The Pokemon Company has drawn the ire and attention of many, with a new job posting that is actively seeking employees with experience in uncharted territory for the Pokemon franchise. The hiring page shows that The Pokemon Company International wants to hire staff that has "deep knowledge and understanding of Web 3, [...] blockchain technologies, NFT, and/or metaverse. They also appear to be looking for someone who can "connect the relevance of potential partners or technologies with Pokemon's existing assets", which has fans dramatically split between unease and excitement for what this might mean for the future.

The Pokemon Company isn't the first, and definitely won't be the last, in terms of businesses trying to incorporate elements of the blockchain into the video game industry. Despite harsh criticism in the past, Square Enix is still committed to pushing the idea of NFT games. Regardless, outside of the hiring page, nothing involving NFTs has been announced from The Pokemon Company, for now.

Pokémon company posted a job opening that encompasses Blockchain, NFT’s and Web3 technologies.

Oh no, please no 😨 pic.twitter.com/p0XrH0Eat3

— Pory (@pory_leeks) March 12, 2023

 

[Foxi4]

Explain to me how an RSA-2048 encrypted append-only database is less resilient then a blockchain. Don't deflect, I want to see your math on how one is more hardened against cyber attacks then the other, Ill accept answers in either Megahashes or TFlops of computing power. I get the feeling that you first learned about the concept of trying to store data and not letting it be modified in the past fives years since there have been solutions here for at least a decade before blockchain waltz'd in and said you can do it in a terrible trust-less way by burning the rainforest.

I don’t even have to touch upon cyberattacks and I won’t need any math - I can simply say “civil asset forfeiture” and call it a day.

I am not misunderstanding you, you are utilizing poor logic to offload the responsibility of trust onto a third party and off of the blockchain. "oh the blockchain verifies trust as long as you buy from a trusted vendor on the blockchain" is garbage circular logic and you know it is.

How is it circular? If you’re using a third-party, you are gaining additional flexibility and utility, but you are losing security. What’s circular about it? You’re the one who brought up “trusted vendors”. The only person I trust is me.

I am asking why a copy being a legitimate has any value whatsoever to the end user, since i do not believe it does. You seem really bad at answering my questions champ, I would make sure I am being concise and making an attempt to answer the other party before trying to pull out the "linguistic disconnect" card

Define value. It’s certainly valuable for collectors. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s valuable to you, but we’ve gotten to a point where video games are *graded* based on condition of the shrink wrap, so I suppose the answer is that value is in the eye of the beholder. Authenticity is certainly valuable to the right person. Nothing is valuable inherently - a caveman would choose a steel tool over a gold one given the choice based on utility, you’d probably pick the gold one based solely on the monetary value of its weight in gold - a concept completely alien to a caveman.

Is your argument that every single person who owns a house should be able to read the blockchain source code to verify it is legitimate. At a certain point in civilized society we must trust certain parties and the blockchain manages to verify trust by doing absolutely nothing to ensure it and forcing users to utilize third party software to glean any comprehensible data from it, and then when a trust error occurs just blame the third party. Vitalik himself has acknowledged this is a problem!

”At a certain point in society”? Please, I don’t trust my friends to order the right toppings on a pizza. Can things be better? Absolutely. Hopefully they will be.

 

[trillspector]

I don’t even have to touch upon cyberattacks and I won’t need any math - I can simply say “civil asset forfeiture” and call it a day.

That's not remotely clost to math, you silly goose. It's okay I'll wait for you to try again. Again as a refresher my question was

"Explain to me how an RSA-2048 encrypted append-only database is less resilient then a blockchain. Don't deflect, I want to see your math on how one is more hardened against cyber attacks then the other, Ill accept answers in either Megahashes or TFlops of computing power"

If blockchains are the logical solution you can surely answer this. Blockchains are vulnerable to cyber attacks too since it only takes compromising two parties at the moment to alter the Bitcoin blockchain. Give it another shot this time on topic, i believe in you

 

[tabzer]

Explain to me how an RSA-2048 encrypted append-only database is less resilient then a blockchain.

*delete*

Oops.

Don't worry, got a "backup" around here somewhere.

 

[trillspector]

*delete*

Oops.

Don't worry, got a "backup" around here somewhere.

do you not know what hashing is? it would be extremely easy to detect manipulations this way.

 

[Foxi4]

Admittedly for this, I looked at the largest hacks that occurred last year. The listed names were blockchain entities that were hacked and lost the money I mentioned. However, that's irrelevant to the point I'm making. The point is that the blockchain is not secure enough to be remotely usable.

Well, the notion alone is ridiculous. What you’re arguing is that you can’t trust the blockchain because theft and fraud occur. You do trust money.

While I get what you're saying, some folks are damned good at counterfeiting to the point that their work is indistinguishable from the original. It's surprisingly easy to do that with data. What happens when someone posing as the real guy succeeds and defrauds you? What recourse do you have? Counterfeits are currently a problem with this technology, even with people actively trying to verify their shit. It's very easy to accidentally buy a cert for something that the seller didn't actually own. Again, to the point where there are myriad guides on how to spot them.

