Hacker News Reader

Comment by depaya | Hacker News Reader

I think Minecraft is an interesting game to bring up since multiplayer in this game exists in a very decentralized way. Anybody can host a server and your possessions (etc) on that sever are completely unrelated to other servers.

One could imagine some sort of opt-in system that servers could enable that would allow for cosmetic items to travel with a player from server to server using NFTs as proof of ownership of the cosmetics.

There isn't a real reason for this to be done with NFTs vs some centralized database, but it does make more sense than the vast majority of games with are hosted on centralized systems already.

View on HN

There is also a real reason for it not to be done with NFTs: it would take about thirty seconds for someone to be scammed and open a support ticket with [whoever - it won't be the right person, but I guarantee someone is getting a support ticket] and they obviously won't be able to reverse the transaction, and also unclear if they could even ban the scammer (right now, bans are per-server, unless server owners have coordinated otherwise, which they generally don't). Regardless, the user is going to have a bad time, versus a system using a mutable system, where a human could investigate and reverse the issue.

Obviously support agents make mistakes sometimes too, but that's a heck of a lot rarer than scams in MMOs.

This exact point has been my hesitation with NFTs in general. I think the immutable nature of NFTs is actually very incompatible with human nature; we make mistakes and a completely unforgiving system is only going to make life harder.

> There isn't a real reason for this to be done with NFTs vs some centralized database

That's like the main point...

Well my point is that Minecraft does actually feature some decentralization vs the vast majority of online games.

Sure. But to give a more extreme example, Dungeons and Dragons is entirely decentralized with individual DMs hosting games however they choose without even the knowledge or consent or transaction with Wizards of the Coast. Now imagine a player demanding the right to access content from another campaign with another DM. Or even more laughably, that they "bought" with USD from someone who played a DnD game at some point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com