About the Explanation of Development Authorization for Star Keeper Branch Version

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

2 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

I cannot alter it, my changes are ineffective. If you have created NFTs for Chia, you will understand that once you add the protocol link, if the content is not the same as the original content, the NFT becomes invalid. The hash value can be used to verify the validity of the contract.

Please answer both below questions before responding to anything else that follows them.

1.  Is the contract itself written into the blockchain?

2.  If not, and is only linked to by the NFT, does the contract reside on a website and URL that only you control?

If #1 is false and #2 is true, then you always maintain control of what is in the contract.  If what you are stating above is true, that if you change anything at the URL encoded with the NFT the NFT becomes invalid, all that says is that you hold even more power in this situation, as you changing anything in the contract invalidates the NFT that someone paid you for and thus removes whatever value placeholder someone giving you money for the NFT had.  You could literally destroy the NFT after someone paid you for it by altering the contract at the URL and invalidate everything, essentially allowing you to "take the money and run" with no real consequences for doing so.  If this is all the case, again, anyone giving you any money for any arrangement such as is currently being presented would be a fool, and thus not likely to happen.

Unless you have a concrete, immutable contract somewhere, no one is going to give you anything more than "pity" money for any such NFT, since their rights to what the NFT represents cannot be guaranteed otherwise.  Perhaps if the structure of NFTs themselves allowed for more and different kinds of data to be encoded within the blockchain what you're suggesting would be possible, but so far as I'm aware, it's not currently possible with current NFT technology.  Right now, at best, you're looking at a "trust me" agreement, which I would think and hope nobody would participate in given the amount of funds you believe the Star Keeper IP will generate.

Best of luck.

[Scrobins | 1,718]

I’ve done some IP sale contract work and collaboration agreements for a couple of devs in the community. I genuinely want to do more in this area to bring my skills to bear for my friends here. But as has already been mentioned, I wouldn’t work for free. And frankly I, nor any other attorney worth their salt, would touch a contract that you’ve already put out there that is entangled with pseudo smart financial tech that you clearly do not understand. That is a malpractice mess waiting to happen.

[zxdplay | 149]

19 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Please answer both below questions before responding to anything else that follows them.

1.  Is the contract itself written into the blockchain?

2.  If not, and is only linked to by the NFT, does the contract reside on a website and URL that only you control?

If #1 is false and #2 is true, then you always maintain control of what is in the contract.  If what you are stating above is true, that if you change anything at the URL encoded with the NFT the NFT becomes invalid, all that says is that you hold even more power in this situation, as you changing anything in the contract invalidates the NFT that someone paid you for and thus removes whatever value placeholder someone giving you money for the NFT had.  You could literally destroy the NFT after someone paid you for it by altering the contract at the URL and invalidate everything, essentially allowing you to "take the money and run" with no real consequences for doing so.  If this is all the case, again, anyone giving you any money for any arrangement such as is currently being presented would be a fool, and thus not likely to happen.

Unless you have a concrete, immutable contract somewhere, no one is going to give you anything more than "pity" money for any such NFT, since their rights to what the NFT represents cannot be guaranteed otherwise.  Perhaps if the structure of NFTs themselves allowed for more and different kinds of data to be encoded within the blockchain what you're suggesting would be possible, but so far as I'm aware, it's not currently possible with current NFT technology.  Right now, at best, you're looking at a "trust me" agreement, which I would think and hope nobody would participate in given the amount of funds you believe the Star Keeper IP will generate.

Best of luck.

Once the NFT is sold, I cannot change it anymore. Only the owner of the NFT can make technical changes to it, and I cannot change the content that the NFT is linked to, because the protocol text is stored in decentralized network data nodes that cannot be changed by anyone, unless all the servers in the AR network are completely paralyzed, which is almost impossible.

[JamesRobot | 5,785]

1 hour ago, OptOut said:

I'm thinking about buying one of those NFTs right now

Too bad.  Dude is not accepting Opt Coin.  On the plus side, Opt Coin has not lost one iota of its value! 

