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

 

[tabzer]

Okay, so Metabook and NFTs are definitely going separate ways.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23638572/instagram-nft-meta-facebook-quits-digital-collectibles

It's like they said they were trying to hire someone with knowledge of ... hamburgers and sushi, and everyone's suddenly obsessed over what sort of grill they're going to buy.

Yeah, metaverse is a catchphrase that indicates that they either have no direction, or that they want correspondents to the solicitation to demonstrate the distinction. Who is a master of blockchain? High chance I'd say fuck off.

 

[Jayro]

Ten years ago they had the chance to go with NFC and it would have sold like hotcakes. What did they do? They released a bunch of low poly figurines that were solely compatible with Pokémon Rumble U. Screw those NFT scams and give us a Pokémon equivalent of those Animal Crossing amiibo cards. And then make it store Pokémon information that transfers over to newer games. That would have been a much more compelling and profitable idea than charging subscription fees for Pokémon Home...

NFC Pokemon trading seems like a no-brainer... Wonder why that's not a thing. Mon data isn't large at all, as long as the 3D models and textures aren't included... That could stay on the game-side of things. But alas, Amiibo information has been decrypted I believe, so people could just tamper with them on phones and computers before writing them back to the Amiibo.

 

[Foxi4]

Okay, so Metabook and NFTs are definitely going separate ways.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23638572/instagram-nft-meta-facebook-quits-digital-collectibles

It's like they said they were trying to hire someone with knowledge of ... hamburgers and sushi, and everyone's suddenly obsessed over what sort of grill they're going to buy.

Hey, don’t knock Korean grill and American sushi (it’s objectively better deep fried).

 

[trillspector]

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.

Most major governments have a level of hashing power where manipulating a blockchain is child's play for them through a 51% attack, so whether the government is allowed to edit the blockchain or not is a moot point. At a certain point you just need to trust the government since they have the computational & military power to steal your capital regardless of what you magic code says. People shilling scams should be met with hostility bro, you have no knowledge of what you are talking about and if the world worked the way you want it would be horrifying.

 

[G25900]

In my head it makes perfect sense. Take the humble Rattata. It’s nice if you catch a shiny one, that’s rare in and out of itself. Now, if you’re also aware that there’s only, say, X thousand of them out there, and this one’s yours, unique in both looks and stats, and there’ll never be a Rattata quite like this one, *that’s* rare. It makes shinies what they logically should be - a rare anomaly as opposed to a symbol of senseless farming.

You can already have that, the chances of two shiny Spinda's having the same spot pattern is so ridiculously small that it's pretty much guaranteed that the one you have is the only one in the world, yet no one really gives a shit about getting one, once you factor in stats and nature etc. the chance becomes so small that it's basically unreadable if you don't use scientific notation to write it.

They could apply the same system across everything, add colouration and/or marking differences to all Pokémon and they all basically become unique while using a significantly less environment damaging system.

The only reason people are going to care about this is because they're going to push it like it's something you should care about, everyone can already own their own unique Pokémon, but because GF haven't pushed that fact, nobody cares.

The amount of people that truly care about having a unique Pokémon is pretty small, what they mainly care about is having their favourite with the stats that's useful or what's currently the best in the meta to use. It's only through marketing spin is that going to change.

 

[tabzer]

Pokemon was NFT before NFT became uncool.

 

[Foxi4]

Most major governments have a level of hashing power where manipulating a blockchain is child's play for them through a 51% attack, so whether the government is allowed to edit the blockchain or not is a moot point. At a certain point you just need to trust the government since they have the computational & military power to steal your capital regardless of what you magic code says. People shilling scams should be met with hostility bro, you have no knowledge of what you are talking about and if the world worked the way you want it would be horrifying.

Funniest thing you’ve said so far. You can just politely agree to disagree and that’s fine. You have a negative opinion of the blockchain, I have a positive one. This was the case from the beginning of this conversation, which is why I specifically said that it’s pointless and nothing I can say will change your mind. You can stop reading here, we’re done.

