Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Web3 Bullshit?

maxread.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 383 posts

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#231

Post by anentropic »

p2p_astroturf wrote: post #221
mattlondon wrote: post #7

It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.

Ironically, the worst part of web3 is that everything that calls itself that, such as web3.js and metamask, are web based. > The web is decentralized I know you just want to throw in the invalid "look at me I'm an old school hacker" definition that can't be argued with, but it isn't. To serve content, it has to be hosted somewhere, and that place must be a single entity, and it must have infinite money to replicate t…

> it must have infinite money to replicate the content for infinite users

what?

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#233

Post by throw0101a »

austincheney wrote: post #181
throw0101a wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice if you want to share family photos with your family do you upload those photos to a third party like a social media site or a cloud provider for all your family to access? That is centralized: an agreed upon location for everyone to access. As there are multiple places where the family photos can be posted (Facebook, 500px, Google, etc), that demonstrates that the web is decentralized. What it may not b…

Choice is not a principle concept of decentralization. In decentralization the only quality that matters is degree of autonomy. If I need your common access point to send/receive content the system is highly centralized as autonomy is fully vested in the third party content host. The presence of choice only means there are multiple centralized systems not interconnecting. This is why the web is highly centralized des…

> In decentralization the only quality that matters is degree of autonomy. If I need your common access point to send/receive content the system is highly centralized as autonomy is fully vested in the third party content host.

Things exist on a spectrum. I have autonomy to choose where to (e.g.) host my family photos, and even self-host on a VPS or even perhaps at home (either with a static IP or dynamic DNS). While things may moved towards more centralization with Big Tech, does not mean it is centralized, just perhaps less decentralized / distributed.

> multiple centralized systems

This phrase approaches an oxymoron in my mind. (Bearing in mind de/centralization being on a spectrum.)

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#234

Post by ctvo »

throwaway4good wrote: post #52

"Web 2.0" was the modern web around 2008, and concurrent with or associated with things like AJAX and Ruby-on-Rails - here is an old article expanding on the term: https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1310178 "Web 2.0 is a term (or rather buzzword) that you often hear when describing most “modern” web sites; however, it shouldn’t be a new concept to web developers. Web 2.0 is actually a consolidation of m…

The difference between Web 2 and 3 is that no one had to write long Twitter threads daily on why Web 2 was the revolution, and what builders should be making with it. It was organic because there was demand from consumers, and people used the tools available to them to fulfill that demand.

Web 3 is artificial, with little to no demand outside of being a vehicle for unregulated speculation. The people most excited for Web 3 aren't builders nor consumers, but venture capitalists and people with a financial stake waiting to cash out.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#235

Post by paulryanrogers »

p2p_astroturf wrote: post #205
gjulianm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a question that isn't answered and that's why would users care about those details of the backend. In the end, a solution can be as technologically elegant as you want, but the thing it really needs to do is improve from the users' point of view. And I don't think it does. For most people, a decentralized platform will usually be worse (speed, latency), and only very rarely better, than a centralized server.…

A BTC wallet is infinitely more user friendly than a banking website that only works in chrome xor firefox and constantly locks you out for reasons they don't want you to know about and severely limits your transfer sizes. If you do EFT and wait between 3 and 10 days each time, even bitcoin is better than this. Centralized web is horrible and dead. Literally _anything_ is a better alternative. The user can be convinc…

> A BTC wallet is infinitely more user friendly than a banking website...

Until there is fraud, a dispute, or an innocent mistake.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#236

Post by BenoitEssiambre »

flooow wrote: post #77
mattlondon wrote: post #7

It saddens me that they chose "web3" for the latest crypto pyramid scheme. Call it what you want, but please don't sully the web with your plat du jour crypto antics. Also for what it is worth, the web has been decentralised from the very start, I don't see what the fuss is about apart from just everyone getting rich selling the next hot coin/token/whatever.

If the crypto community wants to demonstrate that it isn't a giant Ponzi scheme, why not come up with a non-deflationary token, which will not massively reward 'early adopters' at the expense of everyone else, in perpetuity? (A non-deflationary token would be one where the supply grows by some reasonable percentage every year, effectively acting as a flat tax on one's holdings). In reality, non-deflationary cryptocur…

Exactly. I would consider a token that follows something like Friedman's k-percent rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman's_k-percent_rule ), a legitimate token.

A token like this would jettison its pyramidal character. If it took off, it might convince me that there is value beyond scamming late adopters.

I haven't seen any gaining much traction however.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#237

Post by woodruffw »

chewbacha wrote: post #164
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me a stock anyone is interested in that isn’t expected to go up and reward early adopters. “If the stock community wants to demonstrate that it isn't a giant Ponzi scheme, why not come up with a non-deflationary stock, which will not massively reward 'early adopters' at the expense of everyone else, in perpetuity?”

Stocks (aka securities) and other products also suffer from Ponzi schemes though. Hence the bureaucracy of the SEC and other governments tasked with regulating and policing the industry.

The SEC could be called many things, but “massive” isn’t one of them. They have fewer than 5,000 employees, which makes them microscopic on the federal government’s scale and virtually nonexistent proportional to the size of market they’re tasked with regulating.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#238

Post by kevinak »

splintercell wrote: post #187
kevinak wrote: post #81

Ironically the people pushing for Web3 are mostly those that do not understand why decentralisation is key^1. The projects pushed by these individuals and corporations are largely very centralised. Look at the Solana fiasco a while back where the network went down and required a coordinated restart. Another centralising power in these "smart" blockchains are the stable coin issuers. In the event of a hard fork^2 Teth…

> Only Bitcoin is actually sufficiently decentralised to withstand large take-over attempts and politics, IMO. This is just a meme. If large blockers in the blocksize wars had won, the statement would still be true. Today, you cannot go against Blockstream's capture of bitcoin's IP (whatever happens will happen with the direction of /r/bitcoin, bitcointalk, @bitcoin, bitcoin.org, and bitcoin github owners). With comp…

No it isn't a meme. Blockstream and some internet forums don't control Bitcoin. This is honestly just a conspiracy theory.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#239

Post by skeeter2020 »

tata71 wrote: post #217
fivea wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Show me a stock anyone is interested in that isn’t expected to go up and reward early adopters. Eve though you framed your challenge as a "no true Scotsman" argument, history is packed with IPOs that tanked after the companies went public. https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-biggest-ipo-flops.htm Last year Uber dropped considerably when it's IPO got out of the gate. The main mistake of your argument is trying to com…

> Last year Uber dropped considerably when it's IPO got out of the gate. Some exchanges or other cryptocurrency businesses fizzle out. Bitcoin price gets hit on world stability news. > The main mistake of your argument is trying to compare something with tangible value with schemes driven by speculation and fear of missing out. People have no idea what TSLA is planning on doing besides "cool car", and ape into the st…

Maybe some people behave as you indicate but this is neither the common or original intent. TSLA is only one frothy example but they still (a) make things, (b) have a historical record, (c) report on past, present and forecasted performance, (d) have widely accepted "value", (e) can be readily exchanged for something else of value, (f) have governance that is ultimately responsible for performance, even if they're not the major cause of said performance.

Everybody investing in the stock market is not a Reddit day trader.

Re: Is Web3 Bullshit?

#240

Post by tata71 »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #163
jiveturkey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the web has been decentralised maybe the web per se, but in practical terms it depends on the DNS which is decidedly not decentralized.

always seemed weird to me that the hosts file never became a little personal address book, with some push mechanism to notify me of address changes, “gmail.com is moving to x.x.x.x”

DNS servers do that.

You're just along for the ride.

Post reply on HN