[Khromak | 768]

I think his #2 point is saying: your NFT links to https://arseed.web3infra.dev/Kbk_bNNYaLH0wKh8J_z3NDWxGFz25WDujKo9wSmIMrQ

If you have the ability to edit that website (add a new word to the end of paragraph 2.1 or whatever), then you could change the entire contract and the NFT would still say: "Yep, the link is still https://arseed.web3infra.dev/Kbk_bNNYaLH0wKh8J_z3NDWxGFz25WDujKo9wSmIMrQ"

I don't know that much about NFT and neither do most of the people in this conversation, but it is my understanding that most blockchain stuff is just a link to another page on the internet, it doesn't validate what is on that page. If you change the contract, does the link change? Normally websites don't work that way, it's just a pointer to your document, the link doesn't contain the actual content of the document.

Maybe this is some more complex implementation of websites or NFTs, but that was the original point: if you have control over the content at that link, which we presume you do since you are the author of the contract, then the entire "contract" could be edited and it wouldn't trigger any of the "protections" the NFT offers.

[zxdplay | 149]

I found it too difficult to explain NFT and blockchain technology here with my English proficiency.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

5 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

I found it too difficult to explain NFT and blockchain technology here with my English proficiency.

We understand what you're saying (your English translations are fine.)

We just don't think that the contract or NFT situation is favorable to anyone.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Tulpa

[Jeevan | 8,908]

2 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

I found it too difficult to explain NFT and blockchain technology here with my English proficiency.

I don't know that it is that necessarily.  People are curious, asking questions, and putting their opinions out there.  IF this works out for you great, let us know and I'm sure folks interested in star keeper 2 will buy it.  

IF you ever want to do a second run of star keeper, then there are folks who have ties to people like megacat studios etc, on staff who are willing to help negotiate things for a second run.  I would say do what your heart tells you to do and if you ever decide to do a second run, hit up a staff member and they can direct you for help with it.  

It really comes down to what tulpa just said, we don't see the point and are just letting our opinions fly here.  

[zxdplay | 149]

This is the browsing page for an NFT. The Linense is a link, and once this NFT is sold, I cannot change this link anymore. The content that the link points to is also permanently unchangeable, which is the tamper-proof feature of blockchain.

[zxdplay | 149]

7 minutes ago, Jeevan said:

I don't know that it is that necessarily.  People are curious, asking questions, and putting their opinions out there.  IF this works out for you great, let us know and I'm sure folks interested in star keeper 2 will buy it.  

IF you ever want to do a second run of star keeper, then there are folks who have ties to people like megacat studios etc, on staff who are willing to help negotiate things for a second run.  I would say do what your heart tells you to do and if you ever decide to do a second run, hit up a staff member and they can direct you for help with it.  

It really comes down to what tulpa just said, we don't see the point and are just letting our opinions fly here.  

I wrote in the agreement that I reserved the ownership of the mainline game, including star keeper 2. As long as conditions permit, I will start the project

[Jeevan | 8,908]

Just now, zxdplay said:

I wrote in the agreement that I reserved the ownership of the mainline game, including star keeper 2. As long as conditions permit, I will start the project

I truly hope you can as I hear you are pretty good at what you do, otherwise there wouldn't be this thread with people talking about it!  

Good luck!  maybe I'll look it up if you accomplish your goal!

[Tulpa | 3,488]

2 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

I wrote in the agreement that I reserved the ownership of the mainline game, including star keeper 2. As long as conditions permit, I will start the project

So instead of all this NFT stuff that has no guarantee of succeeding, why not do a crowdfunding thing like Kickstarter for Star Keeper 2?

That would get people excited.

People want a game by you, not a branch game by God knows who.

[Khromak | 768]

[fcgamer | 4,718]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

So instead of all this NFT stuff that has no guarantee of succeeding, why not do a crowdfunding thing like Kickstarter for Star Keeper 2?

That would get people excited.

People want a game by you, not a branch game by God knows who.

I think we know why.

[OptOut | 8,879]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

People want a game by @OptOut; a branch game by God: @OptOut.

FTFY. 

[zxdplay | 149]

5 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

So instead of all this NFT stuff that has no guarantee of succeeding, why not do a crowdfunding thing like Kickstarter for Star Keeper 2?

That would get people excited.

People want a game by you, not a branch game by God knows who.

As far as I know, Kickstarter does not allow Chinese users to register

[Deadeye | 1,595]

1 minute ago, zxdplay said:

As far as I know, Kickstarter does not allow Chinese users to register

I believe indiegogo does

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

1 hour ago, Khromak said:

I think his #2 point is saying: your NFT links to https://arseed.web3infra.dev/Kbk_bNNYaLH0wKh8J_z3NDWxGFz25WDujKo9wSmIMrQ

If you have the ability to edit that website (add a new word to the end of paragraph 2.1 or whatever), then you could change the entire contract and the NFT would still say: "Yep, the link is still https://arseed.web3infra.dev/Kbk_bNNYaLH0wKh8J_z3NDWxGFz25WDujKo9wSmIMrQ"

Exactly.  If all that's encoded in the "smart contract" portion of the NFT is a link to the contract at the time that the NFT is sold, that leaves the buyer in a very poor position, as whatever is at the link locked into the NFT can be changed at the whim of the website owner/operator.

Here's a reasonably decent explanation I found about how NFTs work, and specifically how they can be or are being used in regard to IP matters:  https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/1a1abb9f/nfts-and-intellectual-property-rights

Based on what limited understanding I've gained from reading throgh most of that, the contract itself can actually be written out within the "smart contract" portion of the NFT itself, then made immutable once the NFT is minted.  Since OP keeps referring to a link, it appears that this did not happen with any of the ones he's minted thus far, leaving him able to update the online documented pointed at by the provided link at his discretion.  Another thing to note is that when someone creates an NFT, they're able to set it up in such a way so that if the NFT is ever sold again, part of the digital currency transferred for its purchase will automatically go to the person who minted it, creating a potentially infinite revenue stream, where the original creator doesn't have to worry about who has the NFT or what they're doing with it, as they'll get paid every time it changes hands, no matter what.

Having read all of that, I can understand why OP is so enthusiastic about doing business in this sort of manner, as it basically protects him from being directly ripped off and, if the NFT/IP gets popular, it has the potential to guarantee him a payday every time it changes hands.  However, without the contract actually encoded into the token itself when it's minted (along with verbiage to the tune of "purchase of this NFT indicates agreement with all terms herein" to ensure some ability to legally enforce the contract), it leaves OP in a position of total power over what happens with his IP, even after purchase, whether he realizes that or not.  Anyone I'm familiar with who would be interested in purchasing an IP in order to do game development with it would be cautious and read all the details beforehand, most likely realizing exactly this issue, and steering well clear of it as a result.  If the terms aren't changed (with the contract encoded within the NFT itself versus just being available at a link that's contained within the NFT), I have a feeling the only people who might buy into this are a bunch of crypto enthusiasts who have zero interest in game development and only passing interest in whatever neat looking jpeg they think they bought.

[MrWunderful | 2,926]

Damn this is complicated. 

[Tulpa | 3,488]

16 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Having read all of that, I can understand why OP is so enthusiastic about doing business in this sort of manner, as it basically protects him from being directly ripped off and, if the NFT/IP gets popular, it has the potential to guarantee him a payday every time it changes hands.  However, without the contract actually encoded into the token itself when it's minted (along with verbiage to the tune of "purchase of this NFT indicates agreement with all terms herein" to ensure some ability to legally enforce the contract), it leaves OP in a position of total power over what happens with his IP, even after purchase, whether he realizes that or not.  Anyone I'm familiar with who would be interested in purchasing an IP in order to do game development with it would be cautious and read all the details beforehand, most likely realizing exactly this issue, and steering well clear of it as a result.  If the terms aren't changed (with the contract encoded within the NFT itself versus just being available at a link that's contained within the NFT), I have a feeling the only people who might buy into this are a bunch of crypto enthusiasts who have zero interest in game development and only passing interest in whatever neat looking jpeg they think they bought.

