Web3 Games

[RH | 5,198]

11 hours ago, Code Monkey said:

Blockchain and web3 is an incredibly useful technology and if we can eventually host the entire internet on an interconnected and decentralized network, that would be very helpful. I don't want to rely on Bell (Verizon?) to keep their towers operating, I'd rather just have my information pass through the thousands of interconnected devices around me to daisy chain their way to the recipient (assuming some way to fill in the large gaps).

Dude, that's technological regression and it ain't gonna happen.  All of these block chains need to be built on top of some type of data-flowing infrastructure.  Before the internet was ubiquitous in homes, people had BBSes and they had a rudimentary way of passing info around. I'm honestly not sure how it worked but I know you could send messages across them as it hopped from BBS to BBS.  That said, it was inefficient, which is how and why the internet took off when the networks were opened up for home-use.

I get that this is 2024 and not 1990 so this could be a lot faster, but none of that can happen without a backbone of what is the current "internet". More broadly speaking, you have to have a network of communication devices and TCP/IP communication is very effective. Now, you can build a layer on top of that but, regardless, you're going to need hardware and networking services to push those digits around.  You could make some magical, new, crypto-style  protocol to fit onto it (think, something like HTTP, but maybe DNS entries are written to a block chain) but you're still going to need that TCP/IP infrastructure (or possibly UDP but, ew... why?!)

The "block chain" doesn't solve this.  Plus, if the main reason why you want a block chain based internet is for anonymity and persistent autonomy of data (which is the best reason I've seen it explained in the past), then that just won't work either. Anonymity is fine but for it to work, some part of the data sent back-and-forth needs to persist, or aspects of the data transfer needs to persist, because that's the whole point of the block chain.

I worked with on block chain several years ago that had a system where you could pay a fee based off of total bytes and write data to the blockchain. I liked the tech, but when they implemented that feature, I sold my holdings and walked away.  Why? Because all it'd take is one anonymous source to pay $.05 of crypto and write an image of child-porn on the block chain and guess what, myself and everyone else hosting the block chain would be culpable of holding that filth. I wasn't going to allow that to happen to me, so I got out. Regardless, if you want to make some magical "transfer" mechanism where data hops around, node to node, well that's not block chain tech--that's network topology and that type of topology has long been mapped out, invented and abandoned.

There's just no reasonable use of a block chain that I can see for some form of "new" internet. These problems have already been solved. No, not perfectly, but the idea that a block chain will create a perfect form of communication and sharing of information not only isn't true but actually by solve one or two problems, you tend to create even bigger ones.

 

[Scrobins | 1,804]

People making money off something doesn’t make it great, or better. Context is key. You (CM) are assuming that money being made off this technology by default means there’s social value to it but it’s really just speculation: a long line of douches and idiots exploiting and perverting a thing to squeeze it for their own gain without actually contributing to the wider world. You act like there’s some wondrous development that is ushering in a moneyless Star Trek utopia but it’s just a sleazy casino.

[Khromak | 836]

I'm open to the idea that blockchain could provide something that other tech can't, and I support @Code Monkey's proposition that new tech isn't necessarily useful right out the gate, sometimes it takes a new problem surfacing that the tech is able to solve before its niche is found.

My problem with blockchain tech is that I've yet to hear of a use case that requires it or that it is the best answer for. Every time I hear about a "problem" they're "solving" with it, it comes across as something that could easily be solved by a website, database, or account.

Add on to that all the negatives that come with anonymity, permanent persistence of data, and the crushing amount of compute resources/money that have to go into processing any transaction on it and I think it's really struggling to find a use case and most people propping up all the amazing things being done with it are misguided, overly optimistic, or shills/conmen.

If it were actually a tech that was able to solve large scale problems, we'd be hearing about it. Instead we get a bunch of stories that make anyone in tech scratch their heads.

[a3quit4s | 4,329]

Even if Blockchain were to add something useful to technology it’s definitely not going to be some game changing thing that investorbros can sell hence the need to hype up theoretical use cases that will probably never happen. 

[Code Monkey | 2,128]

8 hours ago, RH said:

Dude, that's technological regression and it ain't gonna happen.  All of these block chains need to be built on top of some type of data-flowing infrastructure.  Before the internet was ubiquitous in homes, people had BBSes and they had a rudimentary way of passing info around. I'm honestly not sure how it worked but I know you could send messages across them as it hopped from BBS to BBS.  That said, it was inefficient, which is how and why the internet took off when the networks were opened up for home-use.

I get that this is 2024 and not 1990 so this could be a lot faster, but none of that can happen without a backbone of what is the current "internet". More broadly speaking, you have to have a network of communication devices and TCP/IP communication is very effective. Now, you can build a layer on top of that but, regardless, you're going to need hardware and networking services to push those digits around.  You could make some magical, new, crypto-style  protocol to fit onto it (think, something like HTTP, but maybe DNS entries are written to a block chain) but you're still going to need that TCP/IP infrastructure (or possibly UDP but, ew... why?!)

This is the entire point of web3, it works without any use of conventional internet. The entire internet as we know it could go down and web3 would continue as it is hosted by the masses, on device. That's what I find so cool about it.

I'm seeing a lot of arguments that web3 and the blockchain are not useful right now but the argument I'm trying to make is that the technology itself is great if we find some sort of future use that provides a unique solution. I'm well aware we don't have that right now, I've stated that already. I'm trying to point out that the idea is great, we just need to find a good use.

[Khromak | 836]

12 hours ago, Code Monkey said:

This is the entire point of web3, it works without any use of conventional internet. The entire internet as we know it could go down and web3 would continue as it is hosted by the masses, on device. That's what I find so cool about it.

OK, referring to my earlier points then:

1.) How does this daisy chain of connecting to people's phones get across oceans? Seafarers?

