Topic: human mineable and proof of play Altcoins - page 2. (Read 3255 times)

it's the other way around: any computer game can be reduced to the 3sat problem, the interesting and not always possible part is reducing 3sat to the game in question. And it turns out it can be done for tetris. All of the following problems for tetris are np complete:
- Maximizing the number of rows cleared while playing the given piece sequence.
- Maximizing the number of pieces placed before a loss occurs.
- Maximizing the number of simultaneous clearing of four rows.
- Minimizing the height of the highest filled grid square over the course of the sequence.

this means tetris could be used to solve 3sat! you said it yourself: the solver is exponential. The steepness of the curve and the required length for the sequence... well, that remains to be seen.... maybe more complexity can be added by making the playing area wider, or some other small variation to the game that would add more possibilities for each move

we may be getting off-topic with the tetris-specific discussion, but I'm exploring the idea because I feel a tetris-coin would be cool, even if bot-dominated and eventually unplayable by non-augmented humans, still cool

You mistook me.  Tetris could only offer "trivial" proofs, and trivial proofs can not secure depth on the chain.

Any game which could be solved "virtually instantly" by even low resource computing devices doesn't offer any security at all.  (Domob's concern is that any given game might eventually be found to be in this category, but I don't necessarily share this concern.  For example, many games are formally reducible to the 3sat problem and as such could be asserted to be sufficiently strong... unfortunately none of the ones I know of offhand would be very fun, they are really just academic exercises.)


I promise you that tetris really cannot work in any reasonable way as the proof function!

It is doable.  Challenges which involve traversal of some dynamic terrain under some constraints of simulated physics seem to "naturally" fit.


To a bot, there is no such thing as "off screen" so this really just gives some more disadvantage to humans, unfortunately,


This, on the other hand, is precisely the sort of thing that does to opposite to bots, makes solutions harder to devise.  Most AI algorithms are very good at very consistent/repetitive tasks.  One big reason MOTO was so quickly botted was that it is a single challenge - move toward coin without becoming dead.  Anything that introduces some additional challenge to be considered significantly complicates creating a successful bot.  We call this "modality" referring to the number of modal states that a solver must "potentially be in" while solving.  MOTO has zero modality, so bots can be more or less internally stateless.  They don't need to remember what they just did or "think about" what *sort* of thing they are going to do next because it is always the same one thing - move toward coin without becoming dead.  If a bot has to decide if it is next going to move toward the coin or move away from the coin to avoid an oil slick that will cost it time (just as a wild example) the AI solver will become notably less effective.

Part of why HUC is not just entirely dominated by bots is the fact that the bots must deal with more than just "go pick up coin from spawn and return to base."  They need to decide when to use avoidance tactics to not get blown up by hostile generals.  If someone else gets blown up, they need to decide if it is worth moving in to try to grab the dropped coin.  More advanced bots will manage multiple bots in coordination, with different roles or even complex role states.  (The bot might need to decide when to turn an aggressive hunter general bot into a coin grabber bot, or vice versa.  The bot might need to decide that one bot should stop picking up coins and defend another bot that is already holding many coins, etc.  There are many "potential internal states" to be considered, making bots far less trivial.)


As I've said before, on a long enough curve bots will outperform humans on any given task.  Trying to devise some mechanism for excluding bots entirely is an exercise in futility.


As we've now learned from MOTO, it is important to be very very careful with the network's definition of difficulty of proof over block depth.  The more thought I give to these topics the more that I feel that having simple and well defined difficulty scales will be both central and crucial to the success or failure of these kinds of systems.  Arguably, having a poorly defined scale of difficulty is the only actual technical mistake the MOTO developers made, and it created a multitude of problematic side effects that we're now retroactively repairing piece-wise.

but we could adapt the game: show the player all the future pieces and add a "rewind" button as in MOTO... anyway... I'm just saying it might be possible and fun (until bots)... we agree bots would win...
EDIT: I read somewhere that tetris is NP-complete, so yes: the solver is exponential


hehe, not enough for me but I'd think about it if there's more than that

Tetris can't work because there is a deterministic optimal solution if you know the upcoming sequence of blocks - which you must.  The search space for each block state is only a few thousand nodes, so although the complexity of the solver is exponential in the number of pieces used the complexity curve has a low coefficient, it is not steep.  (You'd need some infeasably large game before it would become any sort of challenge at all for a bot, at which point it becomes pointless to humans as a game.)  It wouldn't even be a matter of level iteration to find an easy level, you could just "auto solve" any given level.  A game where the primary challenge is any form of "the player doesn't know what's coming next" simply doesn't work.