For the benefit of other users, I’ll explain what you just said. A 51% attack is is an attack by a group of miners who control over 50% of the total hashing rate. In theory, with this much processing power, a group can inject an alternative block. In addition, it has to be executed with very precise timing as the attackers have to keep up with the block creation rate, so having a majority may not be enough. As you might imagine, this is prohibitively expensive to execute, it’s very much a “you versus the world” situation. The closest entity on the blockchain that would be capable of executing such an attack is FoundryUSA with a 23.7% stake. Such an attack is even less feasible in the context of Ethereum since its transition to proof-of-stake as opposed to proof-of-work. In order to execute it, one would have to *own* 51% of the total ETH stake. An attack attempt of this nature would cost approximately $9 billion dollars, admittedly peanuts for the U.S. government, but if anyone thinks it would go completely unnoticed on a *public ledger*, they’re out of their mind. 51% attacks generally affect smaller cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Bitcoin Gold. Let’s also not forget about the fact we’re discussing Pokémon, so the suggestion here is that the U.S. federal government would have a vested interest in… Pokémon with good IV’s, I suppose. To summarise, it is exceedingly unlikely to happen on any major blockchain, and if it did happen, it would likely be immediately detected. This is regardless of whether the attack was successful or not - you get one shot and you’re forked away. Gets real expensive real quick.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/vita...a-51-attack-on-eth-2-0-would-not-be-fatal/amp

This is contrasted by shilling for RSA which has been known to implement back doors in their cryptography tools for the purposes of NSA use…

https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20...-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to

…and got pwnd with a simple phishing attack, as I suggested a few pages ago. So much for big brain security company with super-duper secure servers and databases. One idiot is all it takes. The weak link sits between a monitor and an office chair - it’s called Steve, or Hank, insert generic name here. You don’t need fancy math, you just need to write an e-mail.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-full-story-of-the-stunning-rsa-hack-can-finally-be-told/

But yeah, just trust your government - that’s sound advice. Of course I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t encrypt sensitive data - you absolutely should as it will protect you from bad actors to a huge extent. That being said, the best protection you can possibly have is simply making the data inaccessible altogether.

You can already have that, the chances of two shiny Spinda's having the same spot pattern is so ridiculously small that it's pretty much guaranteed that the one you have is the only one in the world, yet no one really gives a shit about getting one, once you factor in stats and nature etc. the chance becomes so small that it's basically unreadable if you don't use scientific notation to write it.

They could apply the same system across everything, add colouration and/or marking differences to all Pokémon and they all basically become unique while using a significantly less environment damaging system.

The only reason people are going to care about this is because they're going to push it like it's something you should care about, everyone can already own their own unique Pokémon, but because GF haven't pushed that fact, nobody cares.

The amount of people that truly care about having a unique Pokémon is pretty small, what they mainly care about is having their favourite with the stats that's useful or what's currently the best in the meta to use. It's only through marketing spin is that going to change.

The current shiny forms are incredibly low-effort. As for people who care about having a unique Pokémon, this was a gimmick introduced as early as Silver/Gold, you had a separate Pokédex just for Unown alone.

 

[HarveyHouston]

Okay, I honestly didn't know these terms, but now after looking it up on Wikipedia, I can describe each one in possibly the most literal way possible.

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."​

Web 3 - A fantastical idea of an unrestricted internet not maintained by any one government or corporation, whereas the idea is actually impossible to come by because allowing for such would mean anarchy and free-flowing illegal activity.
Blockchain technologies - The backbone of cryptocurrency, or digital money like Bitcoin, which is great as a compliment to physical currency, but it shouldn't substitute physical currency due to it being easier to steal or be controlled by unscrupulous governments or businesses.
NFT - Short for "Non-Fungible Token", or the idea that digital works (art, mainly, but it can also be applied to text, music, or other media) can be sold with proof of ownership, and without the needs for DRM. Yeah, this has its issues already; need I say more?
Metaverse - The virtual reality world that Mark Zuckerberg wants people to stay in 24/7.

