Playtron's SuiPlay0X1 is a "web3 gaming" fever dream I thought we'd all woken up from.
See full article...
See full article...
No one needs this cryptocurrency-powered Steam Deck competitor
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That's because it is shit.
I have an array of post-melt shit in my yard. Some is husky-rot mix, some pure breed Bouvier, some semi-feral local cat that has taken residence over-winter on the property (I built it a heated shelter and fed it as I am somewhat sympathetic). The Bouvier turds are large, well formed, and sturdy enough to be scooped easily. The husky mix feces smaller, harder to locate. The cat feces has mushed into paste and the harder to dispose of.
I strongly consider the Bouvier feces to be the best of my array of feces. And it's scoopability DOES provide me a sensible story to support that valuation.
BTC isn't even scoopable.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Does the thing have a scent cartridge in it that reeks of Ax body spray and when you start it up it makes a ca-ching sound? Seriously the desperation of these crypto bros trying to make something out of a pile ofuse to be entertaining. Now its just down right annoying.
PS- I'm kinda surprised that no one has made a Mario spoof called Crypto Bros.
I’d gladly create that video game for a stake in your initial coin offering. No rug pulls, please.
(/s, in case that’s not obvious.)
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It tries. Alas lawn is not litter in the cat-shit scheme of things.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Still some libertarian techbros around who think they'll get rich quick putting crimecoin in everything. Wonder if whoever came up with this harebrained idea already collected their consulting invoice (in "fiat currency" no doubt), because waiting around for a cut of the profit isn't going to work lol
Also worth noting completing a single transaction on bitcoin, last I checked, was like something north of a whole month's use of my household single-family home's electricity. For a single micro-transaction?! That's far beyond unworkable well into "bloody immoral".
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
This is a bit of an arbitrary line that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Governments have historically not shied away from devaluing their own currencies, either by abandoning USD pegs, printing money to pay debt (Weimar is a famous example) etc. Even developed economies like the US and the UK have done it.
Anyway, this device is a dumb concept that no one needs. But the author arguing "true" ownership outside DRM-laced & escrow (in the case of virtual items) platforms such as Steam being a crypto maximalist notion is pretty nuts frankly. I don't see why there can't be a discussion about open standards for virtual items and DRM-free platforms just because Steam exists.
Upvote
-13
(0
/
-13)
You're unlikely to need 700kwh in a month but using this metric is intellectually dishonest anyway, since the chain is a full end to end settlement layer and can batch transactions e.g. from L2. Comparing the cost per transaction with the cost of infrastructure needed for the banking real-time gross settlement system and of the credit-based retail systems like VISA and PayPal that are layered on top paints a more accurate picture.
Upvote
-16
(0
/
-16)
Bitcoin does not come off well when compared to other transaction methods.
Just the gross settlement system costs about 0.1 kWh per transaction; this ignores the cost of card terminals, the cards themselves, etc, but covers the energy cost from merchant through to card issuer of doing a single transaction through the payment network without any form of batching. You can reduce this cost by batching at various places, with the corresponding increase in risk (that the transaction would have succeeded if done immediately, but fails due to the delay inherent in merging it into a batch).
Further, a transaction costing you about 0.1 kWh takes under 30 seconds to settle; you can choose T+2 settlement if you'd prefer a lower cost (considerably lower financial cost, slightly lower energy cost). Bitcoin's settlement time is not that quick, either.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
pay more to get less performance and battery. they get to mine whilst you game.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The pure energy cost of "running code" for a transaction (whether it's BTC settlement or a credit-bases settlement) is not a reasonable way of comparing payment methods.
Credit-based transactions layers such as VISA, the banking RTGS etc. require physical infrastructure (whether it's a mainframe, cloud data center or downtown high-rise), staff and institutions to manage, offer trust and guarantee an irreversible settlement. This complexity is managed through code and design (e.g. PoW) in bitcoin's case and factored into discussions regarding the cost of a BTC transaction, the cost of mining etc. It is rarely mentioned (if ever) when analysing the energy footprint of the end-to-end mainstream banking ecosystem, or however you want to call it. I did not even get into end-consumer hardware such as card terminals and whatnot.