I was asked about it, so at least one random internet user would be interested.

My suspicion is that any game that people tend to pride themselves on being "really awesome at" would have interest.  This probably means most any game.

Asteroid-Coin

Based on the classic game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSLZmtwJHJw

--

In motocoin the problem for the "finding maps" is you can fall to the coin - even if you stick in the obstacles i suggested it probably still won't work (although maybe make more difficult if the angle of the fall is much greater as suggested [to find a map]). I think Huntercraftmine or the others will fix this eventually though.

--

If based on asteroid - without being able to fire.. the start can be in the bottom left, the coin can be in the top right..
Asteroids then scroll across the screen (can even scroll both ways - similar to frogger)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9fO-YuWPSk

The asteroids which scroll across : Many are generated (lots off screen).. so that computing a path is more difficult (time consuming).

There could also be some asteroids which have a "stronger gravity" pull .. e.g. 1 in 6 asteroids. .. and even mini worm holes with very strong gravity. To add some complexity.

Obviously, everything is bot-able  - not sure how long it would last

increasing difficulty could add more "gravity asteroids" and make them scroll faster

You're right, however with some ingenuity lots of games could be adapted to fit the needs... tetris!? that's quite feasible... I'd do it but it would quickly turn hard to play and become a race on how quickly could bots iterate thru nonces until getting the easiest game... (kinda like MOTO) in this case the challenge to "find mechanisms which allow for both bots and humans to be able to mine "peacefully" together"... would be too hard I'm afraid


would there really be interest in a tetris coin?

Formally, yes, I'd agree.  The security of the network only falls over directly if the play is securing the transactions.  Arguably, though, if any human mining system is dominated by a small set of miners this still centralizes issuance of the coin, creating a different (social) risk, even though the direct (technical) risk to tx selection is not there.


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly here.  Just sticking an arbitrary game challenge in as the proof function doesn't generally work, as most games are not sufficient.  You wouldn't believe how many requests I've received to do something like motocoin, but using something like "temple run" or "tetris" games as the proof function....

You really need a challenge function which is "perfect information" and for which the solution finding is sufficiently difficult.  (For now, anyway.  Some more contemporary crypto technologies might change this in the future.)


In the case of MOTO, I'd disagree that this is likely.  This was actually my biggest skepticism about MOTO, initially, and I of course set about trying to find such an ideal solver.  "Breaking" the map generation step is isomorphic to breaking sha512, so this is obviously not an option, making the physics simulation itself the only viable target.  The physics simulation is actually fairly strong, with a wide breadth of iterated multipliers creating both a very high cycle requirement and a cascading output effect.  In a sense, the MOTO challenge is actually just a large hierarchy of factorization problems, and I doubt anyone is going to make any sudden strides in factoring.

Of course there is the possibility for better specialized learners, and this is even likely to occur.  However, I don't expect these approaches to be able to suddenly push a MOTO solver into a new complexity family somehow.

If you think you have an idea for an approach that could, I'm all ears!


I'm not sure that I'd agree, here, but that is an entirely different sort of conversation, and mostly out of context.


Only if we are talking about a significant change in expected computational complexity.  If someone could establish a "reverse the physics" solution for MOTO which did not bump into a significant factorization challenge, for example.  I'm highly skeptical that this could happen for the MOTO function, but it is certainly a possibility.  By some argument it is also "possible" that someone finds a trivial collision generation for sha2, scrypt, etc.  (Of course if this were to happen it would spell bigger problems for the world than just the failure of bitcoin and the other crypto currency networks.)

In any case, part of the reasoning behind my recent patch proposals to MOTO is that if any such ideal solver were found, the network would just revert to a classic PoW challenge to keep the network secure until the proof function could be adjusted.  After MOTO does finally fork onto the new network rules an attacker would need to not only find this ideal solver, but then would also need to overcome this additional work requirement, which we can assume is simply not going to happen.  I'd imagine that future proof-of-play coins would also include such "work fallback" safeguards.

