Proof of Play (PoP): How Blockchain will Gamify our World.

[ir.hn]

Wouldn't it be neat if playing a video game counted as proof of work for a blockchain instead of arbitrary work hashing algorithms?  Well it is easier than you think.  

http://archive.is/mibFF


Gamers play video games.  If the gamer is good they can achieve a lot of rewards in the game.  From player level, stat points, skill points, gear, experience points, and in-game currency; these achievements prove that the player has done work.  The whole point of video game design is so that bots and cheating cannot win you rewards in game.  Other products/services/companies also have this like uber, doordash, amazon, etc.  Miles driven in uber, number of years working at walmart, etc.  These sorts of achievements can also be used in this idea.

Why not utilize this proof in a blockchain?  How would that even be done?

Proof of stake.  That is how it would be done.  The stake could be the player level, in game currency, stat points, skill points, miles driven in uber, packages delivered for amazon, etc. or anything else or a combination.

Proof of stake is typically an unfair system because anyone with lots of money can easily gain a high stake.  But coupling the proof of work by achieving things in a game or other system to set the stake the player has, will allow proof of stake to be fair while not wasting CPU cycles to arbitrarily prove work.

In conclusion games (and any other system) are designed to prove that work was done by a user.  Why not utilize this to prove work on a blockchain?  This is done by coupling player work to a stake in mining a coin, token or anything else on a blockchain or similar network or technology.  The currency will be "backed" by how much people trust the game/dev's.  Amazon could have FlexCoin where Flex drivers get a mining stake based on how many packages they have delivered.  Walmart could have PensionCoin where employees get a mining stake based on how many years they have worked at the company.  Will this in fact be everything we hoped ICO's would be?

The games or systems themselves can even run on this blockchain partially or fully if desired.  For example an MMO could be devoid of a central server and instead the stakeholder players could record server data like character locations and items etc. on their computer and their ledger would be included in the blockchain if they won the next block based on their proof of stake.

[monsterer2]

'Proof' is the key word here. How are you going to prove any of these achievements actually happened? More to the point, how is the blockchain going to verify them?

[ir.hn]

'Proof' is the key word here. How are you going to prove any of these achievements actually happened? More to the point, how is the blockchain going to verify them?

How are you going to prove bitcoin is decentralized?  The truth in crypto is not black or white but rather 50 shades of grey.  The fact is Monero had to change it's algorithm to keep it "fair".  Game Dev's often have to fix bugs or exploits in their game to keep it "fair".  So I think we need to loosen up and realize that perfection will never be achieved but if we rather strive for our goals we will land close, maybe closer to something great than we ever have before.

One example that I think would work is a Blockchain MMO.  Let's make it simple and say every time you level you broadcast this to all the players, which are also nodes.  They record this in their ledger.  Now depending on your player(s) level you have a stake in the PoS.  The higher your level the higher your stake.  Now it confirms like any PoS coin.  If you win the block then your record of "level up"s in the past, say, 5 minutes are added to the blockchain and you get the block reward that goes to your wallet (which can be used to buy things in game as well if desired). or spent in the real world.

[ir.hn]

Actually thinking about it, this is very close to steemit.  I wonder why this method hasn't exploded into more industries than social media.  Any thoughts?

[monsterer2]

One example that I think would work is a Blockchain MMO.  Let's make it simple and say every time you level you broadcast this to all the players, which are also nodes.  They record this in their ledger.  Now depending on your player(s) level you have a stake in the PoS. 

Sorry but this is just nonsense. How are you going to prove that a 'level up' message isn't just fraudulent? You've got the exact same consensus problem here as a blockchain has in the first place.

[hatshepsut93]

You can invent tons of different human-based proof-of-something, but the most important thing that matters is the worthiness of the coin. There are tons of companies and startups that want to have their own cryptocurrency, but from the point of view of average people they would want to use only a few or even only one coin. And since all those coins won't be able to compete with Bitcoin and other top coins, they will be at best only used by users of the platform they are tied to, but often they will be just dead.

The other problem is ASICs - every game that can be monetized by players is plagued by bots, so  honest human miners can become easily pushed out by bot farms and the network will be vulnerable to 51% attack just like so many altcoins currently are.

[mindphuq]

You can invent tons of different human-based proof-of-something, but the most important thing that matters is the worthiness of the coin. There are tons of companies and startups that want to have their own cryptocurrency, but from the point of view of average people they would want to use only a few or even only one coin. And since all those coins won't be able to compete with Bitcoin and other top coins, they will be at best only used by users of the platform they are tied to, but often they will be just dead.

This wouldn't really be a problem as the more coins the more diversity. Actually I wouldn't mind, if we have one coin for every niche. The only problem here is usability but that also can be solved, when the coins are just compatible with something like atomic swaps, where you can exchange one coin with another using smart contracts, no matter what blockchain you actually use to transport the contract on.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading

And as long as some coin is at least worth 1 satoshi, you can use that coin for exchanging assets.