It’s easy to make a lot of mistakes. I once bought a soda and I didn’t know it was sugar free until I took a sip. Revolting. My fault, should’ve read the label more carefully.

I'd like to think that if it was as impenetrable and as easily verifiable as you say, that such guides wouldn't need to exist. If it was as secure as you say, then those hacks that I mentioned from last year wouldn't have happened. At the end of the day, I simply do not see this technology being usable in any real capacity for at least the next few years, if not the foreseeable future.

It’s not that I “think” it’s impenetrable, it’s that I know it is. There’s no feasible way of creating a “real” fake token without access to the issuer’s credentials. You as a third party cannot do it.

Which is unfortunate, as I do see the potential upsides! But the downsides are big enough that it's hard to justify the use of blockchain for just about anything.

I’m glad that you see the benefits. Like I said, we’re still discussing the Wild West stage of Web3. A great many things will change over time, no doubt. We’ll never be able to fully eliminate theft and fraud, but we weren’t able to eliminate them in real life either, so that’s nothing new under the sun. Currently the big problem is awareness of how the system actually works, and what to look out for. This will come naturally as it becomes more mainstream, I think.

That's not remotely clost to math, you silly goose. It's okay I'll wait for you to try again. Again as a refresher my question was

"Explain to me how an RSA-2048 encrypted append-only database is less resilient then a blockchain. Don't deflect, I want to see your math on how one is more hardened against cyber attacks then the other, Ill accept answers in either Megahashes or TFlops of computing power"

If blockchains are the logical solution you can surely answer this. Blockchains are vulnerable to cyber attacks too since it only takes compromising two parties at the moment to alter the Bitcoin blockchain. Give it another shot this time on topic, i believe in you

I don’t have to deploy any math to outline a clear and irrefutable advantage of the blockchain over a government-ran database, and that advantage is seizure. In a blockchain environment the government can issue deeds, but it cannot revoke, modify or destroy them. Which part needs explaining? No amount of hashing or safeguards will protect a database from being modified by the party that runs it, or a third-party that gains the same level of access, either or. If anything, you’d have a bigger problem with phishing here - someone presenting themselves as you and modifying your entry without your knowledge (assuming they establish trust with the operator of the database). Surely you know that a huge number of big security breaches don’t start with green text scrolling across a screen - they start with a polite e-mail or phone call, or alternatively with someone being unscrupulous with their passwords.

 

[trillspector]

I don’t have to deploy any math to outline a clear and irrefutable advantage of the blockchain over a government-ran database, and that advantage is seizure. In a blockchain environment the government can issue deeds, but it cannot revoke, modify or destroy them. Which part needs explaining?

You can do that with an append only database encrypted with rsa-2048 too. I'm starting to get the feeling you dont know what RSA-2048 or Append Only mean. Its okay you can give it another shot, this time with math, i believe in you.

 

[Foxi4]

You can do that with an append only database encrypted with rsa-2048 too. I'm starting to get the feeling you dont know what RSA-2048 or Append Only mean. Its okay you can give it another shot, this time with math, i believe in you.

I’m well-aware of what a hashing algorithm is and “append-only” is self-explanatory. What I’m saying is that you’re putting an inordinate amount of trust in the operator of the database. It’s just a flag, bro. Be honest with me, mano a mano. Can you see the utility of the party in charge being able to add to the collective, but being otherwise removed from the process of trade, or management of ownership in general, yes or no? Because that’s where this conversation breaks down. I feel like we’re not understanding each other, and I want to find out where the disconnect is, sincerely.

EDIT: It’s supper time, so I’ll just add my final two cents and you can read it later. Hashing adds security, great. An append-only database allows the administrator to add new entries, but existing entries are immutable since there is no DELETE command. What’s important in the context of a deed is that there’s no UPDATE command either, so there can be no transfer of ownership - you could add new deeds to the register, but you couldn’t transfer them between people, you’d have to run a second non-append-only database to keep track of that, which would be more vulnerable. This is not the case on the blockchain as existing tokens can be traded between participants. Moreover, this can take place directly, without the Adminstrator’s participation or any third-party, at which point the only security that matters is your own. Could you make a ledger of deeds as an append-only database? Yes. Would it be vulnerable and less convenient compared to the blockchain? Also yes. The only way in which you could use an append-only database to track deeds is if you appended a new entry with each transfer of ownership. I hope you like big databases, because that one will grow faster than you think. Please don’t presume I’ve never seen SQL before - I might not be a master programmer, but I’ve been around. You seem unnecessarily hostile and refuse to acknowledge the obvious, and I’m not sure why.

 

[scoobydude51]

knowing TPC is a greedy company and how they're pushing GameFreak to release broken games, it was bound to happen.