Upvote
-14
(0
/
-14)
I can't help but think that the tech industry is about to experience a major collapse in the next few years. They're running out of buzzwords and bs to foist upon the public and investors. The last ten years have produced the same cycle of nonsense over and over - BIG announcements about <enter non-existent or over-hyped technology here> that will transform society and "disrupt" the world! Then we get several years of Elon-style "late next year" promises over and over. It's gotten to the point that I consider almost everything that is announced anymore to be vaporware that is used simply to keep the hype-machine going and investors spooked by FOMO. When a critical mass of people begin to think the same, it'll be Katie, bar the door! I'm old enough to remember the pain of the dotcom collapse. This one might be even worse.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Given the orders of magnitude difference, what you're actually saying is that you believe that 700 kWh of electricity per transaction is a worthwhile expense in order to change the trust problem from "can I trust these named, identified entities (that my local legal system can enforce judgement against) will not defraud me?" into "can I trust that the least trustworthy subset of miners who between them make up 51% of network hashing power will not collaborate to defraud me?"
Note, too, that BTC transactions also require physical infrastructure - miners don't just pop in and out of existence on the network as needed, they are physical objects that draw power, need network links etc, just like traditional payment systems. And they need staff and institutions to manage them, since they're physical objects; all that you've changed is that instead of trusting a named entity, you now have to trust the least trustworthy 51% of hashing power in the network.
And card terminals and whatnot don't add a significant amount of power to a transaction cost - the worst case I can find adds another 0.2 kWh to the cost of a single real-time payments card transaction. That brings the power consumption to 0.3 kWh for cards, with settlement in under 60 seconds (at a high transaction fee level) to Bitcoin's 700 kWh and settlement in 10 to 60 minutes.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
What I'm actually saying is to be clear on whether one is making an apples to apples comparison of the energy cost needed to achieve the goal of transfer & settlement first and then get into value judgments, the polemics of whether it's worthwhile or not, whether you should be placing your trust into these entities and institutions or whether 51% attacks are even plausible. If you think it's all horseshit and power consumption isn't even worth getting into, that's also fine, I'm just reacting to the user saying bitcoin is immoral due to electricity cost.
The cost of running the bitcoin network is well documented and placed under scrutiny. The number of nodes is well known and publicly available, too. I don't see the aggregate cost and overhead of running the banking system's RTGS being discussed at all. Yet people still compare a full end to end transaction and settlement system's power consumption with the ˜1.5Wh required for a credit-based transactional system like VISA and assume everything else to make it work just exists for free.
Upvote
-13
(0
/
-13)
In energy terms, the aggregate cost and overhead of running the banking system's RTGS is included in that 0.3 kWh that the VISA system uses. While the 1.5 Wh for a single transaction in isolation (which is the energy cost of a transaction over and above the cost of having the network there) might be unfair to Bitcoin, the 0.3 kWh figure I'm using is apples-to-apples - it's the total energy cost of the VISA network, including the backend servers etc, amortized per transaction, against the 700 kWh Bitcoin uses for the same problem.
In other words, allowing for all the costs that you claim "aren't discussed at all", I come to about 0.0015 kWh for a transaction assuming the network exists, 0.1 kWh for an online transaction worst case including the full cost and overhead of running the banking system, and 0.3 kWh worst-case for a cardholder present contactless + PIN transaction with online pre-auth followed by an online RTP transaction to complete settlement, all taking place in a setup where the merchant and the issuing bank are maximially distant (e.g. New Zealand issuer, transaction in France). This process takes under 60 seconds start to finish, with under 20 seconds of cardholder presence. That compares to 700 kWh for Bitcoin to do an online transaction, which takes 600 to 3,600 seconds.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
It would help if any discussion about open standards for virtual items went beyond the myopic position of "its good if we also add artificial scarcity so that line goes up" because you don't actually care about games - you just want to turn gaming assets into a commodity to profit off of.