The other problem is ASICs - every game that can be monetized by players is plagued by bots, so  honest human miners can become easily pushed out by bot farms and the network will be vulnerable to 51% attack just like so many altcoins currently are.

This is the actual problem, how do you just prevent bots. And the bot doesn't even need to do the whole game, it's enough when you have like an aimbot that helps you leveling up x game characters to have a benefit in "mining" (or how ever it is called then) the blocks.

On the other hand what I could imagine would be an in-game currency that uses a blockchain or in general a ledger for in-game assets. That'd be a niche for an actual coin. The coin then can be centralized or decentralized as desired.

[ir.hn]

One example that I think would work is a Blockchain MMO.  Let's make it simple and say every time you level you broadcast this to all the players, which are also nodes.  They record this in their ledger.  Now depending on your player(s) level you have a stake in the PoS. 

Sorry but this is just nonsense. How are you going to prove that a 'level up' message isn't just fraudulent? You've got the exact same consensus problem here as a blockchain has in the first place.

Because it would be signed by the game software (sort of how some program downloads are signed by the developer so you know there wasn't a man in the middle attack) and signed by the player's node.  Also obviously there is the history in the blockchain that it needs to sync up to as well.  Trusted third parties are a part of bitcoin currently, they are called dev's.  We trust devs to update the software according to bitcoin's core philosophy, and we trust game dev's to do the same in this case.

[ir.hn]

You can invent tons of different human-based proof-of-something, but the most important thing that matters is the worthiness of the coin. There are tons of companies and startups that want to have their own cryptocurrency, but from the point of view of average people they would want to use only a few or even only one coin. And since all those coins won't be able to compete with Bitcoin and other top coins, they will be at best only used by users of the platform they are tied to, but often they will be just dead.

The other problem is ASICs - every game that can be monetized by players is plagued by bots, so  honest human miners can become easily pushed out by bot farms and the network will be vulnerable to 51% attack just like so many altcoins currently are.

I'm not we scrap bitcoin or Nakamoto PoW at all.  I have new ideas on how to improve those.  And those may very well be the "Global Reserve Currency" that everyone can agree to trust.  But we should realize that just how not everyone in the world can/wants to use dollars, not everyone is not going to want to use the same coins either.  Even if they did want to they shouldn't because then the whole global financial system rests on a singular dev team.

I believe the idea here I proposed will allow for the mainstreaming of blockchains for corporations and average users.  I strongly believe that the best way to get someone invested in a coin is to give them a possibility to mine.

Asic point- yes but we trust dev teams to change the algorithm if it becomes unfair, we will trust the dev teams to fix vulnerabilities and expoits to keep the game fair.

[monsterer2]

One example that I think would work is a Blockchain MMO.  Let's make it simple and say every time you level you broadcast this to all the players, which are also nodes.  They record this in their ledger.  Now depending on your player(s) level you have a stake in the PoS. 

Sorry but this is just nonsense. How are you going to prove that a 'level up' message isn't just fraudulent? You've got the exact same consensus problem here as a blockchain has in the first place.

Because it would be signed by the game software (sort of how some program downloads are signed by the developer so you know there wasn't a man in the middle attack) and signed by the player's node.  Also obviously there is the history in the blockchain that it needs to sync up to as well.  Trusted third parties are a part of bitcoin currently, they are called dev's.  We trust devs to update the software according to bitcoin's core philosophy, and we trust game dev's to do the same in this case.

I agree with nothing you've said. What you're talking about is a consensus of 1, which is no consensus at all.

[ir.hn]

One example that I think would work is a Blockchain MMO.  Let's make it simple and say every time you level you broadcast this to all the players, which are also nodes.  They record this in their ledger.  Now depending on your player(s) level you have a stake in the PoS.  

Sorry but this is just nonsense. How are you going to prove that a 'level up' message isn't just fraudulent? You've got the exact same consensus problem here as a blockchain has in the first place.

Because it would be signed by the game software (sort of how some program downloads are signed by the developer so you know there wasn't a man in the middle attack) and signed by the player's node.  Also obviously there is the history in the blockchain that it needs to sync up to as well.  Trusted third parties are a part of bitcoin currently, they are called dev's.  We trust devs to update the software according to bitcoin's core philosophy, and we trust game dev's to do the same in this case.

I agree with nothing you've said. What you're talking about is a consensus of 1, which is no consensus at all.

If you invest in bitcoin it means you trust the Bitcoin software.  If you invest in Gamecoin then it means you trust the Gamecoin software.  The bitcoin pow algorithm is arbitrarily designed by a human just like the game pow algorithm is arbitrarily designed by a human.  Both can have flaws, both can patch flaws via their dev team.  The consensus is of nodes who are stakehokders verifying signatures just like in Bitcoin.  If bitcoin has hostile devs releasing hostile code then bitcoin is doomed especially if it is closed source.  Same with Gamecoin.

