[tsimionescu]

Sure, if I'm allowed to change the games, I can link them even without a block chain. Transacting digital assets on a particular market (be it a single blockchain or Steam or the WoW Auction House) is a solved problem, and is not helped in any clear way by adding a blockchain in the middle.

[swalsh]

"Sure, if I'm allowed to change the games, I can link them even without a block chain."

The game should be integrated with the blockchain directly, if I was unclear I apologize. That means, when you open the game, you need to use your wallet to connect to the game. You don't have a "Steam" account or whatever, you have your Web3 identity.

"Transacting digital assets on a particular market (be it a single blockchain or Steam or the WoW Auction House) is a solved problem"

1 of those things is not like the other. The blockchain isn't "a market", it's an economy. An economy with multiple markets... and it's your choice. Steam is a single market, and I have no choices.

If your assets are on the Avalanche blockchain (that's the avax I keep talking about) you can choose to use Trader Joes (https://traderjoexyz.com/trade#/) Pangolin (https://app.pangolin.exchange/#/swap) Sushiswap (https://app.sushi.com/swap) or one of the hundred other choices. If you want to buy items you can use NFT Trade (https://nftrade.com/) Kalao (https://marketplace.kalao.io/) or one of the other hundred choices popping up. It's an economy with choices and competition. Steam is a centralized market that sets the rules, and you either have to take it or leave it. They get to charge a premium for that privledge, and there's no possibility of competition to check that privledge.

Saying you prefer steam, is like saying you'd prefer to buy popcorn from a movie theatre over a grocery store.

[D13Fd]

> The game should be integrated with the blockchain directly, if I was unclear I apologize.

But it could just as easily be integrated with a non-blockchain central authority.

And you are still trusting their code to integrate it, so you haven't solved any trust issue. Nothing stops their code from saying "asset transferred" when the asset wasn't actually transferred.

Blockchain solves nothing here. All of this could be accomplished just as well or better without it.

[swalsh]

"But it could just as easily be integrated with a non-blockchain central authority."

Sure, you could. But then you'e in a feudal arrangement instead of a free economy.

"And you are still trusting their code to integrate it, so you haven't solved any trust issue"

The tokens are trustless, the transaction of those tokens are trustless. How the are tokens used has nothing to do with my ability to freely trade the tokens.

"Blockchain solves nothing here. All of this could be accomplished just as well or better without it."

Well, perhaps you're just not trying to have a good faith discussion. Because I pointed out what it solves, and you keep ignoring it. The blockchain creates the ability to have a free market with many participants without having to be under the control of a central authority. Free markets are unquestionably better, and so I'd say "accomplished just as well or better" is just flat out wrong. A centralized service is not better unless you disagree that a free market economy is superior to feudalism.

[tsimionescu]

> The tokens are trustless, the transaction of those tokens are trustless. How the are tokens used has nothing to do with my ability to freely trade the tokens.

The point of the transaction is to use the item, not to own the token. If the item can't be used, then you paid money for nothing (since obviously no one else is going to buy it off you either).