Topic: Can't NFTs work on Bitcoin? (Read 1198 times)

Just found this thread.

This appears to be a "reverse vault" as it were. I can see the Ethereum NFT therein is this one:

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0xa5d2b92091df326007cb5b856dccd702aefaf361/0

(for those not knowing what's going on DesktopCommando has created a way via Emblem Vault to lock NFTs on Ethereum and re-create them on Bitcoin as a Counterparty asset)

Did you end up making progress regarding this? Haven't heard much about it beyond this but I would totally port my CryptoKitty to my Counterparty address just for the lulz.

Thanks, and I appreciate all the work that you do to help bring attention to the innovation being delivered to Bitcoin via the Counterparty platform.

On the topic of "who decides what to have how much value". This analog-NFT with the colors of the Ukranian flag is valued/priced at $46,000,000. That's two commas and six zeroes ser, thank you very much.



Analog-NFTs are better, you truly own them. NFTs that don't truly "live" in the blockchain should not be as valued in my opinion.

As far as the connection is concerned, I don't think any of it exists lol. People just believe this and keep buying.

You have a point, but it’s “blockchains”, not altcoins. I believe all “penny-shitcoins” will be generated in the remaining 3 - 5 remaing blockchains instead of boot-strapping their own networks. It’s currently happening since 2017, some of the earliest were before that.

I seriously doubt it. The idea of "penny stocks" is perfected in cryptocurrency world because it is so much easier and cheaper to create altcoins/tokens than it is to start a penny stock and sell it. There is also the benefit of anonymity so things like scams and money laundering will continue happening in altcoin market. Hence we will continue seeing the altcoins grow in number and in 15-20 years we may have more than a million worthless altcoins.

But the network/blockchain where the NFT resides is also the most important if you ask me. I believe in 15 - 20 years there will just be 3 to 5 blockchains that exists, and Bitcoin remaining at the center like the Sun of a solar system, still chugging along.

It depends on the game. The free games I've seen that have in-game purchases are really free and whatever you buy is just cosmetics that won't affect your game. Like DOTA2 from Valve.
In any case, the flaw actually exists in NFTs because you have to buy the token otherwise you won't be able to play the game in first place! In other words "free game" is not defined in the NFT world.

Many games are marketing themselves as being free, but then they earn millions of dollars each year with in-game purchases. If the idea is to fight such a system, I would understand. It's either free or it's not. Don't tell me I can play a game for free if I can't do it normally because I have to separately purchase all kinds of things.   

If the community thinks that NFT or blockchain games are money-grabbing scams, OK, they have a point. Why support a group of developers earning money on their players? But at the same time, why isn't the same attention given to in-game purchases in traditional games, where you are required to purchase similar types of things, but this time the money goes to the software companies?

Jack Black had a funny encounter with in-game purchases, take a look.

Honestly, I hate maximalism too, but during the last 2 years of my cryptocurrency journey I've concluded that it's all about Bitcoin. Those “toxic” Bitcoiners do point fingers very often, but I've found none who's done it unreasonably. Take for instance us, who're trying to understand why NFTs.

I like thinking that the freedom of Bitcoin leaves room for other projects to grow, but I can't unsee that its technology promotes the exact opposite; one blockchain. The point of it is decentralization. There's literally no other reason to distribute a database if it's not to avoid the central point of failure. If this isn't your project's priority, then you're doing things wrong. And 99% of those cryptos with “potential” lack in this part.

So, if we're going to build interesting things in a flawed way, it's a big no from me.

Another argument that contradicts with gaming & blockchain is the source code. The developers of an online game should not reveal their source code, but the blockchain ideology works by the assumption that everything's transparent.

Me too, but I want to keep an open mind about it. I don't think that the future of the cryptocurrency movement as a whole is for Bitcoiners to throw garbage on everyone else and point fingers. Unless they are like Craig or scammers who deserve it. And I am someone who is 90% in Bitcoin when it comes to crypto. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you are doing that.

Good point. Live and let others live. Speak up if you notice something is off and smells like a scam, advise and correct, but don't be like Steam.

Gaming needs to be visually attractive and appealing. Most of the times at least. Blockchain games look like something created in the 90s. The graphics are mostly awful. That could be one reason a larger part of the community doesn't like them. Still, I don't see the point in gamers supporting Steam to ban them altogether. If I want to play ugly looking games, leave me be. Imagine Steam deciding to ban all racing games and everyone who doesn't play them and hates those types of games supports that decision.

What i wanted to emphasize isn't Steam banning blockchain-based games, but most popular comment/reaction which support the ban or stating that they hate blockchain-based game/NFT. It means many (or even most) gamers don't need/want blockchain or NFT on their game even with advantage it could offer.

It doesn’t matter if there’s no value in it for you, what matters is it has value for it in the market. It’s like Warren Buffett saying that Bitcoin is “Rat Poison Squared” and has ZERO value to him, but we can sell it for more than $30,000 per coin in the market.

I'm just trying to make my point clearer by comparing with bitcoin, not trying to "advertise" it.

As @BlackHatCoiner said the discussion here is on usability of NFTs, to see if we should even bother looking into them in the context of Bitcoin.
One of the reasons why I keep asking people who are supporting tokens or altcoins to tell me what their utility is in real world is not me trying to dictate how they should think but it is mostly my personal interest in the technology trying to figure out where it has gone after Bitcoin. Sadly I'm greatly disappointed in "alternatives" so far.

Who's using a blockchain just for payments? I'm using it solely for the entire financial sovereignty pack. There's no trust required, which eliminates tons of flaws. It's always online. It's hard cash. It's censorship resistant. It's faster than banks.

