Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Bu konu kilitlenmiştir. 
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
If I create one hundred such networks that all run on "a single wind turbine", I still need 100 freaking wind turbines. Nano exists. It does not replace anything. There are no savings anywhere. You have to provide energy for providing this additional service.
Also a server has to run 24/7, so that single wind turbine needs to be backed up by conventional energy. Among many other issues with "green energy" that stem from people having no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ clue about it.
Just to be clear Nano currently does not use anywhere near that much energy. If fewer transactions are done, the validators use less energy. What he was saying is that IF Nano were to run at full force, processing thousands of transactions per second, it would still just use the energy of a single wind turbine.
There are definitely savings. In this specific case, payments using Nano would be a direct substitute for using transactions via Paypal, right? So that's what it would be replacing.
I find it odd that you say we have no clue about it. We agree that Nano uses energy, but it uses far less energy than alternatives. In the same vein, an electric car still uses energy, but I'd still rather see someone drive an electric car than a diesel car. If I see someone heating with the windows open, I'd prefer them to close their windows.
Nano offers an improvement in terms of energy efficiency for transactions, and I see that as making it green just like I think we should be looking for more energy efficient solutions in every aspect of life.
PayPal runs. Period.
VISA runs. Period.
They will continue running no matter how much you use Nano or whatever.
The whole "energy per transaction" debate is laughable to begin with.
What matters is how much computational ressources it uses. R/W cycles and processor cycles. PayPal and VISA will of course use more because they provide more features for auditing. And how much energy these computational ressources use depends on what hardware they run on. If you use the most modern energy efficient hardware, great. But it will get outdated over time or get scalability issues.
It's like saying me pocketing your fiver in a grocery is more efficient than having to use the register and doing the proper accounting afterwards.
Once it's mainstream, yes you can. People will believe anything. "Blockchain" doesn't change that. Even if you can't inflate the supply, you can inflate the perceived value of that supply, which amounts to the same result. There's even precedent in history for that, the Dutch tulip frenzy. They didn't create new bulbs out of nothing, and yet everything inflated until it exploded.
As soon as there is an entity that controls enough of the market capitalization, they will find a way to write their own rules. That always happens.
That seems like you'd never have any innovation then though, right? Because any system tends to start small and grow, then outdo its competitors in the long run. There were others before Visa and Paypal, but Visa and Paypal outcompeted them after a while.
I think we're getting slightly off track here with the whole green argument, lol. It's a pretty simple point that I was trying to make - doing Nano transactions is very energy efficient. So let's take the worst case scenario and say that the whole Nano network is entirely not replacing anything, just adding transactions to the world. In that case, we have a network that anyone in the world can use, feelessly, to send money to anyone else in the world, at the "cost" of the power output equivalent to that of a single wind turbine. That seems like a pretty good tradeoff to me. And just to be clear - I do think Nano would be replacing some transactions and therefore saving energy in the short and long run.
Can I ask how you see that happening? I can make assumptions but I think they might be wrong. Let's say we talk about a bank taking Nano deposits and loaning out Nano to others who want to take loans. How would they go about inflating the perceived value of their supply?
Ah. That's fairly hard in Nano though. If you look at it on a grand scale, it's equivalent to saying that an entity that controlled 51% of all wealth on Earth could find a way to write their own rules. While true, I think we truly go into conspiracy theory level discussions when we start to talk about groups that hold 51% all cooperating. Running some quick Google searches, about 1% of the population has 50% of all wealth. While I think that that's way, way too concentrated, that's about 60 million people that would need to cooperate to try to rewrite the rules for other people. While possible, it's currently far far easier for governments to do so as there are far less people with a "say" that need to be convinced, right?
You totally can change the supply anytime you want. And IIRC you already mentioned that this indeed already happened.
That's one of the major issues with cryptos: you are putting trust into some shadowy regulations board to upkeep their promises. But hey, it's better than trusting your government.
Hm, where did I say that? Nano's supply has been fixed since day one, and cannot be changed. It's just literally not possible.
To me, crypto is about the exact opposite of that. I do not need to trust in some central institution to not "change the rules" on me. The person who originally made Nano has no more ability than any other person holding Nano. Anyone can check out the open source code for Nano at any time, and even change it if they so wish, but unless you can convince the majority of the network that the change you made was valuable, it remains just a local change you did that no one else is using.
That's sort of the point of crypto. It takes away power from just one individual or one group, and distributes it. That's why we usually describe it as "decentralised digital cash", there is no central authority or person that issues it, that can change the rules of how it works and such.
Who needs a bank? If people believe that one tulip bulb can buy them a villa, they'll believe that one Whatevercoin will buy them a villa.
You don't need a "government" for a currency to be fiat. You just need people who are buying into it.
Yep. The kicker is - that entity does not need to be a single person.
Except that the "crypto wealth" is even more concentrated than that.
It was part of your sales pitch. Okay, let's get it done:
ad 1) It's feeless. Except for the fees you have to pay to convert it into something useable for Steam. Fees that would not incurr if you'd just use real money.
ad 2) It's instant. Except you just said it takes 0.2 seconds. And I need to convert it into something useful.
ad 3) It's energy efficient. Except it's not. Because now I not only need the Nano-transaction but also still need to convert is into something useful. You added a superflous step.
ad 4) Not exactly a Steam problem. Steam offers various payment services around the world. If you want to gift money to someone to use on Steam, you can purchase Steam gift cards. One purchase. No further fees.
ad 5) Nope. Blockchain is susectiple to attacks. Nothing will stop the creator to turn of the service any time. Literally any other payment service is *heavily* regulated to insure it's secure and safe.
So why exactly should Steam support it?
I'm genuinely not sure how to answer that. Are you saying that value is subjective? Because if so.. I agree? The price of Nano (or a Nano) is completely determined by the market, yes. If people think 1 Nano is worth a villa, then sure, if both parties agree to that then that's totally fine by me.
Do you believe that crypto wealth is, and will be, more concentrated than the power that government official or central bank leaders have? Because that I would definitely disagree with you on.
A second difference here is that while it's hard to switch governments or central banks since well, you're probably living in the country, it's relatively easy to switch between cryptocurrencies. Let's say an evil conglomerate decides to buy 51% of the Nano supply. First of all, that will cost them immensely as there isn't that much supply for sale, so alright, massive investment for them. Right after, they decide to change the protocol and that from now on, everyone has to pay a $50 fee per transaction to them, completely rewriting what Nano is about.
What would happen? Well, cryptocurrency is a rather competitive market. If the conglomerate was so dumb as to do that, people would move to a different cryptocurrency. The value of whatever holdings the conglomerate has evaporate, and it's a whole lot of money wasted.
This is one of the reasons that people are incentivised to stay "honest" in Nano. The more Nano you hold, the more you are incentivised to do so as acting unhonestly would just wipe out the value of your own holdings.
If you're interested in these sort of discussions, Google Nano crypto reddit by the way :) People love to discuss this sort of stuff there. That being said - I'm pretty sure it's not the most relevant for whether Steam should accept Nano as a payment option lol, since as I've mentioned before Steam wouldn't actually be holding any Nano, they'd just be accepting it and instantly converting it into dollars or any currency that they prefer. There's no intention for them to be holders.
Let's make something clear first of all here - there are fees that you incur if you use "real money" such as Visa, Paypal, whatever. These usually amount to 1-5%, and can be far higher for low priced games. I don't think anyone that would be doing something with this suggestion from the Steam side needs to be told this, but for your understanding these payment processing costs are a huge expense for any business, and for Steam they definitely are as well.
The Nano network is feeless. Sending transactions is feeless. If Steam then wants to convert that into dollars, for example, that incurs about 0.1% fees. 0.1% is way lower than even the lower range of what payment processors charge. The Nano network itself is feeless, exchanging Nano into USD has fees just as exchanging Euro to USD has fees.
Shall I be more exact and say that "it transfers at lightspeed"? I can give you cash instantly when I'm standing next to you, would you agree with that? That would also be limited by light speed. I don't see the value in getting this semantical.
The Nano network is energy efficient. But as I said before - let's accept that if 500 different people were to transact on the Nano network every second, we would end up with 40 million people a day transacting on this network at the cost of literally the energy usage of a single wind turbine. That to me seems like a very fair tradeoff, especially given that the alternatives use far more energy.
Nowhere did I mention wanting to gift money to someone to use on Steam. I said that when I am abroad, this would be a far easier option. Also again just to be totally clear here, Steam gift cards have fees. Either you buy them in physical stores and there are fees that Steam pays to the store, or you buy them online and you have payment processing costs. I'm saying this just for you because obviously Steam employees that would look at this know this, but I think this fact maybe isn't as well known to the general public.
Huh? The guy who created Nano could "turn off the service" and nothing would happen. Literally. He's just one person, one node, in a massive network. That's the primary point of cryptocurrency - it's a decentralised digital currency, the decentralised part refers to the part that there is no central party or entity that can make these decisions.
