bew | Yunt Capital
@bew
More musings on what it means to be "fully" on-chain for a game. Would, literally, each and every user interaction need to be individually committed as a tx, or could you roll user actions up into fewer txs? E.g. the average chess game is ~40 moves. Would you need to make 40 txs or 1 tx with all the moves? /gaming
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Wong
@nogamblenofuture
The latter wouldn’t get rid of the need for a DB or storage in the middle of the game so not fully on chain. I don’t really see a point to fully on chain games in most cases. Especially since playing a game created by a central party necessitates trusting them anyways, why pay the extra cost?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
bew | Yunt Capital
@bew
You could cache state before committing it on-chain -- don't have to use strongly persistent storage especially when things like Redis have a reasonable leve of persistence. But yeah, I tend to agree that for most game types I cannot see the argument for them being fully on-chain.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