There is also the fact that there is literally zero upside to any legitimate developer to move to this hypothetical open standard.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
The VISA figures I am aware of are based on their yearly sustainability reports that have them sitting at around 750.000 Gigajoules of operation divided by the number of transactions (in the 140 billion range). This is for their operations on the transactional level, I have seen no mention of the RTGS settlement layer being included. The other set of figures are based on energy consumption of their mirrored data centres but it's already over 5 years old and also irrelevant since it's transaction only, still. Can you share the source for the 0.3kWh for both transaction and settlement on RTGS?
Last edited:
Upvote
-7
(0
/
-7)
I agree that incentives are not there but also argue that it would be in the consumer's interest to not have to rely on a third party for escrow / ownership of digital assets. For the author to argue that such a solution makes no sense and is only desired by crypto purists because Steam & co exist is just kneecapping the discussion and helping cement monopolies in the market. Not that this handheld is in any way a step in the right direction, mind you.
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)
I was working off the figures VISA and Mastercard both give for their real-time payments systems, which fully replace RTGS if you're willing to settle transactions entirely inside the Mastercard (or VISA) networks; the only time RTGS is relevant is if you wish to transfer money out of the VISA or Mastercard network of banks to a bank that isn't part of the network you did your payment journey on. I'm then adding in a standard amount for the embedded energy cost of building the physical infrastructure from scratch, assuming that we had to rebuild from nothing.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
OK, but that's moving the goal post though. Visa operates its own network for processing transactions, the actual movement of funds for settlement purposes, requires a RTGS system e.g. Fedwire where the funds are actually transferred from the acquiring bank to the issuing bank. If you want to ignore settlement, then you'd have to compare Visa to a L2 solution such as Lightning for an apples to apples.
Upvote
-12
(1
/
-13)
Where do you see the author making any kind of argument about any solution other than the one offered by the product in question? This isn't an editorial - it's a news item covering a product announcement. Kyle isn't "kneecapping the discussion" because there's no reason to scope the article beyond what is being offered. Also, you seem to have no trouble bringing up this discussion - although I'll note you seem to have complaints but offer no alternatives.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
You are always going to have to rely on a third party to validate your ownership of digital assets. It will never matter how proud you are of your $Big_Shiny_Gun NFT if the game maker doesn't accept that NFT as a valid representation of something. Your "asset" will always only be valid as long as the publisher of the game says it is. There is nothing at all blockchain can do to change that.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
First give us a reason why a developer of game A would want people to be able to import items from game B that is produced by a different developer. Last I checked, even the direct importation of items from one game to another when both were made by the same developer is rare. The reason behind that is simple, implementing all those items would take significant time and money from the developer of the game that's importing them. While all the profit from selling them goes to the game that they are sold into.
Then you get into practical difficulties because the game mechanics are very different. For example, how would you bring a pistol from one game into a game that doesn't have pistols ?
Solve these core problems and then you can start talking about the implementation of that open standard.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
You guys are so tiresome and pathetic with your word vomit anti-crypto articles. if I get a cool skin in one game I want to be able to use it in other games. This is long term goal of web3 gaming, not sure why you don't want us to have that ability.
Upvote
-12
(0
/
-12)
As is brought up every time this "goal" is brought up - including in comments to this very article - why on earth do you think this will ever happen? What gaming company is going to take the time and effort to develop assets for the player to import items from another company's game into their own?
If you actually want to use your other assets in a game, the better solution is to support games where the developers have an open approach to player mods. Games like Minecraft (Java edition), or the various Valve-developed Source engine games have thousands of variants because they encourage the community to use their assets as a jumping off point. The only thing web3 "adds" to the equation is the artificial scarcity that allows grifters to convince people they "own" something of value that will never have any value outside the ecosphere they create for it.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
The blockchain offers nothing that helps there. Tracking which items you have across multiple games is better done with databases and APIs.
