in no way do I consider it gambling - no more so than putting money into the stock market. They are tradeable assets, whether bitcoin or anything else - the risk profile is different for each. Time horizons, volatility and risk-reward are going to be different. The great thing about crypto is that it gives cyclic opportunities over and over again in relatively short time frames - both up and down.
You just have to go into it with eyes wide open, understanding there is inherent risk and managing it accordingly.
Edited by digger_R on Monday 23 May 17:42
g4ry13 said:
I know we're meant to be on the same team here, but I don't get it
In your example, why would a software / gaming company want me to resell my used software / game at a discount rather than direct customers to purchase it from their sites? There would also be some copyright / trademark issues involved as well by selling on the second hand market unless the gaming / software company is on board with the initiative.
I can see that handing over ownership via the blockchain like a user license / key would be a way to combat piracy and stop distribution of .exe / setup files.
Because potentially built into the smart contract a small % would go to them. where as when it was CD's and DVD's it would be on ebay and Shops like Game which would cut them out. essentially the licensing agreement would be the NFT not some image of a cartoon ape smoking a cigarettes'. In your example, why would a software / gaming company want me to resell my used software / game at a discount rather than direct customers to purchase it from their sites? There would also be some copyright / trademark issues involved as well by selling on the second hand market unless the gaming / software company is on board with the initiative.
I can see that handing over ownership via the blockchain like a user license / key would be a way to combat piracy and stop distribution of .exe / setup files.
Also a game not being used is not being exposed to in game purchases, the more people playing the game the more traffic they would get on the instore purchases, so they may loose out on the resale but make up in the potential in game purchases with someone using the game.
WY86 said:
g4ry13 said:
I know we're meant to be on the same team here, but I don't get it
In your example, why would a software / gaming company want me to resell my used software / game at a discount rather than direct customers to purchase it from their sites? There would also be some copyright / trademark issues involved as well by selling on the second hand market unless the gaming / software company is on board with the initiative.
I can see that handing over ownership via the blockchain like a user license / key would be a way to combat piracy and stop distribution of .exe / setup files.
Because potentially built into the smart contract a small % would go to them. where as when it was CD's and DVD's it would be on ebay and Shops like Game which would cut them out. essentially the licensing agreement would be the NFT not some image of a cartoon ape smoking a cigarettes'. In your example, why would a software / gaming company want me to resell my used software / game at a discount rather than direct customers to purchase it from their sites? There would also be some copyright / trademark issues involved as well by selling on the second hand market unless the gaming / software company is on board with the initiative.
I can see that handing over ownership via the blockchain like a user license / key would be a way to combat piracy and stop distribution of .exe / setup files.
In the case of PC games, people currently have an account for a site like Steam, Epic Games etc. (I have to concede that i've never bought a game on these platforms) but I believe you pay Steam some money, download the game which is linked to your Steam account. When you want to play it, you connect to your Steam account, select the game and play.
If I no longer want the game any more, I don't believe there are any options available to me for the disposal of it as it's linked to my Steam / Epic Games account. The only option for someone who wants to play the game is by going on to Steam, Epic etc. and paying the price which they are charging.
The NFT solution would allow me to transfer Game A from my Steam account to you at a discounted price whilst Steam take X% from the transaction. Maybe there is a case for a marketplace on Steam. But I struggle to fathom why Steam would opt to facilitate taking a small % of a transaction rather than funneling people to pay full price and take a larger cut.
g4ry13 said:
One issue I can see with the example is that with the advent of online gaming that it has progressed beyond buying physical cartridges and discs to play games.
In the case of PC games, people currently have an account for a site like Steam, Epic Games etc. (I have to concede that i've never bought a game on these platforms) but I believe you pay Steam some money, download the game which is linked to your Steam account. When you want to play it, you connect to your Steam account, select the game and play.
If I no longer want the game any more, I don't believe there are any options available to me for the disposal of it as it's linked to my Steam / Epic Games account. The only option for someone who wants to play the game is by going on to Steam, Epic etc. and paying the price which they are charging.
