It is a very good initiative but it is true that piracy will definitely hit the idea so in my idea to counter the piracy you have to prepare from the charter and initiation stage for that you have to more specific and be update about the newest processes of piracy.
Cheers,
SJD, CEO,
https://bitcoinmix.org/
Topic: New? idea: Gamecoins (Read 1436 times)
software licensing will allow you to get rid of illegal and pirated content that can be infected.
This does not stop someone from changing the:
if( verifyOwnership() )
letPlay();
to:
if( true )
letPlay();
through a mixture of stack/trace and reverse compilation. Simply put, this is the exact reason almost no piracy countermeasure will ever work. Any code you write to limit the gameplay, check licenses, etc. can be modified in the resulting binary. You can obfuscate and complicate this process, but as was seen with Spore (which quickly became the most pirated game in existence simply due to spite of the heavy DRM) this just serves as an additional incentive to crackers.
if( verifyOwnership() )
letPlay();
to:
if( true )
letPlay();
through a mixture of stack/trace and reverse compilation. Simply put, this is the exact reason almost no piracy countermeasure will ever work. Any code you write to limit the gameplay, check licenses, etc. can be modified in the resulting binary. You can obfuscate and complicate this process, but as was seen with Spore (which quickly became the most pirated game in existence simply due to spite of the heavy DRM) this just serves as an additional incentive to crackers.
What are your thoughts on the idea that even though piracy might not be able to be ever truly resolved - the fact that many gaming companies are looking to blockchain for proof of ownership so that gamers can trade/exchange assets - the idea being that the blockchain verifies proof of scarcity?
Do you think that creative people will still find a way to cheat this process somehow or no?
There are projects applying the tokens in the gaming sphere not for the copyright issues, but for the tournament rewards. For example one of those is mobile go, showing good dynamics.
You misunderstand - the game would read the ownership identity from the local wallet (which includes the private keys, so can't be shared with users who do not trust each other fully). It would subsequently verify this ownership with the real block chain. Faking this would be as difficult as faking ownership of a bitcoin.
No, my idea is to buy a new game with freshly created Gamecoin wallet. Then, distribute the game with that wallet.
For my own games which I do not want to spread, I will use my own private wallet.
This does not stop someone from changing the:
if( verifyOwnership() )
letPlay();
to:
if( true )
letPlay();
through a mixture of stack/trace and reverse compilation. Simply put, this is the exact reason almost no piracy countermeasure will ever work. Any code you write to limit the gameplay, check licenses, etc. can be modified in the resulting binary. You can obfuscate and complicate this process, but as was seen with Spore (which quickly became the most pirated game in existence simply due to spite of the heavy DRM) this just serves as an additional incentive to crackers.
if( verifyOwnership() )
letPlay();
to:
if( true )
letPlay();
through a mixture of stack/trace and reverse compilation. Simply put, this is the exact reason almost no piracy countermeasure will ever work. Any code you write to limit the gameplay, check licenses, etc. can be modified in the resulting binary. You can obfuscate and complicate this process, but as was seen with Spore (which quickly became the most pirated game in existence simply due to spite of the heavy DRM) this just serves as an additional incentive to crackers.
You misunderstand - the game would read the ownership identity from the local wallet (which includes the private keys, so can't be shared with users who do not trust each other fully). It would subsequently verify this ownership with the real block chain. Faking this would be as difficult as faking ownership of a bitcoin.
As the software runs, it can verify current ownership from the block chain against the users' private keys. Sharing of private keys would of course be possible but would result in anyone you shared them with having the ability to transfer all your licenses away from you.
Sorry, but this will not prevent anyone to use new wallet for each new game. Thus, the game will be pirated including the single-purpose wallet of Gamecoin. It will not prevent anything.
An alternative strategy for software licenses, which could be used for a broader variety of uses, and would not require a new chain, but would require additions to the bitcoin protocol:
MagicCoins - another crappy name, but bear with me.