But the big hurdle getting in the way of transfering in-game is the cost it imposes on every developer. Because if they want to allow players to import an item into their game, they have to spend the time and money to implement that item in their game. The blockchain doesn't help with that problem.
But maybe I'm wrong. Proving that would be simple. Just give me a list of games made by different developers that all share in-game items between them. People trying to push Web3 gaming have had years to build such games. If they haven't by now, why not ?
Further reading:
https://chhopsky.substack.com/p/nft-fantasy-why-items-as-nfts-does
Note the point about how dangerous it is to import shaders you can't trust.
https://chhopsky.substack.com/p/nft-fantasy-2-how-games-communicate
https://chhopsky.substack.com/p/nft-fantasy-3-you-cant-fix-a-bad
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
And then we can talk about why the blockchain would be more or less advantageous than, say, Steam Inventory, which is a solution that already exists.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
VISA real-time payments includes movement of funds within the VISA network for settlement purposes. The only time you need to use something like Fedwire (or other RTGS system) to settle funds outside the VISA network is when you'd prefer not to pay VISA's fees for movement of funds for net settlement, but would prefer to pay another organisation's fees (e.g. because they're cheaper - I know, for example, that UK banks prefer to use Pay.UK services for settlement because the cost is lower).
And this also applies to Bitcoin; if I want to settle the transaction with funds not in my Bitcoin wallet, which is the equivalent of what you're talking about, how do I get the funds into that Bitcoin wallet so that I can settle the transaction?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Explaining why a thing doesn't actually make any sense is not the same thing as not wanting you to have the ability to do the thing.
If you want to flap your arms so hard that you fly to the moon and sample the green cheese that it's made of, and somebody explains to you that you can't fly and the moon is not actually made of green cheese, that person is not cruelly trying to kill your dreams. They're just stating facts.
Anyway, seeing as how you do not have a realistic understanding of how video games work, this article might help; it goes into greater detail about the implementation issues that make the "I can buy a thing in one game and then use it in another" theory implausible.
I do note that in order for the article to help improve your understanding of video game development, you have to actually read it, and be open to changing your mind about things you currently believe. Facts aren't a religion, friend; unlike crypto hype, they're not something you take on faith.
https://scribe.rip/look-what-you-ma...nft-games-and-i-wont-because-i-m-29c7cfdbbb79
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I am arguing from a consumer perspective. Newsflash: many things that benefit consumers can be a headache for companies to put in place. The fact that these companies also have random people meatshielding for their interests online is quite tiresome.
Upvote
-14
(0
/
-14)
So go out and build that world-changing open source, DRM-free game platform! Or support the use of one of the many attempts people have made to create one! You've complained non-stop about what you perceive is the problem, but I've yet to see you recommend an actual solution.
Here! I'll even help you out! Check out GameVault, which I found with two second of googling! It looks to be exactly what you're complaining doesn't exist.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Pay.UK is not equivalent to the UK's RTGS (CHAPS) which is the only system that is comparable to Bitcoin. For example, Pay.UK is capped to 1mil pounds per transaction and you can not settle large amounts. Bitcoin can transact and settle arbitrary amounts in one transaction at a security level comparable to e.g. CHAPS or Fedwire. Which is also one of the reasons why I continue to disagree with your compairson: VISA transactions are small ticket sizes and are more appropriately compared to off-chain L2 transactions on e.g. Lightning that are then batched and settled in a more energy expensive L1 transaction.
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
There's two things that I've "complained" about: 1. the author arguing that consumers should be fine with lacking alternatives because walled gardens like Steam exists 2. that consumers should want to be able to transact certain virtual items across platforms or games.