Interesting discussion!  Let me just join in to correct that in the quote above, you probably mean "Proof-of-Play" instead of "human-minable".  HUC is explicitly not insecure due to (lack of) bots, since the security comes from plain old (merge-mined) hardware PoW.  Also, I have to make the same statement as "always" in this context, namely that I personally am still sceptical about the security of PoP in general - especially when there are bots, IMHO the hashing strength depends critically on the used algorithm in the bot logic.  And I think it is much more likely that an order-of-magnitude improvement in the algorithm is found (or even something vastly better, think O(n^2) vs O(n log n) algorithm or something like that), than order-of-magnitude improvements in hardware.  Even the steps from CPU to GPU to FPGA and final ASICs are somewhat predictable and controlled, while one innovation in the bot algorithm / strategy may put someone into the ability to 99.9% attack the network.

Yes, and I think this aligns with my prior definitions, though I'm not sure what "the rest" means to refer to here.  There are only HUC and MOTO! 


Yes, in fact I think even with these two new terms we still have not entirely elided the distinctions.  Prior to these third gen coins the "mining" term referred to both coin-base claim semantics and chain-depth security semantics, because they were always the same network rule to accomplish both.  (Some form of either "Find partial collide => increment depth and claim coin" or "be next stake signatory => increment depth and claim coin" generally)  The particular distinction that HUC makes is that it explicitly separates out additional rules for coin claiming, that have nothing to do, directly, with the security threshold function. ("Find partial collide => increment depth and claim coin" with the alternative "Bank at base => claim coin" included.)

Currently, MOTO does still have this symmetry in semantics between coin claim and security function, but it is likely that this will not remain the case for long.


Again, I argue that any human mine-able coin which is *not* being also mined by bots is inherently insecure, and will operate at the whims of the humans who are most effective at mining it.  When MOTO was new, and bots were still not dominant, skilled players could easily 51% attack the network simply by waiting for "off peak play hours" when competition was naturally low.  Even if there is "round the clock play" by some seasoned players, if there is not continuous and automated competition for those most-skilled players to work against they could simply collude and coordinate their tx selection to control the network.  Basically, any coin which is solely human mined is inherently centralized at the point of the most skilled humans playing at any given moment.

The challenge will be twofold.  In the short term, we must find mechanisms which allow for both bots and humans to be able to mine "peacefully" together.  HUC accomplishes this very well, as a side effect of design.  In MOTO, this is not quite the case and bot operation has significantly interfered with human miners.  I have a proposal to rectify that for MOTO, but the lead dev is still skeptical about it.  (Though he hasn't yet been able to clearly explain why, afaict.)  The longer-term challenge will be in finding game designs that are both fun and "evenly matched" for an AI and a human, so that a bot/human distribution ratio can be arrived at naturally, as in HUC, and not explicitly constrained, as in my proposal for MOTO.  This second part will be a significant challenge!

HunterMinerCrafter, I agree with your explanations:

MOTO is the only true PoP, however I feel there has to be a distinction between HUC and the rest. After all, the game is actually embedded in the blockchain and it can be used to generate coins, even if the game itself doesn't secure the network. Maybe we can extend the definition of "mining" to any means of "creating coins", so in this case HUC could be "human mineable" but not "Proof of Play". Or we could make up another term, whatever, but it deserves a distinction.

I'd like to add that I'd bet that all PoP will eventually be mineable by bots, which would eventually outplay humans and make human-mining impossible or at least unprofitable. I like the concept and I think it can be useful to push the boundaries of AI, but don't expect to make money by playing, at least not in the long term.

I like the topic so-much, I wrote about it. Please check out my blog http://aweesomealtcoin.blogspot.com

You're right, this isn't a thread about HYPER, but HYPER has become the canonical example of "how not to do it."  Understanding proof-of-play concepts isn't trivial, and often it is best to explain things by counter-example.

As for HUC, much of the development done by domob etc has been focused around game-play aspects.  If you haven't played HUC under the new rules I'd urge you to check it out, you may find it has become much more fun now.


I'm not criticizing either, I'm just trying to understand both.  I really see no appeal to HYPER and am a bit boggled by the fact that anyone would.    At best it is a misguided (probably even fatally flawed) endeavor and at worse it is an entirely unfair proposition.  Why exactly would anyone have a preference for it?  You've said things like the "focus" is on the game, but have not been able to explain what this means.  I can go think about a nintendo cartridge for hours, will you pay me for that too?  You've said it is about the games being fun, but the games involved are nothing to do with the coin.  CS and Minecraft are probably very fun games, but that has nothing to do with any crypto currency as far as I am aware.  I really just don't understand any of it!