Because it saves them money, savings that they can either keep for themselves or pass on to their customers, or to game creators. It also makes it easier for people to purchase on Steam. But primarily the first argument.
You indeed seem to not have been given an "if-then" answer to that particular question, indeed.
It already is more concentrated. That's the reason it fluctuates so much.
That would indeed be very stupid. But evil conglomerates are smarter than that. They would not introduce that $50 fee until after they've made their currency the only, or at least the mainstream payment method.
And then Steam would need to adopt a new cryptocurrency ever other week. I'm sure they're just itching to get on board that train of uncertainty.
That's a lie, and you know it.
No, I am not interested in your sales pitches or circlejerks. I am not interested in the next Ponzi scheme "It works, really!" astroturfing. I am not interested in the next "Get rich quick" scheme someone else is looking for gullible marks for.
Steam is not a crypto-to-real-money service. Why the hell should they want to become one? All you're saying here is that you want to shift the burden of changing your monopoly money into actual money onto someone else.
I asked whether you think it's more concentrated than the power government officials have for a country and for central bank leaders. Not sure whether your answer is a yes or a no now, lol.
And then when it's mainstream, what's to stop people from abandoning the payment standard they set up and move to a different one? Because that is essentially what crypto is doing in the first place.
Lol. Nano has been running for about 5 years and becomes more decentralised every day, while never having had this problem. I do not see it as a realistic issue. Primarily, history so far argues that it's not an issue that's realistic so from a practical point of view there seem to be very, very little concerns in this regard, and theoretically the concern doesn't make sense because every Nano holder is incentivised to want to decentralise the network as this increases the value of their own holdings, rather than almost literally burning their own money by decreasing the value of the network as a whole.
No, it's really not. If you're interested, I've actually written an article about this - https://senatusspqr.medium.com/how-nanos-lack-of-fees-provides-all-the-right-incentives-ee7be4d2b5e8.
Come on, there's no need for that. It's always easy to call something a Ponzi scheme or to say that "it really works". I am literally not trying to convince anyone to buy Nano anywhere in this thread, I genuinely don't even care much about the price. I think the tech behind it is fantastic, and that it offers opportunities for many companies and customers such as Steam to save on costs and to essentially use money more efficiently.
Seriously, don't buy Nano. If you think it's useful to have because you're going to use it, use it. If not, don't. Simple as that.
I have plenty of ways I can exchange my small Nano holdings into whatever currency I want, I've no reason to want Steam to "help me" with that.
Steam is a business. Businesses intend to make profit. They also often intend to make their customers and partners happy, because that often also increases profit. Adding Nano as a payment option increases their profit through decreased costs, makes customers happy as they'll hopefully use part of those cost savings to make games cheaper, or makes partners happy by giving more money to game developers.
As I tried to point out in this thread before while the energy generalization is fair for most crypto, it's not for Nano. The energy usage comes from mining, Nano has no mining. It has a different design. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDEQE8lmaqs is an interesting video on it if you're interested.
As for money laundering - I'd say that Monero is the best pick for that since it's a total privacy coin. Nano is transparant, wouldn't be a very good option for money laundering.
I've laid out my reasons to use Nano before - it's far cheaper to transfer value over the planet than any other option that I've used. And I think that that is also the reason it would be so attractive for Steam.
My answer is "yes".
People need a loaf of bread to cost the pretty much same amount of Simoleons today as it did yesterday, and people also need a loaf of bread to cost the pretty much same amount of Simoleons tomorrow. Up to 5% change per year, people will still swallow and deal with, but any fluctuation harsher than that, and you've got an economic crisis on your hands.
Stability is what people want from currency, even more than value. People need to have a stable perception of "If I have THIS MANY Simoleons, I can buy THAT MANY bottles of soda". If that changes day-to-day, you'll run into problems.
That would mean that people would be having a vested interest in offloading the "value" of their Nano holdings onto others rather than increase it; since amassing more value under your own name is literally the opposite of "decentralizing" it.
And I don't see people willingly give their money away for the sake of "decentralization".
I'm not going to give you ad revenue.
And we're back to the usual. "The technology is amazing"; "It offers fantastic opportunities"; "It's a more efficient use of money".
That's not a description of anything, that's a sales pitch.
Cool. Then there's no need for Steam to ever add it as a payment option as far as you're concerned.
Oh, it will make games cheaper? Please, I'm all ears. Do explain how Steam adopting Nano is going to convince the publishers to lower their prices. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love to hear that!