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

Web3 Is Bullshit

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#111

Post by UncleMeat »

scottiebarnes wrote: post #107
UncleMeat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Netflix and Youtube aren't moving their hosting to the blockchain. I see people claim, basically constantly, that the blockchain will be the source of all such content in the future and that this will free people from youtube's tyranny or whatever.

That's not practical, but decentralized sources like IPFS, BitTorrent, etc will be useful sources of hosting for videos/creators who don't want to face censorship from Youtube etc.

They have. And this is where the "decentralized storage of video will replace youtube" argument comes from that apparently the person I replied to have never seen. As you mention, this is completely impractical except for the very few people who are willing to spend the enormous overhead for this sort of hosting.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#112

Post by UncleMeat »

mk81 wrote: post #106
UncleMeat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just really easy to use and easier authentication than any scheme I've worked with before. But this is literally the same as just "connecting my pgp public key" to some authentication service that manages this. This is no more convenient than the stuff that happens the first time I ssh into a service. And surprise, passwords crushed this and virtually nobody uses this for consumer applications. > but most apps…

Has any crypto argument ever not depended on circular reasoning?

There are some that are direct. Cryptocurrencies do provide novel features for users. Whether those features are desirable or beneficial enough to justify the huge price of these tokens (and further growth) is something people disagree on. I also think that ETH does provide novel capabilities with distributed computation. But again, the cost is enormous. This makes it hard for many people to buy the idea that the whole web will transition to this model.

For auth though, I agree with you. The only thing new here is that a lot of people have public/private key pairs that never had them before. Maybe this means that adoption is easier but I'm skeptical that this is a meaningful difference over existing signature-based authentication systems.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#113

Post by mattdesl »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
mattdesl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet there is a key difference in trust - that a centralized actor (say, Kickstarter) will not mutate their private database, will not go under, and will not fail to meet its promises in how the funds are managed. There is also an ease of use (for developers building these applications), particularly in terms of finances: say, an escrow that holds $1M worth of value and may need to return those funds to 100K donors ac…

Trust works because of legal frameworks. You have to have the same trust that Ethereum won't do another fork, and you have to trust that the smart contract isn't fraudulent. In exactly the same way, the law is what keeps the average person from being fleeced. A central database has far better ease of use for developers than a distributed ledger.

To some users and developers, the chain/contract is easier, less expensive, and simpler to trust and build upon than the equivalent legal and traditional financial structures on a global scale.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#114

Post by leifg »

mattdesl wrote: post #113
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust works because of legal frameworks. You have to have the same trust that Ethereum won't do another fork, and you have to trust that the smart contract isn't fraudulent. In exactly the same way, the law is what keeps the average person from being fleeced. A central database has far better ease of use for developers than a distributed ledger.

To some users and developers, the chain/contract is easier, less expensive, and simpler to trust and build upon than the equivalent legal and traditional financial structures on a global scale.

Even if that’s true the argument “web3 is better for some users and developers” is very far from “web3 will disrupt the internet as we know it”

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#115

Post by shiohime »

UncleMeat wrote: post #112
mk81 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has any crypto argument ever not depended on circular reasoning?

There are some that are direct. Cryptocurrencies do provide novel features for users. Whether those features are desirable or beneficial enough to justify the huge price of these tokens (and further growth) is something people disagree on. I also think that ETH does provide novel capabilities with distributed computation. But again, the cost is enormous. This makes it hard for many people to buy the idea that the who…

Fair enough, I did use a circular argument example unintentionally, my bad. But yeah, I agree with you - I wouldn't use wallets for auth really unless I'm making a web3 app. You *can* use this authentication scheme for other sites if you wanted, but you're right in the fact that the question is "Why?" Your target audience isn't going to have a wallet, why use it for authentication? Unless we reach the point where more browsers have native wallets built in, but even then, I'm not sure I'd want to do it for a traditional web app. Even though I find it cool personally that I can auth in this manner, if the target audience for the service has no idea how to use it, then it's not a good idea.

And I just wanted to say that I personally don't think the whole web will transition to this model, despite me working in the field. The current web isn't really going anywhere, I don't really have pipedreams of everything under the sun getting decentralized, but what I see is the potential for creators to make something cool and it's a neat emerging field to explore as a developer.

And one more time, just because I mentioned it in the first post, ETH is ridiculously expensive right now, but there are alternatives. It's awful for anything other than pretty minor distributed computing currently. There are some really neat projects out there that may be able to get around this by using off-chain distributed computing on ETH, there is a product that I've been meaning to test out as a dev but haven't had the chance yet as I've been focusing in learning the Solana ecosystem for the past few months instead of Ethereum. But it's an emerging space and I think we'll continue to see a lot of innovations over the years; even in the past 2 years we've seen a huge influx of innovative projects.

> Now you say "yeah, auth isn't any better but you might as well do it this way given that your web3 service is using ETH for whatever other hypothetical thing."