There's no way to have the above without a blockchain. Therefore, blockchain exists to satisfy these needs.

We're trying to comprehend their way of thinking, though. We're having this discussion to conclude if the NFTs can indeed have a legitimate and practical usage.

If the general public losses interest in it, people aren't going to play it anymore. It's the same for blockchain or traditional games. I am not sure what exactly you mean with shut down.

Yes, an action game developed by company X could have the same type of characters as one developed by company Y if the two entities made such agreements. Or the same characters as a newer version of the game. You could than use a character you already developed in the past or sell it if you no longer have a need for it. You really don't need a blockchain for it, you are right. You don't need a blockchain to make payments either, but we have it. My grandparents and parents don't understand why I need and want Bitcoin because they have lived their entire life without it and did just fine. And so did their parents. Blockchain games allow players to monetize their time, and if that's what people want, I don't mind it. Traditional games could do that as well and there wouldn't be a need for blockchain games. Instead, they prefer to fill their own pockets by forcing people to purchase in-game items and what not. None of that goes to the community of players.

This is the first time I hear that Steam is censoring and banning blockchain-based games. Like I mentioned before, I am not a gamer so I don't know the story behind it. At a first glance, I find it pretty pathetic and not that much different from what banks were or are still trying to do with Bitcoin and crypto. Or how YouTube censors things it doesn't like and doesn't suit them. I guess their is a certain fear there.     

I am sure there were such games, and there probably are a few right now. But that's maybe not a standard and a direction the gaming world is heading towards. Maybe gamers want more control, like we do when we use Bitcoin.   

You don't have to sell me on Bitcoin, I understand and appreciate it already. The thing is, you and me don't get to choose what others think. If a big enough community decides that's the correct path forward for various reasons, I wish them luck. It doesn't affect me the slightest if NFT gaming becomes a thing or the whole movement dies like the rest of the hype. Maybe this gaming thing will be the only thing still breathing a few years from now because people like to play games.

You see one of the biggest problems with your arguments (and a lot of others like it) is that you always say what you can do not why you should do it this way. It is like saying "If you want to travel to another city, you can walk thousands of kilometres." And you wouldn't be wrong, you can walk to another city, that is what people did hundreds of years ago (or used camel!) but it  doesn't mean you should do it this way.

I'm not really a gamer either but I've played some games back in my days. There was a game called Dragon Age where you could create your own character and save it both on your disk and later on EA servers or when it came to Steam you could save it in your Steam account. Then after they released Dragon Age 2 you could import that character (from your disk or your cloud) into that and follow the story that way since all your decisions in 1.0 affected some of the story in 2.0.
You owned that character since you had paid for it and you could transfer it to another game.
No NFT needed.

---

Now lets compare bitcoin.
With traditional currency (fiat) you have to use a third party to transfer it, specially large amounts and long distances. There is no other option but using a third party when sending money over the internet. That third party has been a nuisance for many reasons from security, trust issues and fraud to reversibility, high cost and slow speed.
When bitcoin came, it addressed these problems and solved them. Now you don't need a third party to send/receive money, it is very secure, it can not be reversed (after proper number of confirmation), it is cheap and fast, protects your privacy and a lot more.

The point is that bitcoin did address an existing problem and did actually solve it. Bitcoin is not just another way of doing things in a poorer way, it is actually an alternative way of doing things in a better way.
My point is that you can't say the same thing for NFTs or tokens in general.

Actually you can transfer your account/character if creator/owner of the other game support it it. While i don't know if there are any game which allow do it, forum "AltcoinsTalks" allow you to transfer your rank from Bitcointalk with few condition[1].


Only true if it's offline game and you never make backup.


I don't play game much, but i've seen few game which allow you to import your character appearance/progress from previous game. If your game doesn't support it, you're out of luck.


While you made good point, i wonder how many gamers who actually care about advantage of NFT for their game when many of them hate it[2].

[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--5290710
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/q8rc4x/steam_will_be_kicking_all_blockchain_games_off/

And what happens if the game shuts down?

Doesn't that mean that the developer has to use the same kind of character properties? Also, what's the need for a blockchain if that's all you want? Export your character in a .chr format and import it wherever and whenever you want.

But, a character from, say GTA V, should only be playable in GTA V or even into few other versions of the game. Don't you already trust Rockstar Games for keeping their servers running? Isn't there already a central point of failure?

Forget about the digital artwork non-sense. People will lose interest in that sooner or later.

Imagine you guys are gamers. You play a blockchain-based game that supports NFTs where you create your own characters. Those characters need to be trained to acquire skills. Fighting skills, armory, speed, etc., etc. Let's compare this character evolution in the game to activity points on Bitcointalk. It takes time and hard work to build-up your account/character. With traditional games, you never become the real owner of that character you spent time creating. You can't transfer them between games. If your hard drive fails, your data is lost, and your game progress and characters are lost as well. When the game developer released a 2nd edition of the game, you have to start from 0 again. But if you could make it your own NFT, it's yours. Now imagine if you could import/export these characters and use them in different games. There is your use case, and that creates a market and demand. I am not a gamer, it doesn't affect me personally, but I understand how this would appeal to those who are.       

some nfts don't really any value adding proposition i think we all can agree on that but that doesn't mean they're all like that. some people buy nfts to gain some added benefit such as a membership to some exclusive "club" for example:

When you buy a Bored Ape, you’re not simply buying an avatar or a provably-rare piece of art. You are gaining membership access to a club whose benefits and offerings will increase over time. Your Bored Ape can serve as your digital identity, and open digital doors for you.

whether those benefits are valuable and worth the price paid, i dont know.