The NFT solution would allow me to transfer Game A from my Steam account to you at a discounted price whilst Steam take X% from the transaction. Maybe there is a case for a marketplace on Steam. But I struggle to fathom why Steam would opt to facilitate taking a small % of a transaction rather than funneling people to pay full price and take a larger cut.
i am obviously speculating at this point but usually the case is keeping up with competition, if a competitor offers the ability to reclaim funds for an unused game then others have to follow suit because its a major selling point and could loose customers by not offering it to their customer base.In the case of PC games, people currently have an account for a site like Steam, Epic Games etc. (I have to concede that i've never bought a game on these platforms) but I believe you pay Steam some money, download the game which is linked to your Steam account. When you want to play it, you connect to your Steam account, select the game and play.
If I no longer want the game any more, I don't believe there are any options available to me for the disposal of it as it's linked to my Steam / Epic Games account. The only option for someone who wants to play the game is by going on to Steam, Epic etc. and paying the price which they are charging.
The NFT solution would allow me to transfer Game A from my Steam account to you at a discounted price whilst Steam take X% from the transaction. Maybe there is a case for a marketplace on Steam. But I struggle to fathom why Steam would opt to facilitate taking a small % of a transaction rather than funneling people to pay full price and take a larger cut.
Also they are only able to do this due to having license agreements with the game makers if the game makers decide to no longer issue those agreements and use a NFT type arrangement they won't have the games to offer to stream.
but like i said it just one idea of it working in the real world, though i am sure Condi will comeback and tell us that it is nothing some data and a Excel worksheet can't do already.
Edited by WY86 on Friday 20th May 13:22
Part of the attraction of NFTs is that the user or gamer will own the asset and not the centralised entity. This of course will not be in the corporations best interests, but is in my interest and what Web3 is trying to build.
Facebook, Google, YouTube have made a fortune off of content which ideally should be owned, controlled and monetised by me and ideally portable between platforms. NFTs are a mechanism to put power back in the hands of the consumers.
And as there world becomes more digital, if I buy a movie or a skin in a game, ideally they will be in my ownership and not leased.
Facebook, Google, YouTube have made a fortune off of content which ideally should be owned, controlled and monetised by me and ideally portable between platforms. NFTs are a mechanism to put power back in the hands of the consumers.
And as there world becomes more digital, if I buy a movie or a skin in a game, ideally they will be in my ownership and not leased.
Edited by dmahon on Friday 20th May 14:45
Condi said:
Yes, price of shares goes up and down. The profit is still there, it hasn't gone anywhere, and shareholders still have a charge over it. What has changed is the discounted future cash flow which I mentioned earlier. Whether they were overvalued before, or are undervalued now is a fair question, but irrespective of where the share price is at any point, the shareholders have bought something with intrinsic value. Maybe Netflix will start paying a dividend? Maybe they will put up prices or put advertising in their product to increase revenue? One thing for sure is that the management will be under pressure to increase the returns to shareholders one way or another, and you would expect them to take steps to do so, otherwise the owners of the business (shareholders) can replace them with someone able to do a better job.
The other thing being missed is that a lot of crypto “tokens” are also used as part of an ecosystem. If I buy SOL, ETH, ADA then I am buying a scarce asset which will eventually be used to power games, applications, payments etc on that blockchain. As the value of the respective ecosystem grows, so does the value of the currency. Utility gives crypto value in a way which even shares don’t have. Imagine some kind of virtual reality metaverse takes off.
What’s better, a world where people can genuinely own the land, the digital assets, the currency and the governance.
Or a world where that’s owned and controlled by Facebook and Google on their private database?
Web2 has been rubbish for users, and all of the money has flowed to a few big tech companies. I can get behind the ideals of Web3 even if we are early.
What’s better, a world where people can genuinely own the land, the digital assets, the currency and the governance.
Or a world where that’s owned and controlled by Facebook and Google on their private database?
