Hacker News Reader

Comment by hresvelgr | Hacker News Reader

I don't think the underlying game is fun or interesting and the blockchain shtick is the only thing it's got going for it which imho is a detractive quality. I think its only merit is that it sated the author's interests.

View on HN

I get what you are saying, but I see it from a more positive perspective. I wouldn't play it, but it's a really cool tech demo and proof of concept. I was amazed that it managed to run as smooth as it did, with every action corresponding to a blockchain transaction. And how easy it was to create new tokens, and contracts for automatically exchanging them. So I did enjoy the video and learned new things. And it made me think that making an interesting on-chain game is actually possible, even if this was not it.

> And it made me think that making an interesting on-chain game is actually possible, even if this was not it.

Sure, it's possible. But I would add that any on-chain game would be equally good, if not better by not being on the chain. I dare anyone to show me a game that is only good by existing on the blockchain.

I'll wait.

"See, look! An application for blockchain! I told you it's not just for speculative assets!"

"And by the way, you can buy this house-tile contract as an NFT!"

Mm, quite - I can't help but feel that most Blockchain-based-Thing announcements are little more than exercises in domain-specific omphaloskepsis.

I don't know if it is intentional, but your use of omphaloskepsis seems to be an ironic form of omphaloskepsis in its' own right.

That's very sweet of you, but no, it's just a damn good word.

I don't know, we call it navel-gazing in English?

Ah yes, English – that famously-consistent and unbaggaged language with just one word, entirely native, per concept. Rot and cobblers for excessive prose!

Thank you for gifting me a new word today!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com