Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Can someone explain why we don't want NFT?
Comments
-
It's a commercial activity though. On that basis, we could say that anyone using computer power and energy on entertainment is worse since they're not providing economic transactions or material output. People make livelihoods trading NFTs and such. NFTs have got to be far less energy consuming than the amount we spend on frivolous videos and tik toks- and unlike dancing dogs and egirls, NFTs provide economic impact and value.
1 -
The concept is not fine. You want cool art? Find an artist to commission some actual art from them or buy art at a shop. NFTs are money laundering Pyramid scheme where you don't own the art or even get the art...you get a receipt saying you own the receipt to this. Often NFTs are either stolen art or computer generated assortment of the same damn thing given random number of em to create the illusion of rarity.
0 -
This is semi relevant to the topic, I just havent had anyone to share this story with.
I customer at my job today had a meltdown because his phone was obliterated and it is apperently where he stored his crypto. Must have been a lot cause I'm talking Chernobyl levels of meltdown.
0 -
Countries of the first world creating nuclear bombs exploiting all the resources ... and these children get angry because there are a couple of computers on ...
2 -
I'm honestly not sure. But this is how someone explained it to me:
Imagine that you buy something expensive with money you got from burning down the Amazon Rainforest. But then you don't get the actual thing you bought, just a receipt that tells you that you own it. (not my words)
Honestly, I'm not sure if that's true. All I know is that NFT's has a bad impact on global warming, etc.
0 -
It's like those certificates you used to be able to buy saying you owned a star in the sky.
0 -
Carbon gnome killer when BHVR?
0 -
To be honest I don't blame them (and this goes back to the whole faith thing) because of their past actions.
While I agree with you that it's fake, I can definitely see why people would have a harder time believing that.
0 -
Its mainly because law making is a slow process but given that laws have already caught up with crypto to the point of making it taxable...
NFT's days are numbered.
0 -
Can I just pointout the EXTREME false equivalence between comparing an NFT ....TO A BLOODY NUKE!?
0 -
The concept of an NFT is fine, it's basically trading cards (the argument about predatory practices and gambling is another topic though), it's the infrastructure that they're built upon that is the issue.
A physical trading card doesn't take much energy to produce, especially in bulk. But cryptocurrency like Etherum and Bitcoin literally take more energy than burning 5 gallons of gas for every transaction/transfer of the "item".
I can hand a trading card over to a friend and that's all it took. It's a very local and energy-efficient system
If I want to "hand" an NFT over to a friend you need to have computers burning through algorithms to "secure" the "validity" of the transaction on the blockchain to the tune of several gallons of gas. It's a global system that requires a huge energy-cost (for every individual transaction, regardless of the "value" transferred) with the existing popular systems.
0 -
It's like trading cards except the people selling them insist that if you buy one they grant you ownership over the actual player depicted on the card. Which isn't really "fine", even with the energy cost, since it's, you know, a lie, and its a lie that's fundamental to the concept as it has been pushed and promoted, but you're right that the energy costs make it even worse.
0 -
That's not even remotely true. I think you're thinking of mining. Transactions cost almost nothing in energy terms. It's small amounts of data transfer. A six minute porn video is going to be exponentially higher than transferring that data. The mining costs are artificially high to prevent inflation of mining since chips are so affordable. Or rather, were so affordable.
"I can hand a trading card over to a friend and that's all it took. It's a very local and energy-efficient system"
A silly example. There's no real energy cost for the hundredth of a calorie you're talking about.
0 -
if they sell an nft dbd gets deleated off steam that's why steam doesn't allow anything to do with nfts and have deleted bigger games because for this so dbd isn't the first and won't be an exception
0 -
Unless I am mistaken, transaction means transaction, not adding a block to the blockchain, but the process of validating that transaction and updating the "history" of the blockchain.
0 -
Also, you realize that "mining" is the process that a crypto uses to secure the validity of its transfers right? Can't make transactions secure without mining a new hash.
I do think that this tech has use in the future, so long as it becomes more efficient, so my hat off to Ethereum for actively trying to improve itself.
0 -
Unless... I am mistaken, and that transfers are indeed very low-cost, but methods of adding new blocks to the blockchain (the incentive keeping 3rd parties validating the ledger and it staying decentralized) are so inefficient and energy intensive that they are absurdly high because of the carrot at the end of the stick that is that decentralized currency.
https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume
And that basically blockchain currencies will inevitably become regulated and countries will start their own blockchain currencies.
0 -
Its not really about cancel culture
To flesh it out a lil more its about consumption vs output.
If you tally pretty much any value of entertainment and comfort vs ecological consumption, you'll come up with the answer 99% of the time that this is bad for the environment.
In a value vs consumption equation though NFT's are just a stupidly bad level of consumption for what's produced. Its an intangible piece of digital crap that burns roughly a household worth of energy to produce, sell and maintain.
If you burn a household worth of energy to run your house, one might say that's an understandible transaction, if you burn a near equivalent of that power to buy and maintain a single digital emoji you want... well you could be forgiven for saying that's an unnecessary level of cost for what's produced.
When we build profit models that include NFT's we legtimize this incredibly wasteful production.
Its kind of why they moved away from old school fast food packaging that had CFC's in them. Here we have boxes used for burgers that contain a material which causes a massive amount of environmental damage that's well beyond the value of the burger.
Now people like burgers and whole industries and livelyhoods are built on food distribution and sale, so if we can reduce the CFC use in this industry then the cost vs output equation improves and we can maintain this as something everyone can enjoy and benefit from with a reduced environemntal cost.
NFT's are a sort of CFC of digital content and if we start supporting them as a good market then it promotes the growth of a really ######### cost vs output model that really shouldn't exist.
2 -
'I can't believe people care about aids-patients when cancer exists!'
0