Web2 has been rubbish for users, and all of the money has flowed to a few big tech companies. I can get behind the ideals of Web3 even if we are early.
WY86 said:
Ari said:
You're talking to a dullard boomer, remember? So simple terms please, like this.
Property. Buy a house, rent it to a family, they pay you money in return for living in it. That's how it generates money.
Deposit cryptoProperty. Buy a house, rent it to a family, they pay you money in return for living in it. That's how it generates money.
Deposit same value in FIAT
Someone swaps FIAT To Crypto
=
Interest earned for providing that liquidity to execute the conversion.
Same as Tesco or a hotel charging to convert currencies..
Are you Toni or Guy?
I might retire, sounds like I can't lose! I can't lose, can I..?
Why are you asking if I'm Toni or Guy?
Ari said:
Sounds brilliant! How much interest would I make? Presumably it gets paid in actual cash?
I might retire, sounds like I can't lose! I can't lose, can I..?
Why are you asking if I'm Toni or Guy?
all depends on the pairings of what your staking it in, could 10% 20% and in some pairings up to 300%I might retire, sounds like I can't lose! I can't lose, can I..?
Why are you asking if I'm Toni or Guy?
all investments have risks and you know this.
I'm reading a lot of hype here about spurious use cases for NFTs but still not seeing
- how they somehow disconnect you from relying on an underlying platform somewhere
- how they offer something new that in most/all cases can already be trivially achieved with all the features people are proposing - like trading game assets and taking a cut
- how any of the hype particularly matters when it's just another mechanism that anyone could use; you aren't going to get rich backing the tech.
So for now it's a load of very thin "what if?"s plus a pile of overpriced junk pumped up by people passing coins in a loop hoping to draw in suckers.
Sounds like the same hype we've had before where everything was *BLOCKCHAIN!* without any real critical look at whether it was a better solution or where it would make money. I know the tech focused patent attorney I've used was utterly sick of people asking about the 1000th variation on blockchain ideas and I bet just as many have thought about a great idea involving NFTs that probably isn't all that great.
- how they somehow disconnect you from relying on an underlying platform somewhere
- how they offer something new that in most/all cases can already be trivially achieved with all the features people are proposing - like trading game assets and taking a cut
- how any of the hype particularly matters when it's just another mechanism that anyone could use; you aren't going to get rich backing the tech.
So for now it's a load of very thin "what if?"s plus a pile of overpriced junk pumped up by people passing coins in a loop hoping to draw in suckers.
Sounds like the same hype we've had before where everything was *BLOCKCHAIN!* without any real critical look at whether it was a better solution or where it would make money. I know the tech focused patent attorney I've used was utterly sick of people asking about the 1000th variation on blockchain ideas and I bet just as many have thought about a great idea involving NFTs that probably isn't all that great.
pquinn said:
- how they somehow disconnect you from relying on an underlying platform somewhere
- how they offer something new that in most/all cases can already be trivially achieved with all the features people are proposing - like trading game assets and taking a cut
The underlying datastore is a decentralised blockchain, not owned or under the control of any one entity. That blockchain is open, permissionless, auditable etc.- how they offer something new that in most/all cases can already be trivially achieved with all the features people are proposing - like trading game assets and taking a cut
Things like in game trading can be achieved trivially with existing tech, but again that’s under the control and ownership of one corporation, rather than having custody of your own assets
Some of the skeptics in this thread should reflect on this ideal of owning your own data and digital assets rather than giving it to FAANG. That stuff is valuable and you should want control over it.
You can buy second-hand software, entirely legally, and there is nothing Steam, Microsoft or anyone else can do to stop you. It was confirmed in EU law a few years ago that while the consumer doesn't own the intellectual property or the source code, they are freely allowed to trade their license. If you own a game on Steam, you can generate a license code, sell that to your mate for £10, and then they can go online and activate the game on their account.
dmahon said:
The underlying datastore is a decentralised blockchain, not owned or under the control of any one entity. That blockchain is open, permissionless, auditable etc.
