The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
6 days 22 hours
Kerbal Space Program
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
4 days 5 hours
4 days 1 hour
The problems you describe are one of the economic consequences of the design of Bitcoin. The supply of Bitcoins is - by design - supposed to get reduce over time as mining gets harder. This tends to make it an inherently deflationary currency. With a real currency, central banks tend to adjust the monetary policy levers available to them in order to keep inflation at a low positive amount, so you're basically guaranteed that if you just sit on your money, it'll lose value. This makes you likely to spend it, so it works like a currency.
In short, Bitcoin behaves like a currency on the gold standard; the gold standard is a horrible idea, but some people have ideological reasons for it to appeal to them. To those sorts of people, this aspect of Bitcoin is a feature, not a bug.
Also there's the big problems with latency of transactions, especially now that the volume of transactions is starting to hit the block size limit.
Bitcoin is an interesting bit of computer science to solve the distributed consensus problem, but as a practical currency and transaction system it's a cluster-fuck. Valve are smart to not actually get their hands dirty with Bitcoin directly.
This is basically a perspective I can understand and share. The view I have of Bitcoin is one that it would serve as a launching board, a beta to help us understand how currency works in a more practical sense over different scales and amounts and thus create a better system from that data. I want to eventually see a challenger to Bitcoin that fixes these shortfalls.
I think that a distributed, decentralised currency is an inherently noble idea. One that isn't necessarily controlled by either bank or government. What I also realise is that this isn't going to happen overnight. I think that America's recent missteps with money are just part and parcel of how it's still a very young nation with problems to overcome. It's America where you'd have banks gambling mortgages because there isn't any empirical evidence to discourage them from doing so. I feel Bitcoin is a bit like that.
It's so new that people don't necessarily see how ideologies may translate to practicality. And when you also add on top of that that the average human being is motivated by laziness, greed, personal pleasure, and the simplest answer to any given problem? That doesn't match those ideologies. When Bitcoin is in the hands of these people, you'll end up with politicking and backstabbing. That is inevitable.
You need to start off with the assumption of creating a decentralised, distributed currency for people who are lazy, greedy, hedonistic, and always looking for the simplest answer. The question then is: How do you do that??
When we answer that, we may get something like Bitcoin that can work. Like automated cars (such as the Google Car), it's not that there's anything inherently wrong with them but ultimately they're going to fail. Not because they're a bad idea, and not because they're flawed in any real way. But simply because human drivers are lazy idiots.
You have to build in the expectation of human greediness, laziness, and the drive for pleasure and simplicity into the system. Bitcoin didn't.
Bitcoin was built by generous idealists who love complexity. Those people are ridiculously rare. It's almost as though humanity itself is designed to only have a very small quotient of those people.
And any future currency or technology has to account for that.
I think what I'm trying to say is that Bitcoin didn't fail humanity, humanity failed Bitcoin and that's always the way it's going to be. You have to account for human awfulness in any system you create. And the reason successful models of capitalism and currency ultimately work is that they do.
Gabe has always played the long game. The way he's been quietly building up support for Linux whilst elements like the Vulkan API brew in the background show how far-sighted he can be.
I've regularly been amazed at just how much foresight the man has, and how ahead of the curve Steam is. They've always seemed more prepared for the future than any other big video game company.
We all know that Steamboxes running Linux with smartphone cross-functionality are the future. And no, not the immediate future, but ten or so years down the line that's what all consoles are going to be. That's what they're trying to be right now.
Nintendo and Sony both realise this, hence their backing of Vulkan and their desire to remain relevant by doing so.
A man as far-sighted as that has likely surrounded himself with people who share his ideology. And he'll likely have plans for Steam even beyond the grave.
Yeah, the foresight thing is nuts. It's sort of crazy how, for example, they're right there with a state-of-the-art solution for future tech like VR. In some ways (like having tracked controllers on day 1) they're even ahead of Oculus there.
Steam doesn't charge anything for generating keys. They only take 30% on sales through Steam itself.
Those Steam keys on keysites must be keys bought from Steam, right? I don't think Ubi could "bring" their game to Steam and just get Steam to provide keys for free like (some indies/greenlights do) surely....?
Wow, it's fucking nothing. The engine can barely held itself together with over 150 mods, why not instead of doing something so meaningless they actually improve their fucking awful engine.
'Cause from Bethesda's end this is actually a pretty small change. They're just switching the launcher over to using the newest Steam Workshop API that Valve released. It's no more than a day or two's work for a single person. So for a pretty small amount of work they get a huge benefit, so it's really worth doing.
Improving their engine is a heck of a lot more work, so they're unlikely to do it.