I looked into building my own for helium, too. I don't think it's possible anymore. I think they have made it so you need to buy a miner.
Cryptocurrency
- Thread starter Playboi Carti
- Start date
I looked into building my own for helium, too. I don't think it's possible anymore. I think they have made it so you need to buy a miner.
Lame. Controls the rate of mining. Wonder how long it takes to mine a single Bitcoin?
You and I would be 6 ft under by then I'm afraid, lol. With a home computer anyways. But @ianoconnor is right you can mine other coins with your home pc.
Well if you stopped an hour in, the podcast outline literally lists challenges and weaknesses of Web 3.0 as just over an hour in, so nice timing.
It's your right to stick with what you like or think works better. I, and many others, think web 3.0 sounds better for the common person and for that reason I'm excited about it.
Fair, didn't realize there was an outline listing time stamps for different discussion topics. I'll have to jump forward to that section. Sorry, wasn't trying to be a jerk toward you, just frustrated with the podcast. Listening to it quite frankly makes me feel gross, they sound like snake oil salesmen. I'd really like to hear people in the crypto/Web3 world have honest discussions about it rather than just unsubstantiated hype sessions. At best, you'll hear crypto people say "Well, this could come apart if the government bans it, but otherwise it's 100% guaranteed to replace all fiat currency!" So, I'm hoping these guys are going to address actual criticisms or challenges that the industry faces to actually get widespread acceptance and maybe they'll have a good response.
I just don't see how any of the NFT and Web 3.0 stuff benefits the common person over what exists today in Web 2.0. The only Web3/NFT benefit I see for a common person is that after the hype dies down, true digital native artists now have an ability to make money from their art on par with physical art. But, I could definitely be wrong.
This is absolutely huge for crypto. Make no mistake, this is the future. IMHO 
Cliffs notes:
1. Ubisoft introducing the first NFTs of weapons, equipment, vehicles, etc.
2. Ownership will be written to the Tezos blockchain
3. Gamers can use and own scarce and unique in game playable weapons, equipment, and vehicles
4. Due to blockchain tech, these NFTs can be sold and traded using 3rd party marketplaces
And that my friends, is the spirit of web 3.0. Power and revenue generation back to the people.
www.vg247.com
Cliffs notes:
1. Ubisoft introducing the first NFTs of weapons, equipment, vehicles, etc.
2. Ownership will be written to the Tezos blockchain
3. Gamers can use and own scarce and unique in game playable weapons, equipment, and vehicles
4. Due to blockchain tech, these NFTs can be sold and traded using 3rd party marketplaces
And that my friends, is the spirit of web 3.0. Power and revenue generation back to the people.
Ubisoft announces NFT platform Quartz and the first game to use it will be Ghost Recon Breakpoint
Ubisoft has announced Ubisoft Quartz, a new platform for players to acquire Digits, the first Non-Fungible Tokens (NTFs) playable in an AAA game.
I think the bigger value of NFTs will be in ways we interact with the growing virtual world, examples being digital downloads, tickets, sign ins, etc... pretty much any time you want to verify you are the person trying to access something.
We're just at the inception of it all, it seems very similar to the argument that people would make that 'no one will ever want to buy things online! Can you imagine entering your credit card into a website, You'd have to be a real dummy!' And that's not to say this isn't a huge bubble that's about to pop either, there will certainly be a consolidation, but I strongly believe that blockchain technology will be looked at in a similar way we look at the internet in the 90s. in 20 years.
That’s another to add to the list. I watched Hima Alone last night and the old credit card/carbon paper method of running them. Totally secure! Lol
This is absolutely huge for crypto. Make no mistake, this is the future. IMHO
Cliffs notes:
1. Ubisoft introducing the first NFTs of weapons, equipment, vehicles, etc.
2. Ownership will be written to the Tezos blockchain
3. Gamers can use and own scarce and unique in game playable weapons, equipment, and vehicles
4. Due to blockchain tech, these NFTs can be sold and traded using 3rd party marketplaces
And that my friends, is the spirit of web 3.0. Power and revenue generation back to the people.
Ubisoft announces NFT platform Quartz and the first game to use it will be Ghost Recon Breakpoint
Ubisoft has announced Ubisoft Quartz, a new platform for players to acquire Digits, the first Non-Fungible Tokens (NTFs) playable in an AAA game.
I'd say it's a short term gain for Ubisoft - they'll cash in on the NFT fad and get crypto enthusiasts to buy their game who otherwise wouldn't. In practical terms, this will allow you to transfer a handful of video game items between a handful of Ubisoft games that are compatible with this protocol. No other (mainstream) developer will have any incentive to make their games compatible with this, and even Ubisoft will have very minimal incentive. How does this even work in any meaningful or practical way? Think about it practically - can you really use your Ghost Recon gun skin in Assassin's Creed? Maybe, if Ubisoft really forces all their studios to play nice with each other despite all logic. But what if you want to play League of Legends or the latest Madden? The idea of video game items transferring from game to game, even if it's fully possible and works 100% of the time in 100% of games, just doesn't make sense.
The winners here will be Ubisoft - they found a new monetization stream for their game. A few early adopters might make a little money too. But, before too long, like all other gross money grabs used by game developers, this will meet public backlash and have to be removed once people realize how gross and exploitative it is. Think EA loot boxes. Once people realize these items can't actually be transferred anywhere in any real way no one will want them anymore and you won't be able to resell them. Then it's just another cosmetic that comes with a heftier price tag.
All these things can be done successfully using current, non-blockchain, technology. Why change? Buying things online is quite a bit different. There's an actual benefit there, which people knew and understood from the early days of the internet. Buying something without having to leave your home was already possible prior to the internet too - catalogs, tv orders, etc - but the internet made it easier and better. I haven't heard a single convincing argument for why blockchain internet vs. regular internet is better.
You are thinking like a boomer (not saying you are one, I have no idea). You need to think like a gen z.
No, this has nothing to do with using items in different games. Games like Fortnite make ridiculous amounts of money from in-game skin purchases. Ubisoft will now issue these items as NFTs (immutable, verifiable, unique). Some will be free, some for purchase, and some will be earned through playing. But now, apps can and will be developed for players to buy/sell these items in a free economy outside of the gaming environment. More then likely, additional apps will be developed to "use" these items in a metaverse world. Because these players now own these items even if ubisoft ceases to exist. I have never bought an in game item, I think it's dumb. But who cares what I think, follow the $$$, and follow gen z.
I'm going to push back on your assertion from another direction. How can you not support innovation and a move away from Web 2.0?
1. Do you want to continue to live in a world where people can continue to steal your personal information from centralized institutions? Cryptography and blockchain can fix this
2. Do you think it's ok that if AWS (Amazon Web Services) went down it would be like WW III breaking out?
3. Do you think it's ok that Googles proprietary algorithms essentially control all of the information you are fed?
4. Do you think it's ok Facebook allowed for the power to sway an election (like some people believe in 2016)?
5. Do you think it's ok tech giants make money off your digital identity?
By 2025 data will become the worlds most valuable resource. It is mine, and it is yours, and it is vulnerable.
Who do you trust? Amazon/FB/Google?
Web 3.0 means freedom to opt out of the unholy trinity of Amazon/FB/Google. Society can do better.
I'm a millennial, I wouldn't call my thinking boomer or Gen Z, I'd call it grounded. What you just described is a poor understanding of what the Ubisoft NFT does functionally, you're letting the idealism of Web 3.0 get in the way of practical reality. Games do issue digital items today and make tons and tons of money. That is very true - and you can/should definitely follow the money there. But following that money doesn't lead to NFTs. It leads to making a game that is persistent and culturally significant to the point that people want to spend money on it so they can buy items and show off to their friends or fellow players. That Fortnite skin has no value if Fortnite doesn't exist anymore, because its value comes from being able to use it in Fortnite. Currently, today you can actually already sell digital video game items through secondary markets. I will grant that that ability is currently fairly limited and isn't truly independent. But it exists. But let me ask you - why does an NFT of an item from an Ubisoft game have value after that game ceases to exist? Maybe some would as collectors items, like say a famous player's baseball glove or a classic car. Sure, that's fine. I could accept that as real and adding value. I might even be willing to do something like that myself. But that's a small market. It's not going to revolutionize the world or the internet, just like the ability to collect classic cars doesn't revolutionize the auto industry.
I'm not saying I don't support innovation, I'm saying that innovation needs to actually improve upon what we have today and that the particular path of innovation described by Web 3.0 doesn't seem likely to ever happen, imo.
1) I don't want to continue to live in a world where people can steal my personal information. I don't believe that blockchain is the best solution to that. And even if someday we find out it is, it doesn't require us to transition to Web 3.0 if we implement some type of blockchain based storage system for sensitive data. Cryptography and other security improvements don't require blockchain. I also don't believe in the idea that blockchain is a magic bullet solution to the problem of security. It definitely has many strengths, but it still has its vulnerabilities too.
2) I don't believe that if AWS went down, WWIII would break out. After all, it did just this week. And WWIII didn't break out. I do agree that I'm not a huge fan of the mass shift to using things like AWS because it does create a single point of weakness, but people use it because it works and it's easy. In Web 3.0, we would have similar things going on. Adding the blockchain and decentralizing won't make it so that companies suddenly want to own their own servers and host data locally again or develop their own software. It will limit the ability of tech companies to see your data, but you could already do that using other forms of encryption.
3) No I don't think it's OK that Google and others essentially spy on people and collect their data. However, again I don't think this is a Web 3.0 thing. I want to move away from the creepy data stealing model of the internet, but don't believe that Web 3.0 is the most likely solution to that. Look at what Europe has done for what I think is the most likely path away from creepy data stealers.
4) Without getting political, I'll just say that I think that the simple ability to have the kind of communication we have with Facebook or Twitter is what allowed any possible election tampering. As I understand it, the idea of Web 3.0 is not to eliminate the ability to have a social network capable of spreading information to a large number of people quickly, it's just that its control would be decentralized, meaning that it would be even slower to react if there was a true threat from a foreign government. So, imo, Web 3.0 does not address this particular problem.
5) No I don't think it's ok for tech giants to make money off my digital identity. However, I don't think that Web 3.0 and complete decentralization is the best solution to this problem. The best solution is to implement effective regulations to limit and this kind of behavior.
You already have the ability to opt out of Amazon/FB/Google in Web 2.0 without much limitation in what you can do. Don't sign in to Google for searches. Don't have a FB account. Don't shop using Amazon, don't buy an Alexa, and if you own a business or website, host your own servers without use Amazon (or others) cloud hosting services. I already do a lot of these things, but most people choose not to. Why? Because they don't care.
I completely understand what I am describing. I actually agree with most of your first paragraph. Of course the market would be the most lively during the popularity cycle of a game. Do you suppose if there were NFT like assets from old Nintendo games they would be worth something? Maybe a special weapon from the newest Call of Duty will have a short value life, but who cares. But I guarantee there would be a select few that would hold value. Front end apps will continue to be developed around use cases for the digital world and digital assets. Sure, this development by itself isn't going change the world. But we are laying more and more foundation for the next bit of innovation.
Rather then go blow by blow I'd like to move to the big picture here. Plus we have been discussing mostly behind the scenes kind of stuff (that nobody cares about) and lamenting big tech. Web 3.0 dreams of the next iteration of the internet to be transparent, trustless, autonomous and decentralized. This will allow internet apps and protocols to leverage machine learning and AI. I believe money will pour into this space in the coming years because companies, some old, some new, will see new ways to offer better products and experiences to consumers via this tech.
Ultimately, I agree with you. If consumers don't care, then web 3.0 is dead in the water. If things aren't that much better, also probably dead in the water. But my money is on the end user experience being a significant enough upgrade for us to see it come to fruition in our lifetimes(also a millennial).
Yeah, very fair. I agree, there could be value in some limited cases. And even if there's no money in it, it still might feel good to keep a copy of some memory you have from an old game somehow. I will say, I've seen a bit more info on this Ubisoft NFT thing. Unfortunately, what I've read seems to say that they are not really allowing the types of things you would want to see - true freedom to trade it and do with it what you want. There's a lot of fine print that pretty much guarantees Ubisoft is still in control. Which is too bad - if an NFT in a video game is going to exist I would hope it could at least be true to what one is supposed to be. You've been probably the crypto person most willing to discuss this stuff that I've come across and I really appreciate it - it's been fun discussing this stuff with you.
At the end of the day - I hope for a better internet too. I don't think all this crypto and NFT stuff is the way to get there either from how I want to see the world or from what I think is actually likely to happen, but if it winds up going that way I'll use it along with everybody else with minimal grumbling.
Yes, it's been a great convo! You have had some great insight! Would you mind sharing what you found with Ubisoft? I wouldn't be surprised if you are right. A little disappointed though.
Sure, here is the article I read this afternoon. Granted, it's definitely got an anti-NFT slant but it does go over the usage/participation restrictions that Ubisoft set on these in pretty good detail. Basically, Ubisoft reserves the right to cut off access to them at any time and only a limited group of people can get them to begin with.
Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense
The blockchain adds nothing to this experiment in “unique” cosmetic DLC.
arstechnica.com
Sure, here is the article I read this afternoon. Granted, it's definitely got an anti-NFT slant but it does go over the usage/participation restrictions that Ubisoft set on these in pretty good detail. Basically, Ubisoft reserves the right to cut off access to them at any time and only a limited group of people can get them to begin with.
Ubisoft’s first NFT plans make no sense
The blockchain adds nothing to this experiment in “unique” cosmetic DLC.
Dang. Yeah, if this analysis is correct and the quotes are properly taken from context, I would have to agree that this is much ado about nothing. If these NFTs cannot be obtained via rarible without a ubisoft account and traded freely then I would have to agree with the conclusion of the article.
Thanks for sharing.