The whole point is that they can do such things without ever playing the games themselves.  They can "win the game" without ever playing it in any sense, if they want to.  Worse, they can do so without anyone even having any opportunity to know it has happened!  Say what you will about trust, this ultimately comes down to simply being an irrational wager.  I don't understand why anyone would ever make such a bet, and send their money into such a server.


Yes, precisely this.  People want the items so the server operators decide to flood the market simply because they can, at the expense of anyone who did something "silly" like investing time or money into obtaining the item while it was still rare.  This is precisely the concern.


No crypto-currency eliminates trust.  The idea is not to require unreasonable trust.  Trusting that some random anon on the internet will not cheat at a game to take your money doesn't sound like a reasonable extension of trust, to me.

Not to mention that when you send your money into those servers, you are trusting those anons not only to not cheat you, but also to keep your assets safe and secured while they reside at their servers.  We all know how well that tends to work out wrt cryptos.  If you think this behavior is also reasonable then you must have missed that whole story about that mtgox place, or any of the many other cases.

If you think this is all reasonable (even advisable) behavior, I'd like to invite you to come play on my brand new pvp-for-BTC counterstrike server.  I promise it doesn't cheat and bias in favor of certain players.  I promise it won't get hacked by some shadowy figure who may or may not actually just be me absconding.  I promise no harddrive will crash and lose all the wallet coins.  No really, just trust me.


This would have to assume that they retain enough coins to stake enough coins to do their giveaways only of staked coins.  Either way, you have a problem of eventual economic equilibrium in the distribution model, and it is unsustainable.  You can't have your cake and eat it too, here.  Either the devs hold onto the coins for staking and amass a relative fortune, or they give them away over a finite period and eventually run out.  It doesn't seem to me that there is an outcome that doesn't lead to an eventual meltdown.


What bounties?  How does HYPER represent or establish any community of gamers?  (It seems to me that the gaming community is already established in any such model.)


This just avoids the question with, at best, an answer depending solely upon circular logic.  I ask what is purported to draw speculation, and you reply "speculation."  I'm starting to see a pattern to your catch 22 reasoning process.

What are you speculating as the potentiality by which this coin earns an ROI, other than "other speculators might speculate on it?"  This can't be held as the only reasoning for a speculative investment, as it is a truism for any asset.


I don't even know what this means.

Firstly I'm not doubting that human mining and proof-of-play systems have this real value, and I perhaps shouldn't have even started talking about HYPER here because it isn't PoP and now you are really in attack mode because of this, but somebody else mentioned HYPER earlier in the thread and I just thought I'd add that I like it because the focus is on the game itself, and that the reason I haven't used PoP games like HUC is because the focus is on the proof and not the play, which doesn't look fun enough for me to want to spend my valuable time doing it.

I am not trying to claim that HYPER is superior to HunterCoin or that their method is superior to proof of play, I am just expressing my opinion, and I think you would do better to spend your energy on presenting a positive case for HunterCoin rather than just criticizing HYPER and my personal preferences.

Secondly it seems like it would be quite clear when trading that if you spend X you get Y. I suppose they could play the game themselves and give themselves lots of extra items and resources to sell - but that would flood the market and crash the price, and in any case they would probably be selling items in-game to people who wanted them anyway so why bother?

You are right that some trust is required, and I know that amongst some crypto devs eliminating trust is a core belief. I see that in many cases eliminating the need for trust is a really good thing, but personally I'm not a zealot about it - I actually don't mind trusting people sometimes (this is one of the reasons why I've mostly been interested in Ripple up to now, because it codifies and constrains trust relationships rather than seeking to eliminate them).


I refer you to my previous statements about PoS generated coins being used to fund games.


Bounties, community of gamers to appeal to.


Speculative investment is speculative.


I think perhaps games developers should be subjected to a proof of play algorithm, lol.