Game Freak... What the heck are you thinking? ...Oh, wait. Why do I care? THIS IS POKEMON! As a Pokemon hater, I'll just say... um, yay?

 

[CathyRina]

Okay, I honestly didn't know these terms, but now after looking it up on Wikipedia, I can describe each one in possibly the most literal way possible.

Web 3 - A fantastical idea of an unrestricted internet not maintained by any one government or corporation, whereas the idea is actually impossible to come by because allowing for such would mean anarchy and free-flowing illegal activity.
Blockchain technologies - The backbone of cryptocurrency, or digital money like Bitcoin, which is great as a compliment to physical currency, but it shouldn't substitute physical currency due to it being easier to steal or be controlled by unscrupulous governments or businesses.
NFT - Short for "Non-Fungible Token", or the idea that digital works (art, mainly, but it can also be applied to text, music, or other media) can be sold with proof of ownership, and without the needs for DRM. Yeah, this has its issues already; need I say more?
Metaverse - The virtual reality world that Mark Zuckerberg wants people to stay in 24/7.

Game Freak... What the heck are you thinking? ...Oh, wait. Why do I care? THIS IS POKEMON! As a Pokemon hater, I'll just say... um, yay?

Metaverses aren't even really that new of a concept. Any MMO or online game with Social features technically acts as a metaverse. Phantasy Star Online 2, World of Warcraft, FF14 and FF11, Second Life, VR Chat etc. etc.
It's just now with the Blockchain push people suddenly act like this is a completely new concept that has been unexplored for decades.

 

[Pandaxclone2]

I fail to see why we need validation that a Pokemon (the code and assets that makes up the character) is unique or worth something more. At the end of the day, it's all just 1s and 0s being generated under a set of game rules and RNG that serves the end purpose of giving us an entertaining experience. Even genned Pokemon isn't really an issue because the data should be no different than a legitimate Pokemon anyway, as it's always been. The exception of course is when Pokemon are blatantly edited with illegal stats and moves, in which case anti-cheat detection online should be sufficient to weed out any Pokemon performing actions that they shouldn't.

Sadly, I doubt this is going to result in any significant change in how customers consume Pokemon. It's a franchise that's become too big to fail and a decent number of the fanbase are apathetic about this tech to begin with, so long as they can play Pokemon. I was hoping there'd at least be a unified consensus against this tech in a game about catching fantasy animals for fun for those of us in this thread, let alone the terminally online who are familiar with these tech terms; alas, that ship has set sail.

 

[trillspector]

This is contrasted by shilling for RSA which has been known to implement back doors in their cryptography tools for the purposes of NSA use…

https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20...-a-back-door-into-rsa-encryption-according-to

…and got pwnd with a simple phishing attack, as I suggested a few pages ago. So much for big brain security company with super-duper secure servers and databases. One idiot is all it takes. The weak link sits between a monitor and an office chair - it’s called Steve, or Hank, insert generic name here. You don’t need fancy math, you just need to write an e-mail.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-full-story-of-the-stunning-rsa-hack-can-finally-be-told/

Lets start here, there is a group of like 7 people who could add any change to current BTC blockchain, again this has happened and lead to forks in the past, as well as multiple codebase changes in the past decade effecting transaction speed and how things are stored. Phishing can happen to anyone, completely irrelevant here. Blockchains are not immune to it, please see the ETH DAO or p much any other smart contract implementation. Thats ignoring ERC-20 contract protocol has been found to have backdoors already.

But yeah, just trust your government - that’s sound advice. Of course I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t encrypt sensitive data - you absolutely should as it will protect you from bad actors to a huge extent. That being said, the best protection you can possibly have is simply making the data inaccessible altogether.

Im not saying you should trust your government. I'm saying you have no hope if they decide to roll up with the military and say "give us your house" like it doesnt matter at all if your deed is on the blockchain, if people with guns come up to your house and say "either leave or die" your kinda boned already. Needing to trust the government for certain things is a side effect of living in a civilized society, regardless if you like it or not.

