I’d like to know some situations where a decentralized proof of ownership is desired for digital stuff. While game items are often touted, not a single company actually wants that to be decentralized, they want to control their games’ economies.
Every re-sale of an NFT can have (usually has) a percentage go back to the creator. Companies can still control which items they accept or not, while letting people trade items and make the company money with every transaction… without having to lift a finger, without even having to maintain a trading platform.
Friendly reminder that the contract might have badly written code and/or be written in a way to act as malware. Being forced to follow a contract like that makes no sense. See the numerous exploits possible thanks to that kind of feature
Can you give an example of a company that doesn’t want to control that kind of data? The data of what their players can and can’t do in their game?
are you sure it’s in your best interest as a consumer to be against decentralization and FOR corporatism?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. At no point in my previous comments I argued for centralized corporatism. I merely stated the obvious: game companies, even smaller ones, want to control their data in a centralized manner, because they have literally nothing to gain from decentralizing it. You trying to frame it as me defending corporate centralization makes no sense.
Please, do quote the part where -I- defended corporate centralization, where I said anything that could be interpreted as “corporate centralization of data is good and I like it”. Stating a fact (companies don’t want to decentralize their data) is not the same as defending it.
Also waiting on this
Can you give an example of a company that doesn’t want to control that kind of data?
I’d like to know some situations where a decentralized proof of ownership is desired for digital stuff. While game items are often touted, not a single company actually wants that to be decentralized, they want to control their games’ economies.
Every re-sale of an NFT can have (usually has) a percentage go back to the creator. Companies can still control which items they accept or not, while letting people trade items and make the company money with every transaction… without having to lift a finger, without even having to maintain a trading platform.
And why is that a case for decentralized proof of ownership of a digital good? As long as it is decentralized, it’s trivial to bypass the residual pay
Yeah… nope.
The whole reason of why Ethereum has any value at all, is that it can be decentralized and still force you to follow the rules of the contract.
Friendly reminder that the contract might have badly written code and/or be written in a way to act as malware. Being forced to follow a contract like that makes no sense. See the numerous exploits possible thanks to that kind of feature
Thanks for the reminder. Now go use that to “trivially bypass the residual pay” like you said.
Can’t charge residuals if i’m just moving nfts across wallets instead of selling.
deleted by creator
Can you give an example of a company that doesn’t want to control that kind of data? The data of what their players can and can’t do in their game?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. At no point in my previous comments I argued for centralized corporatism. I merely stated the obvious: game companies, even smaller ones, want to control their data in a centralized manner, because they have literally nothing to gain from decentralizing it. You trying to frame it as me defending corporate centralization makes no sense.
deleted by creator
Please, do quote the part where -I- defended corporate centralization, where I said anything that could be interpreted as “corporate centralization of data is good and I like it”. Stating a fact (companies don’t want to decentralize their data) is not the same as defending it.
Also waiting on this