Both are entirely suspect, though!  In the same way that we have no way to know that they are actually distributing premine giveaway coins through their servers we have no way to know that our in-game activities are being fairly evaluated by their servers, and as such have no way to know that they are fairly redistributing our coin!  (Bolded to emphasize that the very crux of the matter is the distinction between an "us" and a "them" in the first place!  If there were no central "them" and the entire system/network was composed of "us" the question never arises at all - and herein lies the real value of human mining and proof-of-play systems!)  Since the servers are entirely under central control we have no way to really verify who is actually beating who, besides blind trust and faith in the server operators.  If I'm going to put blind trust and faith behind some central video game servers, I'm going with Blizzard or Riot and not some random alt-coin anons.  At least Blizzard doesn't have any direct incentive to run unfair servers, in fact much the opposite.  The HYPER guys have every reason to run unfair servers and no real reason or incentive not to.  Rationally speaking, why wouldn't "they" be scamming "us"?  Give them enough fiscal motivation (read: high enough spot price on their coin) and I'm certain that they would, even if they are behaving in an altruistic way today.  "Everyone has a price."  Dangle enough free money in front of them and they'll eventually take it and run.

Their newly revised plan (I'm sure they are watching this thread closely) appears to involve inviting an even more diverse group of people into the set known as "them."  This just makes it ever more likely that some subset of these servers will simply lie about their function and/or operation in order to unfairly distribute (and/or redistribute) coins straight into the pockets of the server operators.


This just begs the question.  At some point they "run out of" premine for their game server giveaways (read: decide to stop giving away) inevitably.  In other words, the one real function they are actually performing so far, running some "promoted" game servers, is evidently unsustainable.  In a sense, they are simply doomed to eventually revert to being "just another alt" on their current course, no?


Sure, but this is now stepping far outside the context of this thread.  Probably those other game devs would just use BTC anyway, no?  What incentive does a third party have to use HYPER over BTC or any other given flavor-of-the-week coin?



So far all HYPER does to differentiate itself is running some off-the-shelf game servers, writing some brief fantasy plot, and drawing some pictures - all three things my 8 year old cousin does for fun.  I wouldn't expect much return out of a single 8-year-old's efforts, so why should speculators expect any return on HYPER?  A crypto-currency can not function without speculative investment, this is well understood.


I take anything claiming to be a proof very very seriously, as that is the sole function of proofs - to be taken seriously.  If you can't take a proof seriously (literally as seriously as you could possibly take a thing) then it isn't a very sound proof.



I was more asking for ideas of what games would be particularly good to have proven with a block-chain.

I don't think the main thing in terms of people gaining coins by playing the game is getting freebies from the developer - its trading game resources with other players and beating them at the game. There are some giveaways to get things started, but I think that's more of a promo than the core of what they are offering. I think the lion's share of what's left of the pre-mine that hasn't already been given out in early bounties is intended for developing the MMO, not giving out as freebies. Also I hope that other game developers, aside from the HYPER dev, will make games which use this as their in-game currency.


You are certainly right that its a risk. I wouldn't put a lot of money on it, and I wouldn't be particularly suprised if I lost my money. But at the same time you have to take a risk sometimes, and the current price of the coins is cheap enough for me to not mind taking a small punt. Also I have recieved some freebies, which may have coloured my perceptions a little.


I think you missed my lol. I didn't expect that to be taken seriously.


That's what I thought myself when the idea occured to me, don't know why I mentioned it really but you asked for ideas and I wanted to oblige.

Or, in other words, the dev gets to stake all the premine coins that he may or may not actually give away like he says he will, and get more coins?  I'm not sure how this is any advantage...  Further, my understanding with HYPER is that they are not actually running any game they have developed, just things like CS servers.  They promise to develop a game, I guess, but this is about as good to me as their promise that they won't just keep most of the premine for themselves.  How can I trust any of this?


Sure, it sounds cool because this is all they want out of it, sounding cool to make their (potentially empty) promises sound even better.  My really big concern here, though, is if they really believe in these technologies why would they not be building decentralized exchanges instead?  How do we know they aren't just building an exchange for them to cheat on as well?  (Front run, trade phantom assets, etc.)


I certainly wouldn't invest in some company where all they are really doing so far is running a few game servers.  I definitely wouldn't invest in this company if it appeared that the initial share distribution might be unfair, and in which no transparency in that distribution is offered.  I wouldn't invest in a company that claims to be using technologies like proof-of-play that they actually are not, even if they claim innocent confusion on the matter, simply because it leaves the cases as either they don't understand the underlying technologies or they were lying about their confusion.

I wouldn't invest in HYPER.

But that's just me, maybe we have different criteria for speculative ventures.


Plenty of decent indy games are out there.  There are also plenty of *legitimate* and traceable investments to be made in commercial game ventures that are actually producing code and demos instead of spending their time running some bizarre giveaway systems.  But again, maybe this just comes down to some very different criteria for assessing an investment.  Personally "we might maybe give away some coins if you play game on our servers" is not enough to draw my capital to the project.