 

[DuoForce]

Pokémon ended with Legends Arceus

 

[anhminh]

If anyone can stoop that low, it can only be Pokemon.

 

[chrisrlink]

ok and I thought making the 2 Paradox Pokemon timed exclusive and 1 each per game/account was low and now this (I missed the boat on the raids) TPC is fucking trash (I realy don't think GF has a choice in the matter for the crypto part of things personally theyve crossed into the "invasion of privacy" zone which is suable,the US needs rewrite the bernie convention to enable fair Use accross the board anyways back to the blockchain being an privacy issue if they start banning consoles for cheating even if you don't play pokemon online (which includes trading a legit beefed up pokemon (rare candy/stat boosters etc) i rather want the big N/GF?TPC HQ's to be pillaged and burned at that point

 

[Kwyjor]

"deep knowledge and understanding of Web 3, [...] blockchain technologies, NFT, and/or metaverse. They also appear to be looking for someone who can "connect the relevance of potential partners or technologies with Pokemon's existing assets"

Really now, one of these things is not like the other. Or has "metaverse" somehow become inextricably entwined with "blockchain" at some point?

This has nothing to do with Pokemon trying to get into NFTs or whatever; this is a job posting that is clearly the product of some deep cluelessness somewhere in the hierarchy. Or, more likely, they just wanted to set the Internet a-quiver and see what shook out. And if they're smart, they will end up hiring someone who ensures that they steer away from any such things until they finally fizzle out for good.

 

[SylverReZ]

People who use NFTs for marketing are complete scum bags and are a waste of time.
Pikachu, use investment. It was less effective.

 

[CathyRina]

I really don't see how tf this is supposed to benefit Pokemon games in any way what so ever.
If every pokemon is an NFT then the game would have to be always online, right? That already poses the danger of said game being unplayable without NSO (NFS reboot was unplayable without PS+ for example). Then there is the Issue that the Pokemons would have 0 value on the blockchain because you can catch an infinite amount of them in any game. Then, what's supposed to happen with all those NFT's once i go ahead and delete my save file. On top of that this is a kids game and Competetive pokemon has always been a joke unless you follow made-up rules by the community (Smogon). Who tf cares if someone hacks a Pokemon with plausible stats? Or RNG manipulates to catch a shiny legendary Pokemon with perfect IV "legitimately". This isn't a serious E-sports its a shitty monster collecting game aimed at 5 year olds.

And the funniest thing is that people always use the "this skin could be usable in a future game thanks to the blockchain" except You don't need the blockchain for that, Pokemon itself proved this by having all Pokemon compatible with future games since Gen 3 till Gen 8. The Issue why not many games do this is developer effort to keep implementing stuff like that and yeah after reaching 1000 pokemon at some point the effort isn't worth it anymore. And Gen 8 games were notorious for being hilariously incompatible with one another. This wont change due to the blockchain. Gamefreak is understaffed with too short deadlines. the blockchain wont fix this.

 

[jeremy2020]

I see this thread has that one guy that doesn't understand how the blockchain works, but swears it's a solution to a myriad of problems that have been solved for decades.

 

[FAST6191]

I see this thread has that one guy that doesn't understand how the blockchain works

I thought there were at least two (though one seemed more concerned with being a filthy hippy and complaining about power usage).

Nintendo could probably get on with normal databases for this and dodge the harder to reassign things in the event of lost passwords and stolen details but minor trifles really (not like they care when that happens now, would be interesting to see court cases), and if someone else is willing to effectively run your database and transaction server for you then so much the better as long as you can suitably divorce yourself from the inevitable money laundering and kids gambling that will result (oh no it is a public blockchain, not sure it would fly for PR but then neither would a normal server that out of band trades could be created with). At the same time NFT and blockchain tech is a selling point for many.

Equally I don't see the value in unique pokemon any more than I believed Prof Oak all those years ago when a considerable younger me was told it was my love for my pokemon that saw me beat the elite 4, however judging by the still thriving real money economies of plenty of even less interesting/likely to get attached games than virtual pet simulators then plenty seem to.

On solved decades ago then such things rather rely upon companies staying in business, and paying upkeep (legal compliance making it more than just a server you can stick on some future server where the usage is a rounding error). Get the right blockchain and I will bet on that being around in 2,3,4 decades than I would any company around today, much less tech/entertainment companies.

 

[Clydefrosch]

please, finally no cloning anymore

 

[Reploid]

Far better than to hire an actual writer or actual voice actors.

 

[Jayro]

We the consumers need to boycott this bullshit with our wallets. Stand back, and standby.

Post automatically merged: Mar 14, 2023

please, finally no cloning anymore

Pokemon legitimacy verification would be the only good thing I could see coming from this, stopping gen'd mons. But it feels like a huge waste of money invested on their end just for that.

 

[jesus96]

how about invest these resources into moving from the lazy 3ds era? most selled franchise yet they are lazy with their games....