Things like in game trading can be achieved trivially with existing tech, but again that’s under the control and ownership of one corporation, rather than having custody of your own assets
Some of the skeptics in this thread should reflect on this ideal of owning your own data and digital assets rather than giving it to FAANG. That stuff is valuable and you should want control over it.
What do you expect from a forum where a thread about winning 10k for life from the national lottery they start banging on about tax and NI contributions. Things like in game trading can be achieved trivially with existing tech, but again that’s under the control and ownership of one corporation, rather than having custody of your own assets
Some of the skeptics in this thread should reflect on this ideal of owning your own data and digital assets rather than giving it to FAANG. That stuff is valuable and you should want control over it.
Its almost like they want the younger generations to keep pumping money into the S&P 500 to keep their pension pots healthy…
dmahon said:
Imagine some kind of virtual reality metaverse takes off.
What’s better, a world where people can genuinely own the land, the digital assets, the currency and the governance.
Or a world where that’s owned and controlled by Facebook and Google on their private database?
Web2 has been rubbish for users, and all of the money has flowed to a few big tech companies. I can get behind the ideals of Web3 even if we are early.
In one post you are saying that its great for people to own the digital assets, in the post above another proponent of NFTs and blockchain is saying that NFTs will allow game developers to take a cut when you sell your second hand game. What’s better, a world where people can genuinely own the land, the digital assets, the currency and the governance.
Or a world where that’s owned and controlled by Facebook and Google on their private database?
Web2 has been rubbish for users, and all of the money has flowed to a few big tech companies. I can get behind the ideals of Web3 even if we are early.
It's no surprise sceptics are confused if even supports of the technology can't come to a consensus on how it will be used.
WY86 said:
you know what the beautiful thing is it will slowly filter into your life and you won't even realize, that behind that contract or license agreement is a blockchain recording it and storing that information.
https://hbr.org/2022/05/cautionary-tales-from-cryptolandStackpole: One of the most surprising (to me, anyway) arguments you make is that Web3 could be a disaster for privacy and create major issues around harassment. Why? And does it feel like the companies “buying into” Web3 are aware of this?
White: Blockchains are immutable, which means once data is recorded, it can’t be removed. [...] Many blockchains also have a very public record of transactions: Anyone can see that a person made a transaction and the details of that transaction. Privacy is theoretically provided through pseudonymity — wallets are identified by a string of characters that aren’t inherently tied to a person. But because you’ll likely use one wallet for most of your transactions, keeping one’s wallet address private can be both challenging and a lot of work and is likely to only become more challenging if this future vision of crypto ubiquity is realized. If a person’s wallet address is known and they are using a popular chain like Ethereum to transact, anyone [else] can see all transactions they’ve made.
Imagine if you went on a first date, and when you paid them back for your half of the meal, they could now see every other transaction you’d ever made — not just the public transactions on some app you used to transfer the cash but any transactions: the split checks with all of your previous dates, that monthly transfer to your therapist, the debts you’re paying off (or not), the charities to which you’re donating (or not), the amount you’re putting in a retirement account (or not). What if they could see the location of the corner store by your apartment where you so frequently go to grab a pint of ice cream at 10 PM?
Not quite the utopia you might like to pretend.
Gweeds said:
https://hbr.org/2022/05/cautionary-tales-from-cryp...
Stackpole: One of the most surprising (to me, anyway) arguments you make is that Web3 could be a disaster for privacy and create major issues around harassment. Why? And does it feel like the companies “buying into” Web3 are aware of this?
White: Blockchains are immutable, which means once data is recorded, it can’t be removed. [...] Many blockchains also have a very public record of transactions: Anyone can see that a person made a transaction and the details of that transaction. Privacy is theoretically provided through pseudonymity — wallets are identified by a string of characters that aren’t inherently tied to a person. But because you’ll likely use one wallet for most of your transactions, keeping one’s wallet address private can be both challenging and a lot of work and is likely to only become more challenging if this future vision of crypto ubiquity is realized. If a person’s wallet address is known and they are using a popular chain like Ethereum to transact, anyone [else] can see all transactions they’ve made.
