RE: Seriously Though: What's up with @dan?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Dan has bigger goals.
And they are not what anyone think (unless you think he is a reptilian overlord here to help humanity by dooming it)
My biggest butting of heads with him was when he tried to talk about DPOS and MMORPGs.
He wanted the design to be your just start from the beginning and replay EVERYTHING any time anything breaks.
I tried to tell him that in an MMO, you spend most your time at full health (etc.) and so replaying so much is pointless. In fact, anything older than an hour is almost useless.
But, he wouldn't give on this point.
I find his logic to not be accurate.
I find that he seems to be bleeding a lot of money.
And his desires seem to be ... very strange
0
0
0.000
He is very strange.
But then again all the super nerds at the top of this pyramid are.
As someone who wants to make a turn-based (block-based) MMORPG here I find this very interesting, but I'm not 100% understanding what is being said here.
In order to verify integrity of every character, item, and gold-piece in the game, every node must have all the correct information and interpret it properly. If something goes wrong you have to fix it... that might require a replay? I guess? Not fully understanding what you are getting at here.
Dan was insisting that every replay had to start from the beginning.
So that this means every node has everything correct.
From my view, most of the information is unnecessary, and useless after any given time.
Things like HP or MP are important while in a fight, but the next day, none of that fight mattered.
(yes, death, loot, exp gained, weapons broken, are all important, but they are a tiny fraction of the data involved)
And, as a game gets older, the chain becomes extremely large, and replaying becomes a very hefty price.
and most of the information is useless.
So, i suggested having saved points, or just resetting things like HP and MP and/or leave them out of the block chain.
Yes, exactly, you are right.
Obviously "checkpoints" are the solution.
All you have to do is get the network to agree that this "save state" at at this point in time is valid... and then the network remains in consensus.
The thing about @dan is that he's an idealist so it makes sense that he would veto the idea.
Idealism and Reality need to link up somewhere.
Even if one of these checkpoints was corrupt anyone could do a full replay to prove it.
Doesn't seem like a big deal.
Full replay is not sustainable at high transaction rates. In the case of eos snapshots are necessary if you don’t want to take months to replay.
So you serialize all the info in the database... hash it... come to consensus on the hashes... then you can seed one database with another and hash the serialized info to know it's correct? This is how I imagine it working I don't actually know things.