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

Is Web3 anything?

chris-granger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 442 posts

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#161

Post by michaelscott »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #57
CurrentB wrote: post #43

Nice read. What I don't get about all the crypto haters, who will probably make up the majority of replies here, are they really just happy with the status quo? Do they really think the current financial system is great and their online bank account is perfect and nothing radical is worth trying? That usernames and passwords given to each of a million different companies are so great, why would people want to manage…

As a crypto skeptic, which I think is not fairly categorized as "hater," I think you're painting this in far too black and white terms.[1] "The current financial system is not great" and "cryptocurrency is not great" are not mutually exclusive propositions, right? > ...there is a very real, very powerful, politically agnostic idea... There's very little about the way cryptocurrency and NFTs and even blockchains as a…

I think the problem is that blockchain tech has moved far away from the original Bitcoin white paper at this point. The original was a cypherpunk wet dream which was indeed a system for financial transactions resistant to government manipulation/interference. The current strain of NFTs and other junk coins have pushed the tech into a scammy world that has developed an increasingly worse reputation and adds little value.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#162

Post by meheleventyone »

Longwelwind wrote: post #127
meheleventyone wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d also put the moderators and administrators having no way of skewing things as a negative. They do lots of good things for the community like removing flags on topics, merging topics and reupping topics that are interesting for a second chance. It’s a good demonstration that pure algorithmic feeds still need gardening. And the fee thing is why none of this will work in practice so it’s a really big negative. Who o…

All those moderator actions you described would still be possible in web3. Moderators would still be able to up a topic, merge a topic, delete topics, ... But: * The fact that the moderators have access to these mechanisms would be known by all users * The use of these mechanisms by moderators would be public. If a topic is upped by a moderator, it would be logged in the blockchain. No moderator would be able to do i…

Or they could just publish a log of actions, this isn’t such priceless information that we couldn’t just rely on trust like we already do in the current situation that seems to work well.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#163

Post by dmitriid »

berkes wrote: post #120
linkdd wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The message would still be accessible on the blockchain. What about the right to be forgotten and GDPR laws?

That is a tough issue. A blockchain is essentially an Event Sourced system. And Right To Be Forgotton is a common issue in all event sourced systems. Several technical and one non technical solution are common: Encrypt events with per actor keys. Delete the key when user wants to be forgotton. Or encrypt just certain attributes in the same way. Keep actual data outside of events but only include a link to the data an…

> so it is a solved problem with blockchain

You're saying this:

> Encrypt events with per actor keys. Delete the key when user wants to be forgotton.

Blockchain is immutable. Which key are you going to delete? Or, wait, you're going to centrally store these keys?

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#164

Post by meheleventyone »

berkes wrote: post #120
linkdd wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The message would still be accessible on the blockchain. What about the right to be forgotten and GDPR laws?

That is a tough issue. A blockchain is essentially an Event Sourced system. And Right To Be Forgotton is a common issue in all event sourced systems. Several technical and one non technical solution are common: Encrypt events with per actor keys. Delete the key when user wants to be forgotton. Or encrypt just certain attributes in the same way. Keep actual data outside of events but only include a link to the data an…

The blockchain is decentralised though so you can't do things like per actor encryption that can be deleted AFAIK. It requires a separate, mutable source of data.

Similarly storing all the data off the blockchain just means you didn’t need a blockchain.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#165

Post by hansonkd13 »

berkes wrote: post #134
hansonkd13 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not satisfied by the standard quo and want something better. But the current state of trustless web3 is not it. My bank account is great. If I die there are clear procedures for getting my assets to my spouse. Even if I forget my account number or my password, my lifetime of earnings does not simply disappear. This can’t happen in crypto unless I trust a third party, in which case just using a bank in US dollars…

There are middle grounds here. Sovereignty, like security, is not binary, it's a spectrum. You could use a scheme where two of three signatures allow transactions : you, your 'bank' and a notary. Or have such schemes for anything above a value. Or allow transactions by and to a list of whitelisted addresses after a certain date or event (such as a missed canary).

