> None of these are realistic examples. Do you think Nintendo won't want a piece of that digital trading market? Or Amazon, for ebooks?

This sounds a lot like arguing in 1995 that people wouldn't buy stuff online because entrenched retail stores are where everyone does their shopping. Its so simple to buy stuff in a store why add the complexity of online shopping?

There are undoubtedly benefits for consumers when you have a decentralized marketplace/ architecture. As the technology matures it should become easier to build these kinds of architectures

Amazon has a to

> undoubtedly benefits for consumers when you have a decentralized marketplace

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is the idea that corporations are willing to give up that much control over their copyright so that consumers get some false impression that they "own" a Pikachu.

Where are you going to see that Pikachu? Through officially-licensed Nintendo software. Not through third party apps and websites. They will get hit with the DMCA hammer.

There is no benefit of the blockchain, when all representation of that data is centralized. Nintendo won't do it because, who cares. Other than a buzzword, the blockchain is irrelevant. That's like caring about whether a website is running on Ruby or Node, or some other stack. It doesn't matter. It's an implementation detail.

You are reading this too literally. Pokemon was just an example there will be others based on the blockchain and yes it does have the same benefits that physical cards have. It's unique and doesn't need a centralized place to work.

Implementation details are not what's relevant here.

"Digital pokemon cards" is already a thing it of course wasn't meant literally https://www.cryptokitties.co/ some of those got sold for $100K

There are plenty of opensourced games out there and plenty of opensource projects and there will only be more in the future.

Every new generation growing up is a new generation who will be affected by other things than the previous generation.

Everyone also laughed when I in the 90'ies said you would one day be able to score girls from being good at playing computer games.

Either you understand this perspective or you don't. It's cool with me that you don't understand it, but it's already happening while you say it never will.

> Everyone also laughed when I in the 90'ies said you would one day be able to score girls from being good at playing computer games.

I legitimately can't tell if this is trolling or sarcastic.

Regardless, the fact that something else seemed ridiculous but ended up not being so has no bearing.

People can predict arbitrary things and will only remember the ones that turned out right; for every thing that seemed wrong but succeeded, there are a million things which seemed wrong and were wrong.

Just because there are examples of things succeeding in spite of predictions of failure doesn't mean predictions of failure are signs of success.

Why do you assume it's trolling? You forgot the sentence which came before here is the entire argument.

"Every new generation growing up is a new generation who will be affected by other things than the previous generation.

Everyone also laughed when I in the 90'ies said you would one day be able to score girls from being good at playing computer games."

The point is that looking at your own generation is not a good indicator of where things will go. Look at those younger generations which haven't yet been affected by what is right or wrong.

That was my argument. Girls will grow up knowing what it takes to be good at a computer game it won't just be something nerds do, but something they themselves do.

The point here is to understand what allows progress.

Sure something might or might not come to fruition but this one my predictions were based on understanding what it would take for it to be popular.

I am not trolling but 100% serious.

Cryptokitties is little more than a scam to bring kids into the world of Ethereum speculation. They make part of their money via their marketplace, which of course has zero to do with the blockchain. Most people aren't going to care who "owns" the digital asset, as you can't do much with the asset outside of the software that uses the digital asset. Which is going to be 100% owned by the digital creator. Nintendo isn't going to give up copyright of Pikachu so that some third party can create an app to interact with a blockchain Pikachu. Come on now. The visual and audio representation dictates where centralization will happen.

Not to mention that Cryptokitties is "backdoored" by CEO/CFO/COO functions. Which means the company has full control over the contract, even if the contract itself is "decentralized" (more like externalized, if anything). They can halt trading of the assets any time they desire.

> Everyone also laughed when I in the 90'ies said you would one day be able to score girls from being good at playing computer games.

I have no idea where you're going with this. Are you talking about e-Sports? This is the first I've heard of anyone "scoring girls" with computer games.

You can buy fake physical Pokemon cards that don't change the fact that someone will pay for the original.

You are missing the larger point because you focus on the smaller technical details.

Things don't have to be perfect to be successful.

Again. Either you understand the larger perspective of cryptocurrencies, blockchain and tokens or you don't.

I think the larger point being made here is how does blockchain add substantial value for all parties in digital trading cards? What motivates the creator of the cards to do so when they give up so much control?

It creates a secondary market which doesn't need a centralized organization/company to maintain it.

It's like investing in the TCP/IP protocol.