For the benefit of other users, I’ll explain what you just said. A 51% attack is is an attack by a group of miners who control over 50% of the total hashing rate. In theory, with this much processing power, a group can inject an alternative block. In addition, it has to be executed with very precise timing as the attackers have to keep up with the block creation rate, so having a majority may not be enough. As you might imagine, this is prohibitively expensive to execute, it’s very much a “you versus the world” situation. The closest entity on the blockchain that would be capable of executing such an attack is FoundryUSA with a 23.7% stake. Such an attack is even less feasible in the context of Ethereum since its transition to proof-of-stake as opposed to proof-of-work. In order to execute it, one would have to *own* 51% of the total ETH stake. An attack attempt of this nature would cost approximately $9 billion dollars, admittedly peanuts for the U.S. government, but if anyone thinks it would go completely unnoticed on a *public ledger*, they’re out of their mind. 51% attacks generally affect smaller cryptocurrencies like Litecoin or Bitcoin Gold. Let’s also not forget about the fact we’re discussing Pokémon, so the suggestion here is that the U.S. federal government would have a vested interest in… Pokémon with good IV’s, I suppose. To summarise, it is exceedingly unlikely to happen on any major blockchain, and if it did happen, it would likely be immediately detected. This is regardless of whether the attack was successful or not - you get one shot and you’re forked away. Gets real expensive real quick.

Ok so the united states government does change a public blockchain in plainview, what recourse do you have? A third of Americans thought the election was stolen and they threw a single temper tantrum and gave up, and you think people could rally to overthrow the powers that be over a blockchain?? Cmon thats as silly as it sounds. On the point of hashing power, all the major world powers have access to TSMC and can just cut in line whenever they want, ignoring the fact that they already have access to super computers with tens of thousands of gpus already. I never implied pokemon would be hacked by a 51% attack, im purely refering to your ludicrious idea of deeds being stored on a blockchain. Pokemon would be hit with phishing cuz blockchains have no way to validate the data going into them, so garbage in garbage out.

People are worried about the estimated energy usage of Bitcoin (pegged at around 121TWh of energy annually), but don’t even blink when global banking goes through approximately x50 that figure. Can’t be helped, I suppose.

Dont know how i missed this, Visa alone can handle 24000 transactions a second, bitcoin can do about 7 transactions a block which takes on average ten minutes. 50 times more power for no exaggeration 2million times more transactions seems like a good deal to me tbh. I've used bitcoin before in the early 2010s back when i was starry eyed and thought maybe it could work and you would not believe how slow and ineffecient of a system it is. Anyone who has actually used it knows deep down exactly why it will never hit mass adoption. Modern blockchains with gas fees and all their other things to try and speed things up still havent fixed the abysmally slowed transactions compared to even something slow by modern standards like paypal. Do you not understand how economies of scale work?


You asked prior where the disconnect is, and it fundementally is I understand what both blockchains and databases can do in the real world and how to get utility from them, you don't understand either of these, thinking blockchains can verify trust, which they fundamentally can not, they offload that to real people in third parties to divine what the data means (oracles). You are offering magic solutions to actual problems.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

You “don’t see the point” of platform-agnostic trading with unique hashes that cannot be duplicated, cheats or no cheats? Okay. What drawbacks? The blockchain exists regardless of whether you take advantage of it or not.

Slow speed of transactions, power and computing requirements, lack of privacy, mainly the fact that it doesn't have any actual use-case for Pokemon. Hashes already happen as mentioned below.
Platform-agnostic trading doesn't require the blockchain either, obviously TPC could release a program for whatever platform they want that enables trading, like they did for mobile devices with Pokemon Home. What it would enable would be for people to make their own trading clients for whatever platform they want, but yeah, good luck selling that idea to TPC. I think most people who trade Pokemon probably use the Pokemon games, it'd only be of real benefit to gaming journalism sites that can write some articles on people trading Pokemon using their smart fridges.