I don't know why you're going on about DRM free platforms now, you're either not reading my posts, confusing me with someone else or not understanding the discussion entirely.
edit: I'm sure that when users asked for being able to sideload apps onto iPhones, they were not dismissed because they didn't present an end to end security concept, Github of an SDK and a proof of concept of how that can work (save for the die hard Apple meatshields). But lo and behold, we have it.
You want fusion? Go ahead and invent it! Here's a half-assed article of why it can't work ˜
Last edited:
Upvote
-12
(0
/
-12)
You literally have to only read the title to figure out it is exactly that
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)
Fair. I mistook the quote @Bilateralrope took from your argument:
as an indication you were actually taking about something reasonable - open standards and DRM-free solutions to relying on platforms such as Steam for game distribution - not for the stupid concept that game companies should cater to your perceived need to take an item bought in one game and use it in another.
As I said before, if you want to use something from game A in game B, find games that already encourage users to reuse their assets. No need to buy anything in one game and use it in another. Why complicate things with some arbitrary ownership standards that don't actually do anything except create artificial scarcity?
And again, since you're ignored the question the last time I asked it, where in the article is Kyle "arguing that consumers should be fine with lacking alternatives because walled gardens like Steam exists"?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
My initial point was to disagree that an ownership model that does not rely on a third party company for transacting, escrow etc. such as Steam is a "crypto maximalist" view. I am not arguing for this product, NFTs or even blockchain in the sense of token-based economies. One could argue, for example, that a federated blockchain (across multiple publishers or game devs) where ownership is stored and items e.g. steam-like cards or even items later on can be transacted can be a viable alternative that offers "true" ownership without entertaining any shitcoin discussion.
I absolutely see no reason for token-based economies for this use case but some properties of blockchain around immutability, consensus-algorithms etc are well suited to the problem statement in my opinion.
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
You're not arguing from a consumer perspective, because you're not taking the cost of implementing your thing into account. The consumer argument for anything is that something will cost $x per customer to add, and even if the price of the product or service goes up by $x, consumers as a whole are better off paying that extra than they are keeping the existing situation.
This contrasts to the business argument, which asserts that adding this will cost $y, but the resulting increase in revenue will not be as much as $y.
Pay.UK is not capped for settlement transactions by banks; and VISA has real time payments which are also uncapped arbitrary amounts, not small ticket sizes. Unless, of course, you're claiming that billions are "small ticket", in which case
You appear to be confusing the consumer-facing sides of traditional payment systems with the bank-facing sides, and assuming that the same limits apply to both. This is not the case; as a bank, you can do things that are not possible as a consumer.
You're also asserting that even though an average VISA transaction (on net settlement) is 0.0015 kWh, and a real time payments transaction with immediate settlement via VISA is 0.1 kWh or so, somehow adding in Fedwire or CHAPS will bring the energy use of a transaction up to a similar order of magnitude to Bitcoin; this is clearly crazy, since (to choose CHAPS), the transaction volume is at 51 million transactions per year, which (if it consumed as much electricity as Bitcoin does) would be approximately 10% of UK total electricity demand. It is much more reasonable to assume that Fedwire and CHAPS and other RTGS systems consume similar energy to VISA, and thus that maybe you can justify 10x the VISA energy figure for big transactions.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
It is and is literally stated on their website too for all 4 payment types offered by them for "Faster Payment". Have it your way though. If you bring direct debit into the discussion... see below:Pay.UK is not capped for settlement transactions by banks; and VISA has real time payments which are also uncapped arbitrary amounts, not small ticket sizes. Unless, of course, you're claiming that billions are "small ticket", in which case
Banks are not virtual entities nor autonomous data centers. Bitcoin replaces an entire stack ranging not only from data center but also physical locations, staff and the institutions required to ensure the trust that you have by design in BTC. Ergo comparing energy costs without factoring in the entire stack makes no sense. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Last edited:
Upvote
-10
(0
/
-10)