Edit - And I did want to reply to this actually. The value I find in this as an authentication method is it does make it incredibly easy as a developer to integrate. I've worked with SSO before that's also super easy as well, however that relies on centralization of trust in an entity such as Google. Even if it is just minor, I do like the idea of being able to provide authentication that:

1. I don't need to store passwords or handle them whatsoever

2. I don't need to rely on an external arbiter of truth such as google / facebook

I have used webauthn a bit, not as a dev, but as an end user and it's really awesome. I would imagine it's not terribly difficult to integrate and would satisfy both of those above desires for my own projects. But yes, in crypto world, might as well use the keypairs everyone already has.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#116

Post by mattdesl »

leifg wrote: post #114
mattdesl wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some users and developers, the chain/contract is easier, less expensive, and simpler to trust and build upon than the equivalent legal and traditional financial structures on a global scale.

Even if that’s true the argument “web3 is better for some users and developers” is very far from “web3 will disrupt the internet as we know it”

It is already disrupting the internet as we know it… NFTs, DAOs, trustless contracts, peer-to-peer payments w/o reliance on a central payment processors — these are all new concepts that the web hasn’t seen operating at a global scale, accessible with little more than a thin layer of JS and a browser extension.

Perhaps this disruption won’t last, or won’t succeed in replacing traditional systems, but obviously in 2021 it has succeeded in capturing a lot of interest & discussion (and a lot of $ value, too).

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#117

Post by leifg »

mattdesl wrote: post #116
leifg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that’s true the argument “web3 is better for some users and developers” is very far from “web3 will disrupt the internet as we know it”

It is already disrupting the internet as we know it… NFTs, DAOs, trustless contracts, peer-to-peer payments w/o reliance on a central payment processors — these are all new concepts that the web hasn’t seen operating at a global scale, accessible with little more than a thin layer of JS and a browser extension. Perhaps this disruption won’t last, or won’t succeed in replacing traditional systems, but obviously in 202…

Seems like we have very different interpretations and standards for “disruption”.

I don’t consider “everyone is talking about it” disruption. I want to see real world implementation that goes beyond “virtual asset value goes to the moon” to be convinced.

As I said in an earlier comment: It’s been almost 13 years since the first block has been mined on the Bitcoin blockchain and the positive impact on society/economy is pretty disappointing.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#118

Post by mattdesl »

leifg wrote: post #117
mattdesl wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is already disrupting the internet as we know it… NFTs, DAOs, trustless contracts, peer-to-peer payments w/o reliance on a central payment processors — these are all new concepts that the web hasn’t seen operating at a global scale, accessible with little more than a thin layer of JS and a browser extension. Perhaps this disruption won’t last, or won’t succeed in replacing traditional systems, but obviously in 202…

Seems like we have very different interpretations and standards for “disruption”. I don’t consider “everyone is talking about it” disruption. I want to see real world implementation that goes beyond “virtual asset value goes to the moon” to be convinced. As I said in an earlier comment: It’s been almost 13 years since the first block has been mined on the Bitcoin blockchain and the positive impact on society/economy…

Pretty much every time this comes up, I point to Hicetnunc, as I feel despite its small size and shaky organization, it is indicative of the kind of disruptions that may occur, and also how it may prove beneficial to many creators.

https://mattdesl.substack.com/p/hicetnunc-and-the-merits-of-...

Considering NFT/Web3 only really entered public discourse in 2021, and programmable smart contracts are still nascent, I wouldn’t be so quick to write it all off.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#119

Post by seanp2k2 »

dekervin wrote: post #78
toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this what the struggles of the transition from scarcity to post scarcity looks like? Building systems that simulate scarcity to generate the illusion of value and to front run that value?

if you are joking, I hope you realize you have stumbled on a real epiphany, and keep pulling the thread.

Wait until everyone realizes that money, food, and land aren’t scarce either.

Re: Web3 Is Bullshit

#120

Post by hashtones »

Author needs to DIY research and see that web3 is more than just btc and eth. I remember first programming for Android 2.3 back in the day, and the bubble of the late 90s. Now everyone and their kid has a smart phone (yes I know 1/3 of the world apparently isn't digitally connected, but that rate and global literacy are rising higher than they've ever been in history).

I am no fan of conning people out of their money, and there is plenty of that. But when people talk shit about web3 they sound as ignorant as people do when they talked shit about the early internet. You think gas fees are high? I remember when 56k was fast, and now look where we are (5G). Especially when a person, who I'd presume is intelligent enough to code and write such a piece, should know better: if you want to pick a fight with web3, at least pick a real enemy and not contribute to the FUD that web3 already has enough of.

Author should have looked into Dfinity's ICP as it is blockchain technology implemented not as a financial fad or for trendy hype (or even to try and resolve settlement layer solutions), but as a technological basis empowering developers to utilize this new technology we have (blockchain) to build and connect the world with it.

*On an unrelated note, I also find it disappointment that while developers are smart people, they haven't yet figured out how to organize collectively. Ironic and tragic that the gains of the social and labor rights movements translated into the luxury of wealth, time and opportunity for a generation of kids to grow up and have the ability to disrupt entire economic industries, but still are either self centered (or don't know any better) to a make difference in raising precedent the rest of the world deals with. How many software developers do you know that have been encouraged, maybe even unknowingly, to burnout (literally abusing their developer's own creative and productive desire) by their employers? And to think our (coders) best example of social progress is just Jobs (think different) or Musk (here's a hint: unless you plan on leaving the rest of the Earth behind, maybe focus on also improving the possible trajectories the rest of the world can get on board with).

Anyways.

Post reply on HN