2.) Why is blockchain necessary for this? End-to-end encrypted data could be passed along people's phones to each other without the use of any blockchain at all

[Code Monkey | 2,128]

37 minutes ago, Khromak said:

OK, referring to my earlier points then:

1.) How does this daisy chain of connecting to people's phones get across oceans? Seafarers?

2.) Why is blockchain necessary for this? End-to-end encrypted data could be passed along people's phones to each other without the use of any blockchain at all

1. In my original post, I made a comment that we would need some way to bridge larger gaps. Once again, I'm not stating this technology is fully matured and we should all embrace it today, I'm saying the technology is a great idea and one day it will find a practical use. The basic idea of crowdfunded internet hosted by IoT devices in densely populated areas is very interesting. How the details work, I do not yet know.

2. Web3 and blockchain are not the same thing. This uses the decentralized infrastructure adopted by blockchain but not necessarily raw blockchain technology itself.

 

The unique technology here is the fully autonomous and decentralized smart contracts. Yes, you could replicate the use with some server and encrypted software but that's not autonomous and decentralized, people fail to realize that. If Twitter shuts off their servers and fucks off to the moon, Twitter no longer exists. There is no one person that owns the Bitcoin network and no one person that can control it. It is 100% autonomous, it runs itself, it governs itself, it verifies itself, it authenticates itself and it is impossible to shut down. You could literally take an entire continent offline and the Bitcoin network will continue to run. I find this fascinating.

[RH | 5,198]

4 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

If Twitter shuts off their servers and fucks off to the moon, Twitter no longer exists. There is no one person that owns the Bitcoin network and no one person that can control it. It is 100% autonomous, it runs itself, it governs itself, it verifies itself, it authenticates itself and it is impossible to shut down. You could literally take an entire continent offline and the Bitcoin network will continue to run. I find this fascinating.

I had a really long post trying to explain the intricacies of why this isn't possible but instead, let me ask some questions.  Break it down for me--how can a block chain fix something like "if Twitter goes down, that information is lost for good."

Are you suggesting a block chain where the data is 100% saved on the chain?

[Code Monkey | 2,128]

1 hour ago, RH said:

I had a really long post trying to explain the intricacies of why this isn't possible but instead, let me ask some questions.  Break it down for me--how can a block chain fix something like "if Twitter goes down, that information is lost for good."

Are you suggesting a block chain where the data is 100% saved on the chain?

Yes, it would need to be completely on chain. The entire Bitcoin blockchain is hosted by millions of miners around the world and if 1000 of these miners go offline, that doesn't stop the chain from running. If all 100 of Twitter's co-location servers go offline, Twitter stops working.

Can we switch to it right now? Again, no we can't. Is it a step in a cool direction for decentralized information access? Yes, very much.

[Gloves | 12,243]

31 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

The entire Bitcoin blockchain is hosted by millions of miners around the world and if 1000 of these miners go offline, that doesn't stop the chain from running. If all 100 of Twitter's co-location servers go offline, Twitter stops working.

False equivalence. 

You're comparing *arbitrary number* bitcoiners to *all* servers. 

If *all* devices housing the blockchain data are suddenly wiped, it disappears. 

[a3quit4s | 4,329]

You two are the new fcgamer and wunderful odd couple lmao

[fcgamer | 4,995]

11 minutes ago, a3quit4s said:

You two are the new fcgamer and wunderful odd couple lmao

I sort of miss that one, hahaha

[Khromak | 836]

1 hour ago, Code Monkey said:

Yes, it would need to be completely on chain

What are the practical considerations of hosting all of the internet on the blockchain? Is it even remotely possible to include the seemingly infinite amounts of video information on YouTube on a blockchain? How about streaming it from a blockchain source?

What about online gaming, live video streaming, etc.?

Edited August 7 by Khromak

[Code Monkey | 2,128]

2 hours ago, Gloves said:

False equivalence. 

You're comparing *arbitrary number* bitcoiners to *all* servers. 

If *all* devices housing the blockchain data are suddenly wiped, it disappears. 

Not necessarily, the point is the number of Twitter servers is capped. If their CTO says it's 10, then they have 10. The number of people hosting Bitcoin has no limit, it could be as many people that are interested in downloading it. However, I can't download and host Twitter's servers, it's not an option I have. It's sort of like saying Bitcoin is a democracy and capitalism is a dictatorship.

(Please don't inspect my analogy, it's a very loose one)

 

1 hour ago, a3quit4s said:

You two are the new fcgamer and wunderful odd couple lmao

I like being challenged, it forces me to provide logical facts. He seems to have some good technical knowledge.

 

1 hour ago, Khromak said:

What are the practical considerations of hosting all of the internet on the blockchain? Is it even remotely possible to include the seemingly infinite amounts of video information on YouTube on a blockchain? How about streaming it from a blockchain source?

What about online gaming, live video streaming, etc.?

No, you're conparing a fully mature solution to something in its infancy. There is IPFS which is a project aimed at pushing larger files to the blockchain and also FileCoin (FIL) of which I'm a pretty big financial backer. Both are seeing good progress.

There's no way we could do any of that on the current blockchain and new chains technologies are focused on allowing more transactions per second as Bitcoin is incredibly slow and expensive. Ethereum elevated this very well and Solana increased it again. Soon there will be more and more layer-1 blockchains that are pushing the boundaries of processing and if we're lucky, we'll eventually reach the pinnacle of 56K modems. And maybe in a decade or two we'll be able to host video.

The excitement is around the fact that this is now possible, though wildly inefficient. I'm very excited to see where it goes and to tell people I remember back before X existed and all we had was Ethereum and Solana to host pictures of monkeys. It's a wild time.