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

261–270 of 442 posts

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#261

Post by mmcnl »

lordnacho wrote: post #253
padolsey wrote: post #167

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. Le…

Maybe it's a bit of a marketing sleight-of-hand, but the difference is the nature of what you trust. Authority, tradition, laws, that kind of everyday thing, or math, cryptography, algorithms? I won't get into the weeds of whether you can actually trust math, just pointing out that this is what crypto proponents seem to mean when they say trustless.

Isn't the first question we should answer more whether math, cryptography and algorithms can actually replace authority, tradition and laws? I personally have my doubts.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#262

Post by knuthsat »

amarant wrote: post #229
rndmio wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, but take the example in the article. I roll in with my heavies and at gun point force enough of you to vote that the contract was complete even if it wasn't. You can't engineer people away and when you try you've undoubtedly missed something.

But if you were just going to rob them at gunpoint, why did you need the smart contact? Smart contacts exists so that you don't need the heavies nor the guns, you can just exploit a "bug" in the contract and run off with the cash, preferably without anyone knowing who you even are.

This boils down to the basic problem of a ruleset.

It's nice when everyone abides by the same ruleset. But there will always be individuals that will behave outside of it.

Like, we can all play capitalism and try to outcompete each other, but eventually there's going to be someone that just abandons that ruleset and murders all competitors.

Smart contracts are just a better ruleset, still not enough.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#263

Post by tarkin2 »

Crypto, in its current form, is a brainstorm of half-thought-out, half-spec'd and soon-to-be-replaced-with-something-better implementations that has stumbled upon the web in its never ending task of enticing more converts to invest in its hype train, thereby justifying the previous investors' investments. We've seem to be inundated with articles talking about web3's vacuous nature, as if crypto's blackhole has enveloped the idea of web3 and now, in its place, leaving nothing but a vacuum.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#264

Post by lordnacho »

mmcnl wrote: post #261
lordnacho wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's a bit of a marketing sleight-of-hand, but the difference is the nature of what you trust. Authority, tradition, laws, that kind of everyday thing, or math, cryptography, algorithms? I won't get into the weeds of whether you can actually trust math, just pointing out that this is what crypto proponents seem to mean when they say trustless.

Isn't the first question we should answer more whether math, cryptography and algorithms can actually replace authority, tradition and laws? I personally have my doubts.

Totally.

Also, since we're in the weeds, you can ask yourself why you believe in math. Did someone tell you that Public Key cryptography works, or did you verify it yourself? I've read through a lot of crypto code, and in the end I can't say I really understand the details. I can point at the readings, but really, do I actually get what a pairing group is? Chances are I'm relying on authority.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#265

Post by cblconfederate »

mmcnl wrote: post #260
padolsey wrote: post #167

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. Le…

Just wondering: is it objectively better to rely on a complex technical cryptographic chain rather than a person or entity with representatives someone who you can drag over a counter if necessary?

Yes, hence why we have the law, instead of religious judges making judgments ad hoc and at will

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#266

Post by wccrawford »

nicbou wrote: post #207
Longwelwind wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understood Web3 correctly, it would be exactly like traditional web, except that: * The source code of all websites would be open-source, and accessible to anyone. It could still be changed, but it could not be done secretly. * All the actions of the users of the websites would be public. If we take social forums, for example Hacker News, it would mean that: * The algorithm behind the front page of social forums…

The other biggest downside is that anyone else can just copy your website and profit off it. I already have a pretty hard time with SEO spammers rephrasing the content I live from and passing it as their own. I can't imagine people lifting the entire website and making a permanent copy of it, profiting from 4 years of my work. That's for a 100% free website with no "secret sauce" besides hard work. I can imagine any…

Even if they aren't powerless to delete it, they'd still have to pay to delete it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone finds a way to blackmail site owners with that, forcing them to pay out the nose to remove content they didn't even create.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#267

Post by ogogmad »

pennaMan wrote: post #246
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…

>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 decided to run society by these rules. Don't forget the whole violent kidnapping thing your fellow citizens let governments do. The mythology of laws running society is cute but laws are made real by constant threats of violence and caging.

Your comment is a kind of virtue signalling. What is your alternative? To not jail murderers or thieves?

[edit]

Just to check if you're serious or not, would you be happy to move next to a prison and then have all the inmates released?

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#269

Post by bcrosby95 »

mattwilsonn888 wrote: post #151
bushbaba wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk. I get my direct deposit into my account from my employer for free. I can transfer funds to pay bills for free. And I can go anywhere in the world and withdraw money for less than a 5$ fee in less than a minute. Try doing that with crypto.

"I can get my favorite articles delivered to my door, I can watch my sports games live, I can talk to my parent's across country instantly and cheaply over the phone. Try doing any of that with 'the internet.'" Sometimes you're just early, bud.

Early work on the internet was in the 1960s. Much of that stuff you're talking about didn't happen until 40-50 years later. So what you're saying is I'll likely be dead before I see any tangible benefit from all this hubub?

Which is kinda cool. But also kinda depressing.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#270

Post by lui8906 »

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…

> 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?

They are not mutually exclusive. However often retorts to Web3 or DeFi are along the line of "I can receive my salary for free" or "I can send a bank transfer for low fees and it settles in 24 hours" - the implication being, why do we need anything else this is fine. My question to those who roughly hold this position (whether they be haters, skeptics, curious, critical) would be, if we can agree that generically technology is improving many elements of our modern life, isn't it sensible that we should also be trying out new technologies for finance and banking? Banking and credit cards have largely stayed the same for decades, shouldn't we be innovating here? Regardless of whether you consider Web3 to be innovative or not, isn't it better that people are trying other ways to improve?

> There's very little about the way cryptocurrency and NFTs and even blockchains as a concept are presented that seems politically agnostic; "you shouldn't have to trust anything or anyone in order to complete a transaction" is not a conventionally partisan position, but when you're applying it to government institutions, surely it's political.

There's a line of argument that basically everything is political. But that's often kind of a pointless statement. I would say that Web3 is non-political in the sense that, if you have a credibly neutral trustless global operating system, secured by validators around the world and used by users around the world, this environment is apolitical. It's not Western, Chinese, Russian, no one is gate kept from interacting with it. It is open for all, transparent and unable to be censored. Having you're Paypal account locked because you're from Iran feels intuitively political in a way that the system I described above does not.

Post reply on HN