Hacker News Reader

> NFTs could enable people to transfer digital assets between platforms without needing the platforms to talk to one another. I could buy an NFT of a 3D model of some Yeezy sneakers, and then bring that NFT to Fortnite for my avatar to wear there, and to the Metaverse to show off there, and to a sneakers forum to verify my ownership in the community there as well. That could be quite useful. 3D cosmetic assets for games and stuff is a massive market, and using NFTs would enable people to transfer goods between those markets. It'd only really work if the asset itself is stored in some sort of distributed architecture though (IPFS for example.)

This ignores the actual implementation. You still need the platforms to talk to one another in the design stage at least (the most difficult one) in order to be able to create an asset that can actually be used in different applications. If right now you cannot upload a 3D model to Fortnite straight away, why do you think it would be easy to do with NFTs?

Implementations are really really messy. I'm not expert but I would argue that likely most engines have slightly different ways of doing things like sneakers on character model. So you can't really transfer from one engine to other. Might work between Unreal-engine games, but even there there might be issues.

And already seen with NFTs, that are much simpler thing. Where does the data live? If it is not on blockchain how do you ensure it stays alive and is accessible. Is it somehow streamed when you load the game and object? Let's say there is dozen character each with multiple pieces of unique one of the kind objects. Maybe from dozens different servers? That will likely cause issues.

Or maybe everyone must include in download every other products stuff too? Seems unfeasible really.

And in the end why? Wouldn't it be better to try to sell a same kind of object in your own product and then make more money from that? Instead allowing use of objects from other places...

Wouldn't it be better to try to sell a same kind of object in your own product and then make more money from that? Instead allowing use of objects from other places...

Every business loves a walled garden because they can pretend that all the customers will spend all their money inside it, but it's anti-consumer, anti-choice, and if the business fails then everyone loses all the things they own there.

Plus, if people could bring their own assets to a game then the number and variety of things in the game grows significantly. It's no longer limited by what the producers can build themselves. For a lot of games, especially ones made by smaller companies, that could be a considerable boon.

If right now you cannot upload a 3D model to Fortnite straight away, why do you think it would be easy to do with NFTs?

I didn't say it would be. NFTs are about access control and ownership, not 3D models. That was only the example I've used. The (huge, but largely unrelated) issue there is about standardizing assets which would also need to be solved (gltf does go some way to doing that though ... it is "the gif of 3D models" according to Kronos). If it's easier to think about, try applying the same solution to unique avatars or something, where the display mechanism is solved.

> I didn't say it would be.

You said it would enable it. But the stopper about that implementation is not ownership tracking, it's integration. So it's an use case that's not enabled by NFTs, just an use case where you could use NFTs but also any other ownership tracking technology.

> If it's easier to think about, try applying the same solution to unique avatars or something, where the display mechanism is solved.

I can move my avatar image between games without requiring NFTs. Now, if you want "uniqueness", then again the problem is not solved by NFTs, but by some kind of DRM tech. What stops me from copying the image and using it? Or from minting my own NFT with the same image? Do you think that game platforms going to implement complex DRM solutions to avoid people from using avatars they don't own?

The overall point is a trend that I wrote in another comment [1]: just because X has not been done and crypto/NFTs can be used for X, that doesn't mean that crypto enables X. You might find that there are other issues that explain why X hasn't been done.

To this day, 99% of the times I see someone propose crypto/NFTs applications they haven't asked themselves the questions of whether you can do that (or a 90% similar thing) without crypto and why hasn't that been done yet. Possibly because when you ask those questions most of crypto use cases are not "use cases enabled by crypto" but "use cases where I can use crypto or other storage technology".

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29295514

What stops me from copying the image and using it?

Games would need to implement a mechanism so users could only use an NFT as an avatar. Or it'd attach a little tick to show you're the verified owner. Or something.

I've thought about this for about five minutes. I don't have a full working solution.

You might find that there are other issues that explain why X hasn't been done.

"It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist. It could simply be that no one has tried yet. Or the wrong people tried. Or people are trying right now and you haven't heard about it yet. Not seeing something is not evidence it can't be done. That's beyond ridiculous.

> "It hasn't been done so it probably can't be done" is a really dumb attitude. It's utterly defeatist.

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if something has not been done yet, you should think why that is. And if it turns out that someone could have already done it with existing technology, one should really consider why is that. Yes, maybe it's one of your reasons, or maybe is that it isn't worth it, or that there are implementation issues that are independent of the storage technology, or whatever. It's a basic step before evaluating any solution and it is missing constantly in crypto discussions. And the worst thing is that, when we point out that there are other issues apart from crypto/nocrypto, the only response we get is "but it could work" and "don't be defeatist".

That basic question could be applied to your avatar example. A game developer could implement a similar system where the only allowed avatars are the "official" ones, and you need to buy them. You don't need NFTs for that, and yet you don't see it a lot. I think PlayStation had only official avatars, but they discontinued them in the latest PS5. Could it be that it isn't a feature users want? That the development costs are greater than the possible profits?

> If you're buying diamonds or bananas or cobalt, and you need a provable supply chain though.. yeah.. it fits.

I've heard about this supposed use for blockchain before and I genuinely don't get it. So what if you have a tamper-proof blockchain containing information about a supply chain? How does this prove anything about the particular diamond you're selling me?

Again, this is a genuine question. Can someone please walk me through this? What information do I need to verify about the supply chain and how does blockchain help? How were people solving this problem before blockchain?

I’ve never been convinced by claims of using blockchains for probably supply chains. While it’s true a blockchain can’t provide a shared ledger that both parties can trust has not been tampered with after the fact, it doesn’t say anything about the world outside the blockchain, so does not remove the trust problem.