You can roll for a hash the moment the unit logs on, with some verification checks prior to the ID being assigned.

Which is what Home effectively already does. The alternative that has probably already been discussed in this thread is making the game online-only, with new Pokemon being created by the game server (oh no, centralisation) and not the client, which has obvious drawbacks and still doesn't require or benefit from a blockchain.

 

[Foxi4]

Lets start here, there is a group of like 7 people who could add any change to current BTC blockchain, again this has happened and lead to forks in the past, as well as multiple codebase changes in the past decade effecting transaction speed and how things are stored. Phishing can happen to anyone, completely irrelevant here. Blockchains are not immune to it, please see the ETH DAO or p much any other smart contract implementation. Thats ignoring ERC-20 contract protocol has been found to have backdoors already.

Im not saying you should trust your government. I'm saying you have no hope if they decide to roll up with the military and say "give us your house" like it doesnt matter at all if your deed is on the blockchain, if people with guns come up to your house and say "either leave or die" your kinda boned already. Needing to trust the government for certain things is a side effect of living in a civilized society, regardless if you like it or not.

Ok so the united states government does change a public blockchain in plainview, what recourse do you have? A third of Americans thought the election was stolen and they threw a single temper tantrum and gave up, and you think people could rally to overthrow the powers that be over a blockchain?? Cmon thats as silly as it sounds. On the point of hashing power, all the major world powers have access to TSMC and can just cut in line whenever they want, ignoring the fact that they already have access to super computers with tens of thousands of gpus already. I never implied pokemon would be hacked by a 51% attack, im purely refering to your ludicrious idea of deeds being stored on a blockchain. Pokemon would be hit with phishing cuz blockchains have no way to validate the data going into them, so garbage in garbage out.

Dont know how i missed this, Visa alone can handle 24000 transactions a second, bitcoin can do about 7 transactions a block which takes on average ten minutes. 50 times more power for no exaggeration 2million times more transactions seems like a good deal to me tbh. I've used bitcoin before in the early 2010s back when i was starry eyed and thought maybe it could work and you would not believe how slow and ineffecient of a system it is. Anyone who has actually used it knows deep down exactly why it will never hit mass adoption. Modern blockchains with gas fees and all their other things to try and speed things up still havent fixed the abysmally slowed transactions compared to even something slow by modern standards like paypal. Do you not understand how economies of scale work?


You asked prior where the disconnect is, and it fundementally is I understand what both blockchains and databases can do in the real world and how to get utility from them, you don't understand either of these, thinking blockchains can verify trust, which they fundamentally can not, they offload that to real people in third parties to divine what the data means (oracles). You are offering magic solutions to actual problems.

That’s fine. Like I said, you have a negative opinion of the blockchain, and that’s alright. We don’t have to split hairs about it, I’ve lost any real interest in discussing this with you. There are ways around some of the issues you’ve mentioned (particularly the scaling problem), others are more inherent to the current protocols which, as you say, are still in development, and probably will be for many years to come. What I take issue with is that you seem to have a problem with the mere concept of blockchains, which I find bizarre. If your best argument is “well, the government can do anything anyway because they can roll up to your house with a tank”, that’s an indication that we’ve reached a level of silly that’s simply not worth exploring. Yes, of course, they can technically do that - I think I’ll have more pressing concerns beyond real estate at that point though. You have to consider the fact that all things in life come with a cost benefit analysis attached to them - I very much doubt that F-16’s will be dispatched anyone’s way on an individual level, that’s more likely in a state of war. Meanwhile, I’m pretty certain German authorities *still* can’t access the Bitcoin wallet of that one guy they arrested in 2011, and in all likelyhood they never will. Don’t imply to me what I do and do not know - I haven’t done so to you.

Slow speed of transactions, power and computing requirements, lack of privacy, mainly the fact that it doesn't have any actual use-case for Pokemon. Hashes already happen as mentioned below.
Platform-agnostic trading doesn't require the blockchain either, obviously TPC could release a program for whatever platform they want that enables trading, like they did for mobile devices with Pokemon Home. What it would enable would be for people to make their own trading clients for whatever platform they want, but yeah, good luck selling that idea to TPC. I think most people who trade Pokemon probably use the Pokemon games, it'd only be of real benefit to gaming journalism sites that can write some articles on people trading Pokemon using their smart fridges.

Which is what Home effectively already does. The alternative that has probably already been discussed in this thread is making the game online-only, with new Pokemon being created by the game server (oh no, centralisation) and not the client, which has obvious drawbacks and still doesn't require or benefit from a blockchain.

We’ve already discussed Pokémon Home before - I brought it up as the current (shitty) solution. We’ve also talked a little bit on what could or couldn’t be added to it via blockchain (with much disagreement along the way), and retreading those steps really doesn’t seem appealing. If you’re really interested you can roll back a couple pages, I suppose. This is obviously purely theoretical - just because Nintendo’s looking for certain kinds of developers doesn’t mean that they’ll enter that space - just spitballing ideas.

 

[cucholix]

It could be cool if they contracted a competent studio to make decent games instead.

 

[86houdini]

Being a fan of this series is like being a fan of the Bills, even when things go right they still fumble the ball

 

[Dyhr]

Helps that Nintendo is a platform vs only a publisher. NFT can transcend platform support, so at least there's that.

It really can't, though. NFTs are always a garbage content delivery system because of how grossly inefficient and insecure they are.

You'd have to be an utter moron incapable of basic human thought to think "blockchains" or anything associated are ever a good idea when they're just reinventions of existing, more efficient wheels. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

 

[tabzer]

It really can't, though. NFTs are always a garbage content delivery system because of how grossly inefficient and insecure they are.

You'd have to be an utter moron incapable of basic human thought to think "blockchains" or anything associated are ever a good idea when they're just reinventions of existing, more efficient wheels. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Lol, use of nfts can transcend platform support. That's not an argument. It's a benefit nfc doesn't promise.

Like I said before, Pokemon are already NFT as far as you know. Don't come at me sideways with your uninformed shit.

 

[trillspector]

That’s fine. Like I said, you have a negative opinion of the blockchain, and that’s alright. We don’t have to split hairs about it, I’ve lost any real interest in discussing this with you. There are ways around some of the issues you’ve mentioned (particularly the scaling problem), others are more inherent to the current protocols which, as you say, are still in development, and probably will be for many years to come. What I take issue with is that you seem to have a problem with the mere concept of blockchains, which I find bizarre. If your best argument is “well, the government can do anything anyway because they can roll up to your house with a tank”, that’s an indication that we’ve reached a level of silly that’s simply not worth exploring. Yes, of course, they can technically do that - I think I’ll have more pressing concerns beyond real estate at that point though. You have to consider the fact that all things in life come with a cost benefit analysis attached to them - I very much doubt that F-16’s will be dispatched anyone’s way on an individual level, that’s more likely in a state of war.

Thats my sole argument for why placing things that currently require government infrastructure like house deeds on it, yes. The reason I'm so negative on blockchains is that their evangelists seem cultishly devoted to trying to find problems they can fix and never actually think A. does this work in the real world & B. Is this the most efficient way to do things


Until the oracle problem is solved, hopefully with a standardized layout as to how exactly data goes onto the blockchain and the way smart contracts are written and there is a way to maintain a blockchain without intensive power requirements (which seems extremely unlikely just based on how they are designed to scale, the power wasting is a feature not a bug in Satoshi's whitepaper) they have no place in a modern society and shouldn't be humored. I've spent significant time reading the works of Satoshi & Vitalik but somehow pretty much every single one of their ideas, some of which are nearly 15 years old, have not yet come to fruition and are just as fictional as they were before they wrote it. Like I can come up with this super rad idea to distribute food to people using nothing but HTML5 & Adobe Flash Player, but if it still requires some dude picking up the food and handing it someone else, and it also as a side effect for integrity dumps an barrel of oil into the ocean, thats not an idea worth humoring at all. It's fucking magic solutions being presented as the alternative to actual machines.

Lol, use of nfts can transcend platform support. That's not an argument. It's a benefit nfc doesn't promise.

Like I said before, Pokemon are already NFT as far as you know. Don't come at me sideways with your uninformed shit.

That data in an NFC can be read into any platform that develops support for them, exactly the same as a blockchain. All it takes in either case is someone to figure out what each byte represents and create a program that interfaces with that dataset. A save editor "transcends platform support" in the exact same way that you claim is novel to NFT's. I used an amiibo as a key required to turn off my alarm clock for years, that also is transcending platform support, its actually shockingly common and it takes a certain kind of crypto brainrot to think the idea of being able to use one piece of data in two programs was invented with the NFT. I also have no clue what you are trying to convey with "pokemon could be NFT already" since they absolutely are 100% not at the moment. I really don't think you should go around telling people they are "coming at ya with uniformed shit" when you don't understand basic CompSci 101 principles.

 

[Foxi4]

Lol, use of nfts can transcend platform support. That's not an argument. It's a benefit nfc doesn't promise.

Like I said before, Pokemon are already NFT as far as you know. Don't come at me sideways with your uninformed shit.

Well, yes and no. Pokémon can be destroyed upon capture since you can release them. That gives me another idea - released Pokémon *actually* returning to the wild. Blockchain or no blockchain integration, I find the idea of a limited pool of Pokémon to be interesting. Instead of “going to route 123 because that’s where Pidgeys spawn” you’d have to actively research where Pidgeys happen to be available, if they’re available at all. Maybe in the absence of Pidgeys in the pool you would have no option but to trade for another Pokémon instead, or to breed one using a higher level of evolution which *is* still available, thus “minting” a new one and increasing the pool.

Gamefreak could even add migration patterns or seasonal availability - nobody whinges about that in Pokémon Go yet in mainline games that’s not really implemented much, the best you’ll get is the day and night cycle. There’s a lot of things Pokémon games *could* do to make players stray from the beaten path and, y’know, have an actual adventure in a mysterious new land catching imaginary creatures, but they’re stubbornly sticking to the collectathon model of gameplay which, in my opinion, made the games increasingly boring over time. There’s only so many silly rings or stones with “special” evolutions (that nobody in the world of Pokémon has heard of before, for some reason) to keep things exciting. Of course to many players farming *is* Pokémon and they draw enjoyment from that, but that’s not the answer to me. It’s just plain boring and lazy.

Pokémon’s lack of originality rant over, you can put the pitchforks down now. You’re all Pokémon masters, have a cookie or something.

 

[trillspector]

Gamefreak could even add migration patterns or seasonal availability - nobody whinges about that in Pokémon Go yet in mainline games that’s not really implemented much, the best you’ll get is the day and night cycle. There’s a lot of things Pokémon games *could* do to make players stray from the beaten path and, y’know, have an actual adventure in a mysterious new land catching imaginary creatures, but they’re stubbornly sticking to the collectathon model of gameplay which, in my opinion, made the games increasingly boring over time. There’s only so many silly rings or stones with “special” evolutions (that nobody in the world of Pokémon has heard of before, for some reason) to keep things exciting. Of course to many players farming *is* Pokémon and they draw enjoyment from that, but that’s not the answer to me. It’s just plain boring and lazy.

Pokémon’s lack of originality rant over, you can put the pitchforks down now. You’re all Pokémon masters, have a cookie or something.

It'd be cool if gamefreak allowed me to run over cops in pokemon, and have 100 girlfriends, and let me make my own super cool avatar imported in from picrew, while also letting me shoot up steroids with my pikachu to get a super ripped pikachu, and the way I am going to do that is with the power of the blockchain!!! Seriously bro if you don't like pokemon there are thousands of other games you can play, tons of people still have fun with it. (ignoring everything you said could be implemented without a blockchain but that feels like a low blow since you also mentioned it for once)