
Tradable and scarce digital assets on the blockchain - windsok
https://medium.com/@coin_and_peace/rarepepe-is-the-most-innovative-project-in-the-crypto-space-seriously-6d6b74749687
======
dfabulich
> They cannot be faked

The directory of the owners (the Rarepepe "scientists") can autocratically
approve whatever they want, including clones of anything valuable. This system
can function only as long as it remains an unimportant joke.

~~~
deweller
The point that the author is trying to make here is that the digital asset
cannot be forged. The Bitcoin blockchain and the Counterparty protocol enforce
this.

------
RubyPinch
> (At Project ORB, we are working to build a platform for blockchain games
> which incorporate Counterparty tokens. In addition to rarepepe, [..]"

So I guess they are trying to get more people to focus on this silly thing in
hopes that they'll get more users for their app? Adverts are weird

------
m3ta
Using a blockchain to enforce scarcity and authenticity of digital objects is
a cool idea on paper but only actually becomes effective under one of two
scenarios:

1\. Everyone simply agrees and acts accordingly thereby giving the ledger
value. See: US dollars.

or,

2\. There are real-world repercussions to violating the rules. This implies
some form of hybrid blockchain/real-world-contract with trade via blockchain
and enforcement via the real-world law.

There are advantages to trading on a blockchain. To make the claim that a
digital item (can be simply copied with a screenshot) is "rare" because it's
one-of-a-kind on the blockchain only works if everyone agrees that ownership
via blockchain is as important or more important than the pixels that make up
the image.

The definition of "works" in my previous statement is up for discussion,
considering this idea is silly on its own merits, it might be working just
fine as far as the creator intended.

~~~
zekevermillion
That is valid, but tokens also have value from managing real scarcity in the
underlying protocol. For example, bitcoin as a p2p protocol can only transmit
so much information reliably. Bitcoins fundamentally have some value in
relation to that bandwidth. The value may be relatively small compared to the
value as financialized bubble asset, but it is still there.

This is more apparent in a token like Huntercoin. HUC plays a role in a game
that is played by following the Huntercoin protocol (ie, on the "blockchain"
though I hate to use that term). One could trivially clone this project and
build Froggercoin or whatever, but you would give up the real network effects
from humans playing the Huntercoin game.

This could become a more interesting dynamic as people come up with bitcoin-
like protocols that (a) do more interesting things aside from merely publish
tx sets, and (b) are not protocols that could exist as federated services
without a scarcity token.

------
div
I also found the "A Universe Explodes - A blockchain book" a pretty cool
experiment.[1]

Would be interesting to see a big game publisher like Blizzard experiment with
an item trading interface built on a blockchain to really cement the feeling
of ownership.

Though I suppose Blizzard in particular would be opposed to a lot of what that
implies.

*1: [https://medium.com/impossible/lets-talk-about-ownership-6e6c...](https://medium.com/impossible/lets-talk-about-ownership-6e6c82585472)

------
stcredzero
Could the blockchain be used to maintain a chain of custody on digital
documents? If there were laws and regulations supporting this, I think it
could be viable. South Carolina law supports the notion of legal documents
represented as rows in a SQL database. I wonder if HIPAA and such laws could
be hacked to create a chain of custody service for legal documents?

------
iiin
I think the idea is sociologically interesting, which is a shame this
article's conclusion is

> how can you resist those dank eyes anyways?

It's hard to take the article seriously when it doesn't even take itself
seriously. the whole thing has a very jarring tone.