> You could use a scheme where two of three signatures allow transactions

So now social engineering hits and someone convinces my ‘bank’ and notary to allow the transaction to a third party. Now my life savings are gone forever.

In my real bank (no quotes) you have regulation. Banks are liable for fraud. Blockchains aren’t.

Now you could have pre assigned addresses that the notary and bank are allowed to transfer to, but now you have to think about edge cases. Every time i update my will I have to hire a blockchain engineer to update my smart contract and then hire another firm to audit it for errors so a bug doesn’t drain my account. Huge headache and much more expensive compared to the status quo.

> Or allow transactions by and to a list of whitelisted addresses after a certain date or event (such as a missed canary).

whats triggering the canary? How can I trust that it will be accurate?

Also, my spouse can change or die. If my spouse and I died at the same time and my parent’s should get the money if they are still alive. now what happens? You have to map out hundreds of edge cases, like every permutation of my relatives wallets. Then I have to trust that the blockchain can tell these people are alive.

Current California State law takes all of that into account. It handles the edge cases in a way that code does not. Probate court is expensive but its better than everything going to zero.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#166

Post by jfoster »

Blockchain solves the "how do we keep track of everything?" problem.

We already had databases for that, but OK, blockchain is decentralized.

The much harder problem of "how do we bridge data & reality?" is mostly unsolved, and sometimes especially unsolved when blockchain is involved. (eg. paying via Apple/Google Pay will generally go OK in many stores, but paying via a blockchain-based cryptocurrency not so much...)

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#167

Post by padolsey »

People keep saying 'trustless', without realizing the upsetting and very real truth that no mechanism is trustless. Even if you can, if well informed, verify the cryptographic integrity of any communication or data, you are also relying on and trusting the device, UI, and OS that you're using (+myriad stacks, libs, protocols). You are relying on every single medium between you and whatever it is that's verifiable. Let's not kid ourselves. There is no 'trustless'. We just end up assigning the burden of trust to other things. Unless you've built every element from transister upwards, then you're assigning trust. If we implemented, e.g., blockchain based democracy you can bet your bottom dollar that vulnerabilities will be found and utilized.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#168

Post by Semaphor »

can16358p wrote: post #111
Semaphor wrote: post #34

Is Web3 even a thing? Outside HackerNews, I only see it mentioned in crypto-circles, but on HN there’s another article at the top every day.

Interesting. For me it's all around pretty much everywhere, from TV ads to billboards. To be fair: Not necessarily web3 but generally crypto, but still.

I neither see tv ads nor billboards, but I also don’t mean crypto in general. Specifically, all the Web3 posts feel like people arguing against something that’s actually just a minor blip no-one (outside of crypto) cares about at all. Essentially all the outrage being the only thing giving it publicity.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#169

Post by gorgoiler »

CurrentB wrote: post #43

Nice read. What I don't get about all the crypto haters, who will probably make up the majority of replies here, are they really just happy with the status quo? Do they really think the current financial system is great and their online bank account is perfect and nothing radical is worth trying? That usernames and passwords given to each of a million different companies are so great, why would people want to manage…

Despite its best intentions, crypto is now wave after wave of greedy newcomers trying to landgrab the next currency.

As a smarter commenter than I said: crypto is the total privatisation of the money system, sold as democratisation.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#170

Post by fnoof »

jgilias wrote: post #112
jolux wrote: post #9

All of the examples of having to trust the government in this article neglect the fact that trusting the government is not just trusting the government, and it’s not just the government storing a deed or giving you a Social Security Number that makes it real. It’s the whole complex web of laws and regulations that created these policies that make them real, and the people (your fellow citizens) who have collectively…

Also, it's important to realize the core reason why people trust the government with these things. It's because the government has the ability to actually _enforce_ the contracts if required. I mean, having a deed of owning some property on the blockchain is all cool and dandy. Provided that the polity where the property is located recognizes this. Otherwise you're still trespassing.

The example in the article had a way to enforce contract breaking - the person had to put up collateral until the work was done.

There’s problems with that particular mechanism, but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.

Post reply on HN