MagicCoins would reside in the standard bitcoin block chain, and would act like bitcoins with a few differences. Any user would be free to create a MagicCoin, with their private key. When it is offered to the bitcoin network, an inclusion bounty is offered. Miner of first block to include it would receive the bounty, similar to today's transaction fees. Possibly a minimum would be required.
MagicCoins would be indivisible. Once sold to a user, their ownership would change exactly as a bitcoin chunk does today. Current status would be verifiable through the bitcoin block chain so software providers could verify ownership.
Optionally, transfer fees could be addressed: When created, a MagicCoin's transfer fee/percentage is set by the creator. In order to transfer ownership from one end-user to another, that fee would go to the creator's public address.
MagicCoins - another crappy name, but bear with me.
MagicCoins would reside in the standard bitcoin block chain, and would act like bitcoins with a few differences. Any user would be free to create a MagicCoin, with their private key. When it is offered to the bitcoin network, an inclusion bounty is offered. Miner of first block to include it would receive the bounty, similar to today's transaction fees. Possibly a minimum would be required.
MagicCoins would be indivisible. Once sold to a user, their ownership would change exactly as a bitcoin chunk does today. Current status would be verifiable through the bitcoin block chain so software providers could verify ownership.
Optionally, transfer fees could be addressed: When created, a MagicCoin's transfer fee/percentage is set by the creator. In order to transfer ownership from one end-user to another, that fee would go to the creator's public address.
Apologize if this has bee discussed before, but if so I missed it. With the recent uptick in discussion on namecoins, I began to wonder if a similar system couldn't be used for software licensing (especially PC games and shareware programs.)
For want of a better name, I'll refer to these as gamecoins, but keep in mind they could be used for any licensed software.
Similar to namecoins, gamecoins would share much of the architecture design of bitcoins, would be purchased only for bitcoins, and mine-able as well.
A software developer who desires to offer his software for gamecoins would set a price for a) new licenses, and b) license transfers. They may set a 0 price for transfers, in which case they make income only off the initial purchase. Or, they may set a transfer price (fixed or percentage of sale) for transfers, in which case they make a continuing trickle as their game spreads, rather than filling the coffers of Gamestop.
As the software runs, it can verify current ownership from the block chain against the users' private keys. Sharing of private keys would of course be possible but would result in anyone you shared them with having the ability to transfer all your licenses away from you.
This kind of system would be beneficial to end users:
- DRM restrictions would be essentially gone - install on as many PCs as you like and share your gamecoin wallet between them.
- Easily sell games you no longer use, with no risk of fraud/chargebacks
- Buy used games with confidence - download from the software developer for free and activate via purchase of license
For the publisher:
- Eliminate the Gamestop leech, and instead make some profit from transfers (using some of this to pay for continuing software download availability)
Anyways, just musing out loud. Feel free to tear it apart.
For want of a better name, I'll refer to these as gamecoins, but keep in mind they could be used for any licensed software.
Similar to namecoins, gamecoins would share much of the architecture design of bitcoins, would be purchased only for bitcoins, and mine-able as well.
A software developer who desires to offer his software for gamecoins would set a price for a) new licenses, and b) license transfers. They may set a 0 price for transfers, in which case they make income only off the initial purchase. Or, they may set a transfer price (fixed or percentage of sale) for transfers, in which case they make a continuing trickle as their game spreads, rather than filling the coffers of Gamestop.
As the software runs, it can verify current ownership from the block chain against the users' private keys. Sharing of private keys would of course be possible but would result in anyone you shared them with having the ability to transfer all your licenses away from you.
This kind of system would be beneficial to end users:
- DRM restrictions would be essentially gone - install on as many PCs as you like and share your gamecoin wallet between them.
- Easily sell games you no longer use, with no risk of fraud/chargebacks
- Buy used games with confidence - download from the software developer for free and activate via purchase of license
For the publisher:
- Eliminate the Gamestop leech, and instead make some profit from transfers (using some of this to pay for continuing software download availability)
Anyways, just musing out loud. Feel free to tear it apart.
Jump to: