# Kickstarter moving to blockchain



## darjr (Dec 8, 2021)

I guess that nothing will seem to change on the surface. I gotta admit I really don’t understand how you move a web site to work on top of blockchain.

I’m missing something. 

What does this mean for rpg Kickstarters? If this is a big snafu for them and the KS ship sinks, is it easy or hard to move to another crowd funding platform?



			Redirect Notice
		


Not sure if this even belongs though.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 8, 2021)

I don’t even know what blockchain is!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 8, 2021)

Yeah, I'm afraid this is above my head.  I read the article to read as if KS is now going towards digital currency, like bitcoin, to fund projects?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2021)

Of, for love of fleep!  Kickstarter doesn't need fleeping blockchain!

For those unware of what it is, to quote IBM:
_"Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets in a business network. An asset can be tangible (a house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property, patents, copyrights, branding). Virtually anything of value can be tracked and traded on a blockchain network, reducing risk and cutting costs for all involved."_









						What is Blockchain Technology? - IBM Blockchain  | IBM
					

Learn the basics of blockchain technology to discover why businesses worldwide are adopting it. Your understanding of blockchain for business starts here.



					www.ibm.com
				




Blockchain is an underlying technology to bitcoin systems - it supports the creation of an immutable ledger of transactions independent of the people who make the transactions.  In bitcoin's case, it keeps the people who make the transactions anonymous. 

Since bitcoin is (nigh inexplicably) a big thing, "blockchain" has become the new buzzword technology.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 8, 2021)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, I'm afraid this is above my head.  I read the article to read as if KS is now going towards digital currency, like bitcoin, to fund projects?



Unlikely, block chain is an encrypted distributed ledger. It is a technology at the heart of cryptocurrencies but the currency element is not necessary for blockchain technology.


----------



## darjr (Dec 8, 2021)

Well it looks like Kickstarter doesn’t know either.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 8, 2021)

As I said in an unrelated thread, "Yikes."


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Of, for love of fleep!  Kickstarter doesn't need fleeping blockchain!
> 
> For those unware of what it is, to quote IBM:
> _"Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets in a business network. An asset can be tangible (a house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property, patents, copyrights, branding). Virtually anything of value can be tracked and traded on a blockchain network, reducing risk and cutting costs for all involved."_
> ...



I agree that Kickstarter does not need it but would be a good testing ground for a non currency blockchain system. Strikes me as a way to attract the kind of venture capital funding in a way that Kickstarter is not sexy enough to attract.


----------



## darjr (Dec 8, 2021)

Maybe the story is people are getting wary of Kickstarter because of its officers oddball behavior?


----------



## darjr (Dec 8, 2021)

How does an immutable ledger that can be traded after the fact help Kickstarter or it’s customers the KS runners or the backers?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 8, 2021)

darjr said:


> How does an immutable ledger that can be traded after the fact help Kickstarter or it’s customers the KS runners or the backers?



In theory it should be cheaper since it does not require a central database and the security that goes with that since all actors partaking have a copy of all the transactions.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Of, for love of fleep!  Kickstarter doesn't need fleeping blockchain!
> 
> For those unware of what it is, to quote IBM:
> _"Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets in a business network. An asset can be tangible (a house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property, patents, copyrights, branding). Virtually anything of value can be tracked and traded on a blockchain network, reducing risk and cutting costs for all involved."_
> ...



Well, we need to put ENWorld on an agile blockchain NFT, stat! _looks around authoritatively, as if he had the faintest idea what any of those words meant_


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2021)

ardoughter said:


> I agree that Kickstarter does not need it but would be a good testing ground for a non currency blockchain system.




"Non-currency blockchain" for what?  Kickstarter isn't handling non-currency assets!  Kickstarter takes currency from backers, and gives it to the people who run projects.  Using blockchain for the very basic accounting involved is in "bazooka to swat a fly" territory.



ardoughter said:


> Strikes me as a way to attract the kind of venture capital funding in a way that Kickstarter is not sexy enough to attract.




Sounds like a way to include a checkmark buzzword to get venture capital funding, you mean.


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 8, 2021)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Well, we need to put ENWorld on an agile blockchain NFT, stat! _looks around authoritatively, as if he had the faintest idea what any of those words meant_



Need moar metaverse, NOW!!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> "Non-currency blockchain" for what?  Kickstarter isn't handling non-currency assets!  Kickstarter takes currency from backers, and gives it to the people who run projects.  Using blockchain for the very basic accounting involved is in "bazooka to swat a fly" territory.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a way to include a checkmark buzzword to get venture capital funding, you mean.



well, Yeah, Venture capital attraction seems to be where its at.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Dec 8, 2021)

This won't mean anything for Kickstarter campaign creators or backers. It's not cryptocurrency or anything of the sort. All backend stuff. Truly nothing to see here. Like getting freaked out that any website is going to blow up because _spam_ and _viruses_!

I say this not as some white knight for crypto and NFTs and related grifts. Blockchain supports all kinds of things.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2021)

ardoughter said:


> In theory it should be cheaper since it does not require a central database and the security that goes with that since all actors partaking have a copy of all the transactions.




In theory, blockchains are (or can be) distributed.  But if Kickstarter thinks it is going to make either the backers or the project owners keep copies of all the platform's transactions, they are _insane_.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Dec 8, 2021)

Uhm, that was weird. And I must say I can't really make heads or tails of why they are doing it and what they hope to gain by it. Is it so you can have kickstarters for NFTs?

And if it is so people can pay in cryptocurrencies, then I must say I am sceptical to say the least.


----------



## Janx (Dec 8, 2021)

yeah, the whole thing is stupid.

If it was just so they could take payment in Bitcoin or what have you, that's not "blockchain"

that's installing a module to process bitcoin or outsource to the bitcoin payment processor.

Like Paypal is for millions of websites that sell stuff.

At best, KS needs to follow OWASP for securing the data they do have, which should be limited unless they are processing credit cards directly. In which case, that falls under PCI standards.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Dec 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> In theory, blockchains are (or can be) distributed.  But if Kickstarter thinks it is going to make either the backers or the project owners keep copies of all the platform's transactions, they are _insane_.




That's not how blockchain works. In this context it's mostly about how the data gets structured. The point, in part, is that you don't have to keep those records yourself--they get generated automatically, and can be referenced later. It makes stuff both easier to verify and harder to hack/break/tamper with. It isn't perfect but neither is two-factor or private cloud or anything else in the world (digital or otherwise).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 8, 2021)

Maybe the announcement was supposed to be -

*Kickstarter is run by blockheads. *


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 8, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Sounds like a way to include a checkmark buzzword to get venture capital funding, you mean.



I hope this actually is the reason. It's the only semi-sane one I can think of.

Edit: After reading the article, it sounds like that is in fact the reason.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 8, 2021)

Doesn't blockchain eat up significant electrical power?  I know something related to cryptocurrency is a significant power drain, and that's the last thing we need when trying to reduce greenhouse gasses.  Might get me to _completely_ swear off kickstarting.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 8, 2021)

Silvercat Moonpaw said:


> Doesn't blockchain eat up significant electrical power?  I know something related to cryptocurrency is a significant power drain, and that's the last thing we need when trying to reduce greenhouse gasses.  Might get me to _completely_ swear off kickstarting.



Not and expert here, but my understanding that is more of a function of scarcity in cryptocurrencies than a necessary property of blockchain.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 8, 2021)

Silvercat Moonpaw said:


> Doesn't blockchain eat up significant electrical power?  I know something related to cryptocurrency is a significant power drain, and that's the last thing we need when trying to reduce greenhouse gasses.  Might get me to _completely_ swear off kickstarting.



Some consume more than others. Bitcoin is notoriously horrendous. Kickstarter is using one that _claims_ to be carbon neutral.

The world of blockchain technology is one of insane bombastic hype and hardly a shred of substance, and words mean everything and nothing, so who the hell knows what they mean by "carbon neutral." But it's probably not as bad as Bitcoin. Not much is.


----------



## Lidgar (Dec 9, 2021)

And here I thought this was regarding a new Kickstarter for a TTRPG about prison breaks. Sheesh.


----------



## darjr (Dec 9, 2021)

Prison break adventure! A big book level 1-20 prison break! 

Oh!


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 9, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Since bitcoin is (nigh inexplicably) a big thing



Money laundering and pyramid scheme as "investment."


----------



## Lidgar (Dec 9, 2021)

Parmandur said:


> Money laundering and pyramid scheme as "investment."



In other words, “all in”


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2021)

Silvercat Moonpaw said:


> Doesn't blockchain eat up significant electrical power?




My recollection is that the blockchain itself isn't the power sink.  It is _bitcoin mining_ (the way new bitcoin come into being to be traded) calls for doing _HUGE_ amounts of cryptographic calculations.  Like, truly stunning amounts of number crunching -  people stealing the electricity to do this is starting to cause major power grid issues in China.  And, for each bitcoin "mined", the next one becomes harder.  Bitcoin will eventually become unsustainable economically and ecologically for the computation required.

You don't need to do bitcoin mining if you are just using blockchain as a ledger.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2021)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Like getting freaked out that any website is going to blow up because _spam_ and _viruses_!




So, given that Kickstarter has no technological need for blockchain - what they currently do is better and more cheaply done with more traditional technologies - this announcement is equivalent to saying that either someone in the business has _no flippin' clue_ (which is concerning), or that the business is considering going in some weird direction (which is also concerning).


----------



## AtomicPope (Dec 9, 2021)

Lidgar said:


> In other words, “all in”



I call.


----------



## AtomicPope (Dec 9, 2021)

I wonder if they're doing this to help with the long term contract obligations between creators and patrons.  I've had some problems with overseas creators I've supported that took extra time and steps off site.  It wasn't a big deal for me considering I didn't have any time constraints (RPG products don't expire).  If it was something else like products for babies or children that they can quickly out grow a couple months of delay is too much.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Dec 9, 2021)

Umbran said:


> My recollection is that the blockchain itself isn't the power sink. It is _bitcoin mining..._



Yeah, I think I'm remembering now.  Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 9, 2021)

Seriously, don't people read XKCD?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2021)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Well, we need to put ENWorld on an agile blockchain NFT, stat!



That’s great…_until someone funges your NFT.  _And there’s a lot of fungers out there.  _Dozens!_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 9, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So, given that Kickstarter has no technological need for blockchain - what they currently do is better and more cheaply done with more traditional technologies - this announcement is equivalent to saying that either someone in the business has _no flippin' clue_ (which is concerning), or that the business is considering going in some weird direction (which is also concerning).



Why not both?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2021)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why not both?




Well, I didn't claim is was an exclusive or.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 9, 2021)

Staffan said:


> Seriously, don't people read XKCD?
> View attachment 148088
> View attachment 148090




 FWIW, for people still unsure of blockchains, this explainXKCD page has some description in somewhat simpler language than the Blockchain Technology Overview published by NIST.


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 9, 2021)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> FWIW, for people still unsure of blockchains, this explainXKCD page has some description in somewhat simpler language than the Blockchain Technology Overview published by NIST.



Hmm... that ExplainXKCD link is borked, and I can't figure out what it ought to be.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 9, 2021)

J.Quondam said:


> Hmm... that ExplainXKCD link is borked, and I can't figure out what it ought to be.



Thanks for the head's up! Fixed now!


----------



## darjr (Dec 17, 2021)




----------



## RichGreen (Dec 18, 2021)

darjr said:


>



That’s a really good thread!


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 19, 2021)

This is enlightening. 

Not about blockchain (which I only vaguely understand), but about the fact that apparently no one else can figure out the rationale for this either.


----------



## guachi (Dec 19, 2021)

I won't be supporting projects on Kickstarter after the latest projects I've backed finally ship. Almost everything I support on Kickstarter is purchasable after the fact via some other avenue.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 19, 2021)

Silvercat Moonpaw said:


> Doesn't blockchain eat up significant electrical power?  I know something related to cryptocurrency is a significant power drain, and that's the last thing we need when trying to reduce greenhouse gasses.  Might get me to _completely_ swear off kickstarting.



My understanding is that while the biggest power drain is cryptocurrency mining (I've seen it described as "What if leaving your car idling could solve sudokus that you could then trade for heroin?"), just making transactions is also much more costly in terms of energy than traditional methods.

The reason is that if I'm using a traditional bank and I'm paying you money, there are basically two databases/ledgers involved: my account and your account. The energy cost of that is pretty much negligible But if we're using crypto, the change has to be recorded in every instance of the blockchain, which takes a *lot* more energy (depending on how wide spread it is).


----------



## RichGreen (Dec 19, 2021)

I've written to Kickstarter as a backer on more than 70+ projects and as an independent creator asking them to reconsider this move. I'm not sure how much they are going to listen to RPG backers and creators, but I figured that it can't hurt to let them know how I feel about it. The address is protocol@kickstarter.com


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 19, 2021)

Staffan said:


> My understanding is that while the biggest power drain is cryptocurrency mining (I've seen it described as "What if leaving your car idling could solve sudokus that you could then trade for heroin?"), just making transactions is also much more costly in terms of energy than traditional methods.
> 
> The reason is that if I'm using a traditional bank and I'm paying you money, there are basically two databases/ledgers involved: my account and your account. The energy cost of that is pretty much negligible But if we're using crypto, the change has to be recorded in every instance of the blockchain, which takes a *lot* more energy (depending on how wide spread it is).



This is not quite right. It is not the updating the blockchain that takes a lot of energy, it is the crypto-token mining (that authorises one to edit the blockchain) that takes all the energy. 

They (Kickstarter) are not planning on installing crypto mining software on backers hardware are they?


----------



## Staffan (Dec 19, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> This is not quite right. It is not the updating the blockchain that takes a lot of energy, it is the crypto-token mining (that authorises one to edit the blockchain) that takes all the energy.



That's what I said. The mining is what makes it take up enormous amounts of energy, but even without the mining just making transactions takes a significant amount, compared to traditional transactions.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2021)

The makers of _Coyote and Crow_, a recent million-dollar RPG project on Kickstarter, sent out an e-mail yesterday, saying that this move by Kickstarter means they'll have to take their crowdfunding efforts elsewhere.


----------



## Yora (Dec 19, 2021)

I've talked with some people about this who seem to know a bit about the technological aspects of all of this, and their assumption was that switching to a blockchain system could be a way to improve the reliability of internal infrastructure when dealing with server outages or connection issues. Which to me sounds like it makes some kind of sense.
But it has of course nothing to do with "creativity", "backer contribution" or "bringing people together". Which really isn't to say that it's wrong. Those announcement are just alphabet soup buzzwords to impress investors.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2021)

Yora said:


> I've talked with some people about this who seem to know a bit about the technological aspects of all of this, and their assumption was that switching to a blockchain system could be a way to improve the reliability of internal infrastructure when dealing with server outages or connection issues. Which to me sounds like it makes some kind of sense.




If, in fact, that was the issue, they could say so pretty easily - "With the rise of some very high-volume projects, we have searched for ways to improve reliability and found...".  The story that they are trying to make the system solid, secure, and reliable would be a good sell.

The fact that they don't, and that they keep to empty marketingspeak, is an indicator that reliability isn't really the reason.


----------



## doctorhook (Dec 19, 2021)

Umbran said:


> The makers of _Coyote and Crow_, a recent million-dollar RPG project on Kickstarter, sent out an e-mail yesterday, saying that this move by Kickstarter means they'll have to take their crowdfunding efforts elsewhere.




Yeah, that email was where I heard about this. I immediately went looking for more info, because I surely don’t understand why Kickstarter is doing this. Still don’t, tbh.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 19, 2021)

doctorhook said:


> Still don’t, tbh.




My personal best guess is that they are looking for investment, and want the buzzwords.


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 19, 2021)

doctorhook said:


> Yeah, that email was where I heard about this. I immediately went looking for more info, because I surely don’t understand why Kickstarter is doing this. Still don’t, tbh.



I'm about 97% certain that some exec somewhere has decided that blockchain somehow equates to easy money. That's just a guess, of course, but it meshes pretty well with most every other "application" of blockchain that's been publicized.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Dec 19, 2021)

Umbran said:


> If, in fact, that was the issue, they could say so pretty easily - "With the rise of some very high-volume projects, we have searched for ways to improve reliability and found...".  The story that they are trying to make the system solid, secure, and reliable would be a good sell.
> 
> The fact that they don't, and that they keep to empty marketingspeak, is an indicator that reliability isn't really the reason.



As far as I could tell from reading what they have on their page atm, I can't find anything that would be a clear advantage for anyone. not even themselves.  At best, it appears that it will help with keeping ledgers of NFT's based upon my understanding of blockchain and cryptocurrencies.

It does reek of marketing speak for venture capitalists, and pyramid schemes.  It is a "solution" in search of a problem.


----------



## guachi (Dec 19, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> They (Kickstarter) are not planning on installing crypto mining software on backers hardware are they?




Iirc, the people who verify the block chain will be paid in crypto and only people with significant crypto holdings can participate. And that's something I can't support.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Dec 19, 2021)

I sent them a mail where I voiced certain concerns regarding their plans. Got a regurgitated version of the info on the homepage back.  Not ideal to say the least. It was also sent way too fast to be anything other than an automated response. The only things they pointed there was that backers/creators wouldn't notice anything different. Backers could pay with credit/debit cards, and creators would get ther money in fiat currencies as before (US Dollars, British Pounds, Euros etc)

I really hope that a human actually looks the feedback they get, but I am sceptical. I know from experience that normal support-issues are handled by a human, but those go to a different mail...


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> I sent them a mail where I voiced certain concerns regarding their plans. Got a regurgitated version of the info on the homepage back.  Not ideal to say the least. It was also sent way too fast to be anything other than an automated response. The only things they pointed there was that backers/creators wouldn't notice anything different. Backers could pay with credit/debit cards, and creators would get ther money in fiat currencies as before (US Dollars, British Pounds, Euros etc)
> 
> I really hope that a human actually looks the feedback they get, but I am sceptical. I know from experience that normal support-issues are handled by a human, but those go to a different mail...



You think that they'd be a little more prone to listening to criticism, after the Patreon debacle.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> I really hope that a human actually looks the feedback they get, but I am sceptical. I know from experience that normal support-issues are handled by a human, but those go to a different mail...




I expect this would predictably generate far more feedback than they usually get about anything.


----------



## RichGreen (Dec 20, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> I sent them a mail where I voiced certain concerns regarding their plans. Got a regurgitated version of the info on the homepage back.  Not ideal to say the least. It was also sent way too fast to be anything other than an automated response. The only things they pointed there was that backers/creators wouldn't notice anything different. Backers could pay with credit/debit cards, and creators would get ther money in fiat currencies as before (US Dollars, British Pounds, Euros etc)
> 
> I really hope that a human actually looks the feedback they get, but I am sceptical. I know from experience that normal support-issues are handled by a human, but those go to a different mail...



I got a reply telling me Celo (the blockchain they are using) is carbon neutral so nothing to worry about.

They only have 84 employees so hopefully they will become aware of how backers/creators feel pretty quickly. I think the VCs they are trying to attract with this won’t be very impressed that they are upsetting some of their most loyal customers either.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Dec 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> You think that they'd be a little more prone to listening to criticism, after the Patreon debacle.



What did I miss here?


----------



## Ulfgeir (Dec 20, 2021)

Googled around a bit, and  found some links elsewhere where more people are complaining about how bad idea this is.

Kotaku
Kickstarter Announces Blockchain Future, Doubles Down After Users Say 'No Thank You'

Cryptobriefing.com
Kickstarter Faces Backlash Over Partnership With Celo

Futurism.com
Kickstarter Creators Furious Over Company’s Move to Blockchain

Mashable.com








						Kickstarter said it's moving to the blockchain, and creators are pissed
					

Decentralized frustration.




					mashable.com
				




Dicebreaker.com








						Tabletop creators wrestle with the cost of departing Kickstarter in wake of crypto plans
					

Planned move to blockchain in 2022 leaves designers and publishers desperately seeking viable alternatives to the industry’s dominant crowdfunding platform.




					www.dicebreaker.com
				




And some mainstream business as well.. CNBC








						'Web3': Kickstarter and Discord face backlash over moves into crypto
					

The "Web3" movement aims to create a decentralized version of the internet. And big companies like Kickstarter and Discord want in.




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> What did I miss here?



Patreon courted, and received, an infusion of venture capital cash so of course they had to show profitability. They announced that they were going to add a per transaction charge, on the patron side, to payments for creators. If you had a horde of $1-$2 Patreon contributions that you were making then suddently you were going to be paying 20-40% more per month. Not such a big deal if you had larger payments, to fewer creators, but substantial if you were an average person, supporting a bunch of creators, at a lower level. My own support costs would have jumped from roughly US$50.00/month to US$70.00 per month, by my calculations, with no increase in payments to those I support.

The whole idea was (edit: "seemed to be"; this is my assumption) that they wanted fewer but larger creators, presumably because it would require less infrastructure and internal costs to maintain them.

People left Patreon in droves. Creators moved to alternate platforms, if they could. Patreon soon walked back their statement but the damage had been done. Many supporters have never come back.



			The Great Patreon Debacle, and What it Means for Independent Creators – Brendan Schlagel


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 20, 2021)

Ulfgeir said:


> And some mainstream business as well.. CNBC
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See, this one tickles the paranoiac who lives in the cave in the back part of my brain. Companies have wanted for years to "decentralize" the Internet, which resides on a massive number of servers connected via a massive number of informational "pipes," the "Intertubes" as we say in the business. (We don't, actually, that's a callback to a dumb thing a Senator said, back in prehistory.) If that system doesn't really sound centralized, well, it's really not. There are some major parts that are dependent on large companies -- for instance, when Amazon's services platform went down, it took a good chunk with it -- but the thing as a whole isn't really dependent on those parts. 

What it's dependent on, primarily, and a main security concern, is DNS, domain name services. The companies that provide that service are fewer, and you could say they're the "central" portion of the Internet. When you say, "Computer, take me to Amazon.com," they're the servers that tell Majel Barrett Roddenberry where to go. And I don't see where you can replace just that part of the technology and still have the system work. What the stuff I've read online (and, maybe, _barely_ comprehended, if at all) seems to be some idea to do that kind of service using the blockchain. Because DNS servers are high-traffic devices, they are also high-priority targets for hackers; a DNS-injection attack can be devastating. But, if anything, the blockchain seems to me to be fraught with a whole host of issues, and trust is one of them. Because everything's anonymized, there's no way to double-check anything.

It just seems like the buzzwords are clouding men's thoughts. Or maybe it's the idea of money clouding their thoughts, I don't know...


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

I'd say that companies don't want to decentralize the internet, they want to centralize it. To themselves. The internet is based on ARPANET, which was an experiment (among other things) in decentralization to provide communication in the event of a nuclear war.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Patreon courted, and received, an infusion of venture capital cash so of course they had to show profitability. They announced that they were going to add a per transaction charge, on the patron side, to payments for creators. If you had a horde of $1-$2 Patreon contributions that you were making then suddently you were going to be paying 20-40% more per month. Not such a big deal if you had larger payments, to fewer creators, but substantial if you were an average person, supporting a bunch of creators, at a lower level. My own support costs would have jumped from roughly US$50.00/month to US$70.00 per month, by my calculations, with no increase in payments to those I support.
> 
> The whole idea was (edit: "seemed to be"; this is my assumption) that they wanted fewer but larger creators, presumably because it would require less infrastructure and internal costs to maintain them.
> 
> ...



I should also add that this bungle by Patreon sparked the development of a Patreon-like service by Kickstarter, themselves, though the name of it escapes me at the moment. Another group of creatives formed The Fantasy Network with membership charges that directly support them, and with a Patreon-like system that they've been meaning to roll out for a while now. Two concrete examples of what I described.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> What the stuff I've read online (and, maybe, _barely_ comprehended, if at all) seems to be some idea to do that kind of service using the blockchain.




Except that blockchain technology still relies on DNS to address where its packets go.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Dec 20, 2021)

Doesn't Bitcoin pretty much exist to finance crime and human trafficking? I wouldn't want _my_ money to go anywhere near it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 20, 2021)

guachi said:


> Iirc, the people who verify the block chain will be paid in crypto and only people with significant crypto holdings can participate. And that's something I can't support.



That does sound pretty dodgy.


----------



## NotAYakk (Dec 20, 2021)

Blockchain is just ledger entries, plus a cryptographic hash of the previous ledger entries.

Plus a pile if noise.

It is git, a source control system, with fewer features and (ideally) cryotograpically stronger hashes and weaker structure.

Distributing it with a consensus protocol to keep a single branch can keep multiple sources of truth synchronized in some nice ways.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Doesn't Bitcoin pretty much exist to finance crime and human trafficking?




Whether or not that was the original intent, when your tool is a method of financial exchange with specific focus on anonymity, you can expect that it will be useful to criminal enterprise.  

Meanwhile, Kickstarter specifically _doesn't_ need its transactions to be anonymous.  I imagine they actually want them to be specifically tracked and auditable.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Patreon courted, and received, an infusion of venture capital cash so of course they had to show profitability. They announced that they were going to add a per transaction charge, on the patron side, to payments for creators. If you had a horde of $1-$2 Patreon contributions that you were making then suddently you were going to be paying 20-40% more per month. Not such a big deal if you had larger payments, to fewer creators, but substantial if you were an average person, supporting a bunch of creators, at a lower level. My own support costs would have jumped from roughly US$50.00/month to US$70.00 per month, by my calculations, with no increase in payments to those I support.
> 
> The whole idea was (edit: "seemed to be"; this is my assumption) that they wanted fewer but larger creators, presumably because it would require less infrastructure and internal costs to maintain them.



That's not exactly how I remember it, though the end result was the same. The problem was that some creators on Patreon had trouble with people abusing the system. Basically, people would sign up for a patreon, download whatever was archived, and cancel their patronage before the end of the month when cards would be charged. Patreon's solution to this was to charge each patronage separately, monthly based on starting date. The additional charges weren't coming directly from Patreon (at least not mostly), but from credit card processors.

But the end result was the same: lots of people dropping their support of many creators. It's one thing to support, say, 15 creators at $3 each and pay an extra $1 in processing fees on top of the $45 monthly cost, but when you're paying the additional dollar once per creator that gets expensive real quick.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Doesn't Bitcoin pretty much exist to finance crime and human trafficking? I wouldn't want _my_ money to go anywhere near it.



Chummer, you gots a Platinum Credstick, I can pretty much guarantee you anything in The Sprawl.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

Staffan said:


> That's not exactly how I remember it, though the end result was the same. The problem was that some creators on Patreon had trouble with people abusing the system. Basically, people would sign up for a patreon, download whatever was archived, and cancel their patronage before the end of the month when cards would be charged. Patreon's solution to this was to charge each patronage separately, monthly based on starting date. The additional charges weren't coming directly from Patreon (at least not mostly), but from credit card processors.
> 
> But the end result was the same: lots of people dropping their support of many creators. It's one thing to support, say, 15 creators at $3 each and pay an extra $1 in processing fees on top of the $45 monthly cost, but when you're paying the additional dollar once per creator that gets expensive real quick.



The solution to that issue was to charge people the moment that they signed up as a patron, not wait until the end of the month. That was a completely different issue and the way that they dealt with it was reasonable.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 20, 2021)

I do remember Kickstarter having a problem with 'creators' taking people's money and then not producing anything? (Kind of inevitable with this kind of platform of course.) So maybe having a record of everything would be a way to deal with that?

As people have said it is probably a plot to get venture capital--apparently Long Island Iced Tea Corp changed their name to 'Long Blockchain Corp' and temporarily tripled their stock price.


----------



## Yora (Dec 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I do remember Kickstarter having a problem with 'creators' taking people's money and then not producing anything? (Kind of inevitable with this kind of platform of course.) So maybe having a record of everything would be a way to deal with that?
> 
> As people have said it is probably a plot to get venture capital--apparently Long Island Iced Tea Corp changed their name to 'Long Blockchain Corp' and temporarily tripled their stock price.



I don't see how. I don't think tracking down the people who set up the campaign ever was a problem. It was proving that they were engaging in fraud instead of actually failing their attempt to create their product with the available funds.


----------



## Staffan (Dec 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> The solution to that issue was to charge people the moment that they signed up as a patron, not wait until the end of the month. That was a completely different issue and the way that they dealt with it was reasonable.



That's the solution they landed in after the backlash. I believe it's also a thing creators can toggle, though I'm not sure.

Here are some links from the time in question:
Patreon's Fee Change Stokes the Ire of Creators (when the changes had been announced and people were very angry)
Why content crowdfunder Patreon is halting its hated fee change – TechCrunch (Patreon walking back the changes)


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 20, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Except that blockchain technology still relies on DNS to address where its packets go.



Yes. It's kind of like deciding to send out a tour bus to advertise a new scheme you've cooked up to eliminate taxes, and sending it on publicly-funded roads and charging people a fiat currency to attend the lecture about it in a public space.

IOW, grift.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I do remember Kickstarter having a problem with 'creators' taking people's money and then not producing anything? (Kind of inevitable with this kind of platform of course.) So maybe having a record of everything would be a way to deal with that?



There's an easy way to deal with that sort of thing: Don't let serial abusers use your platform. Have a look at the following campaigns:

Pencil Dice
RPG Pencil Dice
Deck Dice
Spinward Traveller
Knights of the Dinner Table
Castles & Crusades: Beyond the River

... just as an example of serial abuse.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 20, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> There's an easy way to deal with that sort of thing: Don't let serial abusers use your platform.



But that would require us to, you know, do work.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I do remember Kickstarter having a problem with 'creators' taking people's money and then not producing anything? (Kind of inevitable with this kind of platform of course.) So maybe having a record of everything would be a way to deal with that?




Well, it isn't like Kickstarter doesn't know who supported what projects, and at what level, as it is now.  I can look at my entire Kickstarter support history - the information already exists.

Plus, the current iconic use of blockchain is anonymous - so you have a record that a transaction took place, but you don't have a record of who was involved in the transaction.


----------



## J.Quondam (Dec 20, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Plus, the current iconic use of blockchain is anonymous - so you have a record that a transaction took place, but you don't have a record of who was involved in the transaction.



Aha! Maybe they're building a version of their platform just for criminals, "Crookstarter".


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 20, 2021)

J.Quondam said:


> Aha! Maybe they're building a version of their platform just for criminals, "Crookstarter".



Mom: "You don't need that! We have Crookstarter at home!"
Crookstarter at Home: ...

I realize, I've got just over 200 projects backed, so I may be a massive enabler. But, other than projects done by a certain creator who ruined the live action video versions of two of my beloved game franchises, I'm doing okay.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 20, 2021)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Mom: "You don't need that! We have Crookstarter at home!"
> Crookstarter at Home: ...



Go for old Yahoo style branding: Crookstarter@Home.


----------



## Blue Orange (Dec 20, 2021)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Mom: "You don't need that! We have Crookstarter at home!"
> Crookstarter at Home: ...
> 
> I realize, I've got just over 200 projects backed, so I may be a massive enabler. But, other than projects done by a certain creator who ruined the live action video versions of two of my beloved game franchises, I'm doing okay.




Well, they only announced this recently, right? So you can't be blamed for anything before that.

If this in fact does mean they're going to start doing stupid things to raise the stock price and chase VC money and going to start wasting yours, that might be a reason to ditch them. But, I don't know, lots of geek stuff seems tied up with blockchain now. If they're still supporting good projects, why not continue, unless you think they're ripping off either the supporters or the creators?


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 20, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> I don't know, lots of geek stuff seems tied up with blockchain now.



Other than dodgy cryptocurrencies, every application I've seen for blockchain is mostly theoretical. Kickstarter is one of the more prominent platforms that has announced moving to blockchain. The problem I have is, many of the applications people have been talking about ("secure data access tracking" or "payments tracking") have an inherent problem with anonymous blockchain. And if you de-anonymize a blockchain, well, the whole point of a public ledger is that all transactions are being broadcast to all users. Do you really want me checking up on your transactions? And if you keep it anonymized, how are you going to use it to create accountability?



Blue Orange said:


> If they're still supporting good projects, why not continue, unless you think they're ripping off either the supporters or the creators?



Because I'm one tiny guy in a society in the midst of capitalistic corporate collapse, and the only way I can make my voice heard is apparently with my wallet -- no other form of voting seems to be heard. So, I will use my one relevant metric to vote things to go the way I want them to. I've stopped visiting various convenient outlets because of things they did I disagree with, there are other fish in the sea, I'll manage with Kickstarter, too.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 21, 2021)

Blue Orange said:


> Well, they only announced this recently, right? So you can't be blamed for anything before that.
> 
> If this in fact does mean they're going to start doing stupid things to raise the stock price and chase VC money and going to start wasting yours, that might be a reason to ditch them. But, I don't know, lots of geek stuff seems tied up with blockchain now. If they're still supporting good projects, why not continue, unless you think they're ripping off either the supporters or the creators?



If you go the venture capital route, you have to start showing immediate profitability. VC types aren't generally long term thinkers. They want ROI _yesterday_. The easiest way to satisfy them would be to increase fees. In fact it's the only way that I can see for a quick return, in a business that is all about facilitating interaction between third parties.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 21, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> VC



Are those "venture capitalists" or "vulture capitalists"? Because nowadays its becoming harder to see the difference.


----------



## guachi (Dec 21, 2021)

UngainlyTitan said:


> That does sound pretty dodgy.




The Kickstarter FAQ says they will use "proof of stake" and when you click on the link it goes to a non-kickstarter website that says the following:

"All participating validators receive a reward in the native cryptocurrency, which is generally distributed by the network in proportion to each validator’s stake.

Becoming a validator is a major responsibility and requires a fairly high level of technical knowledge. The minimum amount of crypto that validators are required to stake is often relatively high (for ETH2, for example, it’s 32 ETH) and validators can lose some of their stake via a process called slashing if their node goes offline or if they validate a “bad” block of transactions."


----------



## RealAlHazred (Dec 21, 2021)

So far, this is my favorite comment on the whole debacle.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 21, 2021)

guachi said:


> The Kickstarter FAQ says they will use "proof of stake" and when you click on the link it goes to a non-kickstarter website that says the following:
> 
> "All participating validators receive a reward in the native cryptocurrency, which is generally distributed by the network in proportion to each validator’s stake.
> 
> Becoming a validator is a major responsibility and requires a fairly high level of technical knowledge. The minimum amount of crypto that validators are required to stake is often relatively high (for ETH2, for example, it’s 32 ETH) and validators can lose some of their stake via a process called slashing if their node goes offline or if they validate a “bad” block of transactions."



Who are they requiring to become validators? the backers?


----------



## Rabulias (Mar 29, 2022)

I went looking to check the status of Kickstarter's use of blockchain and found this:








						Kickstarter is pumping the brakes on blockchain tech, but the car is still moving
					

The crowdfunding company is creating an advisory council that will include creators




					www.polygon.com
				




This sounds promising, and I notice they are asking for applications to join the promised Community Advisory Council here (applications due on April 6 2022):








						Announcing the Kickstarter Community Advisory Council
					

We’re looking to work with creators from across creative disciplines to make Kickstarter the best it can be.




					www.kickstarter.com


----------



## Jer (Mar 29, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> I went looking to check the status of Kickstarter's use of blockchain and found this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was two days before the COO of the company beclowned himself in an interview with Comics Beat.  Still pushing the idea that Blockchain would be useful for Kickstarter with zero idea of how it works or how it could possibly apply to their model:









						Interview with Kickstarter COO: An attempt to answer blockchain questions
					

Kickstarter COO Sean Leow talks with a reporter from The Beat about Kickstarter's controversial blockchain strategy, which is alarming many creators, including game creators.  The reporter asks some pretty technical questions about the efficiency and reversibility concerns around blockchain. And...




					www.enworld.org
				




One of the worst interviews I think I've ever read from someone who should have been prepared to answer questions about a tech choice they know was divisive among the creators who use their service.

A week ago the CEO announced he's stepping stepped down as of next week - that COO is going to be the interim CEO.

(In all honesty I'm positive that they announced Blockchain! to satisfy the investors who love to hear those meaningless buzzwords, and didn't have an actual idea of how they were going to use it.  And also didn't consider that the folks who make their company worth investing in might have something to say about that idea.)


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 29, 2022)

Jer said:


> (In all honesty I'm positive that they announced Blockchain! to satisfy the investors who love to hear those meaningless buzzwords, and didn't have an actual idea of how they were going to use it.  And also didn't consider that the folks who make their company worth investing in might have something to say about that idea.)



Unfortunately, I agree.  I was hoping for a solid, in-writing, "we are not now, nor ever will be, moving to blockchain" announcement from Kickstarter.  

This looks like a set-up for a different, opposite announcement of "we asked YOU what you wanted, and you said blockchain, so you're welcome!" announcement that they've drafted already.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 29, 2022)

Blue Orange said:


> But, I don't know, lots of geek stuff seems tied up with blockchain now.



Augh... don't normalize that naughty word like that. it's all hype. The early adopters need more sheep to join so they have someone to buy their meaningless baubles. If no one comes in, they can't cash out. That's what all the marketing for NFT is about. All the big sales? most of the time it's between accounts that belong to the same person, meaning that no actual money is being earned but it looks good on records. 

Crypto is used to scam people, pay ransomware, or the platform is itself a scam with the owners disappearing with the loot. 

Don't reward companies for going into crypto BS.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Mar 29, 2022)

Undrave said:


> That's what all the marketing for NFT is about. All the big sales? most of the time it's between accounts that belong to the same person, meaning that no actual money is being earned but it looks good on records.



That's not entirely true. The marketplace makes a tiny percentage on every exchange. It's like a tax on grifting.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 29, 2022)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> That's not entirely true. The marketplace makes a tiny percentage on every exchange. It's like a tax on grifting.



Point is, they're doing all they can to make it seem like it's this HUGE thing and big community and you can make a buck quickly... when it's literally something like 400 000 wallets trading that stuff (not people, wallets!) and most people are basically investing in digital beany babies.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 29, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Point is, they're doing all they can to make it seem like it's this HUGE thing and big community and you can make a buck quickly... when it's literally something like 400 000 wallets trading that stuff (not people, wallets!) and most people are basically investing in digital beany babies.



I wonder how long before government realizes that it's just a huge Pyramid/Ponzi Scheme and gets to cracking figurative heads?


----------



## deganawida (Mar 29, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I wonder how long before government realizes that it's just a huge Pyramid/Ponzi Scheme and gets to cracking figurative heads?



You have far more faith in governments than I have in any government.  I'm totally expecting them to have that realization and then try to figure out how to get in on the action (see all the recent news about CBDC discussions).


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 29, 2022)

deganawida said:


> You have far more faith in governments than I have in any government.  I'm totally expecting them to have that realization and then try to figure out how to get in on the action (see all the recent news about CBDC discussions).



I wouldn't call it faith in government. It's having faith that big business doesn't like when someone else gets to take advantage of the poor and gullible, and they have government as a tool to wield.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Mar 29, 2022)

deganawida said:


> You have far more faith in governments than I have in any government.  I'm totally expecting them to have that realization and then try to figure out how to get in on the action (see all the recent news about CBDC discussions).



Absolutely agree. If you watch the most recent U.S. congressional hearing on crypto, you see the usual politicians from our anti-all-regulations-no-matter-what party deploying the same rhetoric they always do, essentially praising _whatever it is_ these private sector folks are doing with this here inscrutable crypto stuff, because they must know what they're doing, they're making money! Or, something like money? Ah, who cares, regulations are bad, and such.

(I know, this is overtly political, but it's also why companies like Kickstarter can do whatever they want with blockchain or crypto assets without anyone in government intervening, except maybe to help expand the NFT bubble even further)


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 29, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Absolutely agree. If you watch the most recent U.S. congressional hearing on crypto, you see the usual politicians from our anti-all-regulations-no-matter-what party deploying the same rhetoric they always do, essentially praising _whatever it is_ these private sector folks are doing with this here inscrutable crypto stuff, because they must know what they're doing, they're making money! Or, something like money? Ah, who cares, regulations are bad, and such.
> 
> (I know, this is overtly political, but it's also why companies like Kickstarter can do whatever they want with blockchain or crypto assets without anyone in government intervening, except maybe to help expand the NFT bubble even further)



It's right up there with the praise heaped upon companies that managed to create paper, that was backed by paper, that was backed by the profits on sub-prime loans. Look how _THAT_ turned out.


----------



## Tun Kai Poh (Mar 29, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> It's right up there with the praise heaped upon companies that managed to create paper, that was backed by paper, that was backed by the profits on sub-prime loans. Look how _THAT_ turned out.



In some cases, it was the same people who caused the sub-prime crisis, backing crypto as the next big thing...


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 29, 2022)

Tun Kai Poh said:


> In some cases, it was the same people who caused the sub-prime crisis, backing crypto as the next big thing...



Hey, if you can do the worthless paper thing, without even having to pay for paper, PROFIT!


----------



## Umbran (Mar 29, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I wouldn't call it faith in government. It's having faith that big business doesn't like when someone else gets to take advantage of the poor and gullible, and they have government as a tool to wield.




But, you forget the option of them getting in on the fun.  Amazon paying their people in Amazon-coin, which they can spend on Amazon and at Whole Foods.  A return to owing one's soul to the company store...


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But, you forget the option of them getting in on the fun.  Amazon paying their people in Amazon-coin, which they can spend on Amazon and at Whole Foods.  A return to owing one's soul to the company store...



Not forgetting it at all. There's nothing truly new under the Sun.


----------



## Undrave (Mar 30, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I wonder how long before government realizes that it's just a huge Pyramid/Ponzi Scheme and gets to cracking figurative heads?



Governments are famously slow to react to new technology like that... 

MAYBE the EU could do something like how they forced everybody but Apple to use the same charge cable for phones?


----------



## Bohandas (Mar 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> (In all honesty I'm positive that they announced Blockchain! to satisfy the investors who love to hear those meaningless buzzwords, and didn't have an actual idea of how they were going to use it.  And also didn't consider that the folks who make their company worth investing in might have something to say about that idea.)




So the same reason why _any_ company talks about using blockchain


----------



## Bohandas (Mar 31, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I wonder how long before government realizes that it's just a huge Pyramid/Ponzi Scheme and gets to cracking figurative heads?




I'm wondering how long it's gonna be before the government realizes, "wait. did they say they're getting involved with technology designed for money laundering and tax evasion?"


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 31, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> I'm wondering how long it's gonna be before the government realizes, "wait. did they say they're getting involved with technology designed for money laundering and tax evasion?"



Too right, chummer. What are they going to do when Arasaka starts bribing officials with untraceable credsticks?


----------



## RealAlHazred (Mar 31, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Too right, chummer. What are they going to do when Arasaka starts bribing officials with untraceable credsticks?



Excuse me, if this were the Sixth World, part of the US would have a dragon as president. Not saying that would be great, but it would arguably be better than any of the other options right now.


----------



## Cordwainer Fish (Mar 31, 2022)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Excuse me, if this were the Sixth World, part of the US would have a dragon as president. Not saying that would be great, but it would arguably be better than any of the other options right now.



Don't blame me, I voted for Ramoth.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 31, 2022)

Cordwainer Fish said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Ramoth.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Mar 31, 2022)

Cordwainer Fish said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Ramoth.




*When the going gets weird, the weird go pro.




*


----------



## Ulfgeir (Mar 31, 2022)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Excuse me, if this were the Sixth World, part of the US would have a dragon as president. Not saying that would be great, but it would arguably be better than any of the other options right now.



Nah, we haven't even had the computer-crash of 2029 yet, though assholes with ransomware are trying their damndest to get us there.

And with the right dragon as President I think it would have been good. Dunkelzahn seemed to like science, culture and that people should get along. Sadly I think you would get Alamais..  Lowfyr would make an effective president, but you would probably not enjoy it..


----------



## RealAlHazred (Mar 31, 2022)

"Dude, the President just burned up all of the people in those three blocks of the city! Just one fire-breath and _poof_, gone!"

"They were _obviously_ communists, and the President was only doing what _needed to be done_ to keep the nation safe for us, the Dragons-Burning-People Party!"


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 31, 2022)

Liane the Wayfarer said:


> Excuse me, if this were the Sixth World, part of the US would have a dragon as president. Not saying that would be great, but it would arguably be better than any of the other options right now.



So.... you're saying that he isn't?


----------



## Aldarc (May 12, 2022)

The subject matter of this thread aged about as well as many expected.


----------



## Parmandur (May 12, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> The subject matter of this thread aged about as well as many expected.



I feel thst the thread failed to deliver on it's promise.


----------



## Cordwainer Fish (May 12, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I feel thst the thread failed to deliver on it's promise.



Just like blockchains! /rimshot


----------