Thinking about it more, the difference is that the miners themselves are not necessarily verifying everything the program calculated in order to award the level.  However assuming the game code is open source, people could assure themselves that the way the game awards levels is fair and uncorruptible by analyzing the code.  So this idea would be a step away from verifying every piece of work programatically, and rather trusting the program's level award because the code has been audited and if it gives a level then that can be trusted.  To be honest this is the direction crypto needs to go to get out of the useless work burning all the electricity in the universe problem.

[ir.hn]

mindphuq

"This is the actual problem, how do you just prevent bots. And the bot doesn't even need to do the whole game, it's enough when you have like an aimbot that helps you leveling up x game characters to have a benefit in "mining" (or how ever it is called then) the blocks."

Well the thing is this very thing is already countered with lots of time and money in game development.  Do you play games that are heavilly botted?  Would you invest your time in that game?  I don't think so.  Games have been employing anti-cheat technology for decades now and it has gotten pretty good.  The coin value and trust will be proportional to how well the dev's face challenges and keep things fair.  Same as any coin.

[monsterer2]

If you invest in bitcoin it means you trust the Bitcoin software.  If you invest in Gamecoin then it means you trust the Gamecoin software.  The bitcoin pow algorithm is arbitrarily designed by a human just like the game pow algorithm is arbitrarily designed by a human.  Both can have flaws, both can patch flaws via their dev team.  The consensus is of nodes who are stakehokders verifying signatures just like in Bitcoin.  If bitcoin has hostile devs releasing hostile code then bitcoin is doomed especially if it is closed source.  Same with Gamecoin.

A car has wheels. A plane also has wheels.... yet I do not expect to pilot my car into the air because it shares some of the same functional components.

[ir.hn]

If you invest in bitcoin it means you trust the Bitcoin software.  If you invest in Gamecoin then it means you trust the Gamecoin software.  The bitcoin pow algorithm is arbitrarily designed by a human just like the game pow algorithm is arbitrarily designed by a human.  Both can have flaws, both can patch flaws via their dev team.  The consensus is of nodes who are stakehokders verifying signatures just like in Bitcoin.  If bitcoin has hostile devs releasing hostile code then bitcoin is doomed especially if it is closed source.  Same with Gamecoin.

A car has wheels. A plane also has wheels.... yet I do not expect to pilot my car into the air because it shares some of the same functional components.

Right but in my next paragraph I describe that yes it is different, but not that much different.  Instead of having to verify everything the program does by yourself, you verify that the program is ok, then you trust what the program tells you.  So it is one step removed in the sense that you yourself aren't verifying absolutely everything, but you can still verify the software and let the software verify for you.  Again the benefits are a massive reduction in power cost, I would say conservatively 10 orders of magnitude reduction.  Plus it would be fun and greatly increase mainstream acceptance.

[mindphuq]

If bitcoin has hostile devs releasing hostile code then bitcoin is doomed especially if it is closed source.  Same with Gamecoin

But Bitcoin is open source. Running a crypto currency as a closed source software is just plain retarded and everything else but decentralized.

mindphuq

"This is the actual problem, how do you just prevent bots. And the bot doesn't even need to do the whole game, it's enough when you have like an aimbot that helps you leveling up x game characters to have a benefit in "mining" (or how ever it is called then) the blocks."

Well the thing is this very thing is already countered with lots of time and money in game development.  Do you play games that are heavilly botted?  Would you invest your time in that game?  I don't think so.  Games have been employing anti-cheat technology for decades now and it has gotten pretty good.  The coin value and trust will be proportional to how well the dev's face challenges and keep things fair.  Same as any coin.

There are bots in literally every game and not only in online-poker where you can win real money.

[Carmenraggi]

The banking system is inefficient at present because it requires the use of multiple third-party audits and transfer services to complete a transaction. Blockchain can alleviate the need for these organizations and provide the world with a viable solution to the problems inherent in the banking community. Blockchain is transforming the way we conduct business globally by offering us the ability to securely perform transactions in peer-to-peer mode without the need for any intermediary.

[Einsgold]

this is such a cool fricking idea!!

[ir.hn]

this is such a cool fricking idea!!

Thank you!  And I honestly think it could work, at least "good enough" if not better.  Investing in a coin would be like buying a stock in that company.  ICO on steroids and un-censorable by the government (at least by their current ICO rules).

[ir.hn]

There are bots in literally every game and not only in online-poker where you can win real money.

Ok, well at least are some games better than others?  Then you would want to invest your time and money in gamecoins that tend to be better.  Maybe some people love aimbotting so they mine the coin that allows it.  Another coin doesn't allow aimbot and every time a new aimbot is developed the game company patches the game so it won't work.

The point is the value of the coin will be based on the trustworthiness of the game technology and/or the dev team.  And it becomes an investment in that company.  You are betting that the company continues to do well.