Imagine if you went on a first date, and when you paid them back for your half of the meal, they could now see every other transaction you’d ever made — not just the public transactions on some app you used to transfer the cash but any transactions: the split checks with all of your previous dates, that monthly transfer to your therapist, the debts you’re paying off (or not), the charities to which you’re donating (or not), the amount you’re putting in a retirement account (or not). What if they could see the location of the corner store by your apartment where you so frequently go to grab a pint of ice cream at 10 PM?
Not quite the utopia you might like to pretend.
I also remember the millennium bug… going wipe out all electronics how did that turn out? Covid was going to kill us all? Bitcoin will never get to £1,£10,£100….Stackpole: One of the most surprising (to me, anyway) arguments you make is that Web3 could be a disaster for privacy and create major issues around harassment. Why? And does it feel like the companies “buying into” Web3 are aware of this?
White: Blockchains are immutable, which means once data is recorded, it can’t be removed. [...] Many blockchains also have a very public record of transactions: Anyone can see that a person made a transaction and the details of that transaction. Privacy is theoretically provided through pseudonymity — wallets are identified by a string of characters that aren’t inherently tied to a person. But because you’ll likely use one wallet for most of your transactions, keeping one’s wallet address private can be both challenging and a lot of work and is likely to only become more challenging if this future vision of crypto ubiquity is realized. If a person’s wallet address is known and they are using a popular chain like Ethereum to transact, anyone [else] can see all transactions they’ve made.
Imagine if you went on a first date, and when you paid them back for your half of the meal, they could now see every other transaction you’d ever made — not just the public transactions on some app you used to transfer the cash but any transactions: the split checks with all of your previous dates, that monthly transfer to your therapist, the debts you’re paying off (or not), the charities to which you’re donating (or not), the amount you’re putting in a retirement account (or not). What if they could see the location of the corner store by your apartment where you so frequently go to grab a pint of ice cream at 10 PM?
Not quite the utopia you might like to pretend.
This also implies that it has taken fully over from FIAT currency which the aim of most cryptos is not to do.
Edited by WY86 on Friday 20th May 18:03
Condi said:
You can buy second-hand software, entirely legally, and there is nothing Steam, Microsoft or anyone else can do to stop you. It was confirmed in EU law a few years ago that while the consumer doesn't own the intellectual property or the source code, they are freely allowed to trade their license. If you own a game on Steam, you can generate a license code, sell that to your mate for 10, and then they can go online and activate the game on their account.
But are you allowed to do that? As I said......it's not something i'm overly familiar with but found this information:
Alphr said:
How to Sell a Game on Steam
Currently, you can only sell a game on Steam if you’re the official owner or developer. You can’t sell a game you bought from Valve – Steam’s parent company – or from third parties. Steam’s business policy is based on the same principle as renting a house for life by making a single lump-sum payment: You get exclusive rights to use the house and can enjoy all the associated benefits, but you can’t turn around and sell it to anyone.
Has it always been this way? In the past, the rules on Steam were a bit different. Once you bought a game on the platform, you had the option to add it to your inventory before adding it to your library. This meant it was possible to sell the game by fetching it from your inventory, “gifting” it to another Steam user, and receiving payment from them for it via a third-party service such as Venmo or PayPal.
These days, Steam no longer offers an inventory option. At the point of purchase, you’re required to declare whether you’re buying the game for your own use or as a gift for some other user. If it’s for personal use, the game goes directly to your library. If you’re buying it as a gift, Steam sends it to the recipient’s library immediately.
How to Resell a Game on Steam
As we mentioned, it is not possible to resell a game on Steam at the current time.