Yeah, I get that part, too.

But he's hedging his bets on a LOT of speculation. Specifically the appeal of the general Star Keeper IP (the kid with the jetpack, the sprites, etc.) If the game had like a memorable sprite or a cool story, maybe, but as it stands...

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

4 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Yeah, I get that part, too.

But he's hedging his bets on a LOT of speculation. Specifically the appeal of the general Star Keeper IP (the kid with the jetpack, the sprites, etc.) If the game had like a memorable sprite or a cool story, maybe, but as it stands...

Oh yeah, I understand that, hence me pointing out that he'll most likely end up with modern equivalent of k-rad script kiddies being the only ones interested in his NFTs since, as they are, no game developer in their right mind would touch them with a 10 foot pole.

[zxdplay | 149]

38 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Exactly.  If all that's encoded in the "smart contract" portion of the NFT is a link to the contract at the time that the NFT is sold, that leaves the buyer in a very poor position, as whatever is at the link locked into the NFT can be changed at the whim of the website owner/operator.

I don't know how many times I have to say that the content pointed to by the link in the NFT cannot be changed

Everyone can learn about arweave
https://www.arweave.org/
I stored the NFT Licenseon the Arweave network, which is a decentralized storage network. Once a file is uploaded to this network, it can be permanently stored and accessed by anyone without the risk of loss, except in the event of a major disaster such as a world war where all servers around the world are destroyed. 
Once I upload a file, it cannot be changed, because the file is stored in a distributed manner. The file is divided into several fragments and stored on servers around the world. Even if some of the servers experience failures, the original content can still be retrieved.

[zxdplay | 149]

@darkchylde28

I am a programmer, I have written Eth smart contract code, I understand the underlying technology of blockchain and decentralized storage, I think NFT can be used as a medium for IP authorization
But if you don't believe me, there's nothing I can do

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

5 minutes ago, zxdplay said:

I don't know how many times I have to say that the content pointed to by the link in the NFT cannot be changed

Everyone can learn about arweave
https://www.arweave.org/
I stored the NFT Licenseon the Arweave network, which is a decentralized storage network. Once a file is uploaded to this network, it can be permanently stored and accessed by anyone without the risk of loss, except in the event of a major disaster such as a world war where all servers around the world are destroyed. 
Once I upload a file, it cannot be changed, because the file is stored in a distributed manner. The file is divided into several fragments and stored on servers around the world. Even if some of the servers experience failures, the original content can still be retrieved.

Got it.  Then, as-is, your contract leaves you open to the first person who buys an NFT stealing your IP and preventing you from doing anything about it since nobody is allowed to get litigious with one another.  It's still safer in the NFT itself, since there's a place and everything for it.

Again, best of luck.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

14 minutes ago, darkchylde28 said:

Oh yeah, I understand that, hence me pointing out that he'll most likely end up with modern equivalent of k-rad script kiddies being the only ones interested in his NFTs since, as they are, no game developer in their right mind would touch them with a 10 foot pole.

If the crypto bros or whoever is into NFTs latch onto his token and make him money, more power to him. Really. But I also hope he has a backup plan in the (very likely) case it doesn't take off. Hence the crowdfunding suggestion.

Reminds me of a friend of mine who was into these get-rich-quick schemes. He went in with a couple of dudes who bought a domain URL about the college football playoffs (before the NCAA adopted a playoff.) It wasn't the main collegefootballplayoffs.com in use now, but like a .net or .us one.

While there was a demand for a playoff, their approach was posting really goofy, REALLY poor production quality videos that they hoped would go viral. They even managed to secure an email interview with Orrin Hatch (as he was involved in some investigation related to college football.) I thought they'd do a serious interview, but it was all low-brow humor jokes.

Eventually they managed to sell the domain, and I asked him how much he made.

He lost about a grand on it.