Proof of tweet would rely on an assumption that twitter themselves won't cheat (or otherwise intervene) in some way.  Personally, this is not an assumption I'd be interesting in putting money behind.

Maybe we also have very different definitions of "proof" as well.


Sure, this would be a great form of human mining, but will be very difficult to pull off correctly.  There are a lot of (perhaps even counter-intuitive) constraints to be considered, and social factors to account for.


Anything I would have to say would probably have been invalidated by the recent rules changes.... the whole meta-game just got rocked with the introduction of the new balancing mechanisms.

Short term my only advice would be not to use the reference client wallet to play.  Probably this will remain good/valid advice on many human-mine coins to come in the future, because community developer resources will probably often outnumber official developer resources on a long enough curve in any such project.   

Three main things, at least for HYPER which is what I know about. 1) Game developer can hold the coins in hosted wallets whilst the player is using them in game, which means PoS helps to pay for game development. 2) Developing an in-game marketplace with virtual corporations and even in-game exchanges is something I like. Yes of course this can be done with other currencies and has been done in Second Life for a long time - which is also great! HYPER is planning to allow you to use Bitcoin and Devcoins in the game as well as HYPER - so nothing unique technologically about HYPER in this respect, just sounds cool what they want to do. 3) Buying coins in a project like this is sort of like buying shares in the game - I like the sound of the game they want to make, and if it is successful people will buy the coin to use in the game and the price will rise. Coins as a kind of virtual share is quite a common thing now, and I think it works.


oh, yes I see. You are right about this. But you can't develop a decent game without having money to pay for it.


I hope so

The only idea which has occured to me is the gamification of certain roles or actions within a coin's community, some of which may be provable (Proof of Tweet anyone? lol). That could be actions which improve or promote the coin, or the coin could be associated with an established community with its own goals. If the proof of play thing is more about providing human proof than about providing human play then perhaps moving away from a video game and more towards a purer kind of 'meta game' would work better. Btw, anything you have to say about the nature of the meta game in relation to HUC would be interesting to me.

Perhaps you would prefer the example be secondlife lindens or entropia ped, then, which can be freely moved (EDIT: really exchanged) in and out of the game world(s)?

In any case, none of these aspects require any new technology or new alt coin, people have been using bitcoin in these contexts just fine for years. (You can even "stake BTC" in certain Dragons Tale games and earn interest while you sleep!)  What do any of these other alt currencies really bring to the table in these respects?


You mistook me.  Yes, the staking of the currency is provably fair, like any PoS currency, but this has nothing to do with human mining or proof of play.

When I say you cannot verify that cheating is not occurring, I'm referring to cheating by the issuer, not the players/holders.  With HYPER you have no way to know that the developers are not actually keeping a significant portion of their millions of premine coins for themselves while claiming to be giving them away in their hosted games.  You can play some counterstrike and get gifted a few coins, but this is just a giveaway (nothing innovative about this) and not even a traceable one.  I wouldn't be surprised one bit if well over half of the coin "reserved for the giveaway" on many of these coins is never actually given away.  This is a problem.


HUC and MOTO might not be the sorts of game you'd enjoy playing (personally I find HUC to be much more fun than MOTO) but they still represent the beginning of the paradigm change, and will "light the way" for the future.  I'm sure they will not be the last word in "proven" gaming, and I imagine that before long we'll have quite a selection of game genres running on blockchains.  Eventually I'm sure there will be games which you will enjoy.  (Have any particular suggestions?  Some folks are talking about putting together a new proof-of-play game or two...)

Its not the same - you can't hold Everquest money in an independent wallet, transfer it onto other games, freely exchange it for other currencies, earn it through PoS.


Like you said yourself, you things like HYPER aren't generated in the game - they are generated like any other PoS crypto and the fairness can be checked just as you would with any other crypto, so your statement here is a straw man argument - you're inventing a problem just to look good knocking it down. The only way to cheat within the games its integrated into that I can think of would be to actually change your balance, which is something I think I would notice.


Perhaps, they are certainly a great innovation for cryptos, my main point is that for that phenomenal shift to happen - to appeal to people like me who aren't programmers with a serious interest in how the code works - the main thing is simply how much fun the game is. If someone can make a proper PoP game which fulfills the definition here AND is great fun to play then you will be right, but I don't personally think that is the case yet.