However, the situation may change later. Indeed, a French court recently found fault with Steam’s policy and ruled that users should be free to resell their games. In its ruling, the court dispensed with the notion that Steam sells subscriptions and ruled that it actually sells game licenses. As a result, the court said, it is only fair to allow users to distribute these licenses by selling them if they so wish.
However, the decision has yet to be implemented as Valve has filed an appeal. As of this writing, no ruling on the appeal has been made and it is difficult to predict whether the original decision will be overturned.
Are there resell loopholes? Certainly. But they are all fraught with risks. For starters, you can choose to open multiple accounts, one for each game. That way, it would be easy to resell any game that no longer excites you while continuing to play the rest through the other accounts. Alternately, you can go the all-or-nothing route by selling your entire Steam account. Steam considers either of these alternatives against their rules, and you risk having your account disabled permanently.
Either of these arrangements would pose other serious challenges. If you choose to sell the entire account, for instance, it might be difficult to find a suitable buyer and lock in a good price if you have a large portfolio of games.
Source: https://www.alphr.com/how-to-sell-a-game-on-steam/Currently, you can only sell a game on Steam if you’re the official owner or developer. You can’t sell a game you bought from Valve – Steam’s parent company – or from third parties. Steam’s business policy is based on the same principle as renting a house for life by making a single lump-sum payment: You get exclusive rights to use the house and can enjoy all the associated benefits, but you can’t turn around and sell it to anyone.
Has it always been this way? In the past, the rules on Steam were a bit different. Once you bought a game on the platform, you had the option to add it to your inventory before adding it to your library. This meant it was possible to sell the game by fetching it from your inventory, “gifting” it to another Steam user, and receiving payment from them for it via a third-party service such as Venmo or PayPal.
These days, Steam no longer offers an inventory option. At the point of purchase, you’re required to declare whether you’re buying the game for your own use or as a gift for some other user. If it’s for personal use, the game goes directly to your library. If you’re buying it as a gift, Steam sends it to the recipient’s library immediately.
How to Resell a Game on Steam
As we mentioned, it is not possible to resell a game on Steam at the current time.
However, the situation may change later. Indeed, a French court recently found fault with Steam’s policy and ruled that users should be free to resell their games. In its ruling, the court dispensed with the notion that Steam sells subscriptions and ruled that it actually sells game licenses. As a result, the court said, it is only fair to allow users to distribute these licenses by selling them if they so wish.
However, the decision has yet to be implemented as Valve has filed an appeal. As of this writing, no ruling on the appeal has been made and it is difficult to predict whether the original decision will be overturned.
Are there resell loopholes? Certainly. But they are all fraught with risks. For starters, you can choose to open multiple accounts, one for each game. That way, it would be easy to resell any game that no longer excites you while continuing to play the rest through the other accounts. Alternately, you can go the all-or-nothing route by selling your entire Steam account. Steam considers either of these alternatives against their rules, and you risk having your account disabled permanently.
Either of these arrangements would pose other serious challenges. If you choose to sell the entire account, for instance, it might be difficult to find a suitable buyer and lock in a good price if you have a large portfolio of games.
Condi said:
In one post you are saying that its great for people to own the digital assets, in the post above another proponent of NFTs and blockchain is saying that NFTs will allow game developers to take a cut when you sell your second hand game.
It's no surprise sceptics are confused if even supports of the technology can't come to a consensus on how it will be used.
Any behaviour can be coded as a smart contract. You could own the asset outright, or you could pay commissions etc. It's no surprise sceptics are confused if even supports of the technology can't come to a consensus on how it will be used.
Through owning the “currency” or “shares”, you can also own a stake in the ecosystem, such that any fees going back to base could benefit you indirectly or even directly too.
Imagine a Facebook where you own your own data and choose temporarily to give them access to it. You would also own a piece of the Facebook business together with the community through a DAO.
It’s a bit hippyish, but the concepts are being proven today, and it’s a better endpoint than giving Zuckerberg more money and control.
I’m not sure what the end use cases will look like, but the ideas are very powerful and appealing.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff