Is Web3 anything? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#331

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

Longwelwind wrote: post #62

tracyhenry wrote: post #3

> Once submitted, that “contract” will be carried out exactly as specified. It is observable to everyone, debuggable, and non-falsifiable. But a centralized database can also achieve this, right? The premise of the general public trusting a blockchain more than an established, centralized 3rd party (e.g. government) seems so feeble.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#332

Post by mattlondon » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

gandutraveler wrote: post #326

End users don't care about government trust or privacy as much as we would want them too. Had it been the case Signal would have already replaced Whatsapp. Unless Blockchain based product solves a real problem it would be hard to see larger adoption. What makes it worse is most of the web3 products are always centered around coins, why do I need a coin to use a decentralized social network? It makes users feel like i…

Yes this point about needing to "pay" for what so far has been free will be a blocker for 99% of people I expect.

It will be a hard enough ask to ask the average non-tech user to dump whatsapp or tiktok for something else because of the network effect, then if you tell them "oh and you need to pay with this weird thing you've never heard of too" it will be impossible IMO.

People can go on about paying vs "users are the product" etc, but the truth of the matter is the average person doesn't seem to care that Google et al sells ads.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#333

Post by gandutraveler » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

jgilias wrote: post #192

fnoof wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, let's say I pay you 200 ETH and get an NFT signifying ownership of a flat in downtown Kinshasa. I fly to Kinshasa, find the key as you have described, start living in the flat. A year later as I come home I find that the key has been changed and someone else has moved in. They present a purchase agreement, as well as a deed. What happens next?

Exactly, the whole web3 blockchain movement seems to assume these contracts are legally binding in real world. For that to happen the same 'untrustworthy' government authority will have to trust the decentralized contracts on internet.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#334

Post by vmception » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

seoaeu wrote: post #317

vmception wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats kinda the point, PGP had 25 years to get any use and failed, this form of crypto reached accelerated saturation very quickly You thought you had a rebuttal and walked right into why its working Those users can learn not to get taken advantage of

> Those users can learn not to get taken advantage of Spoken like a true scammer. It is pretty obvious to anyone who is even vaguely aware of phone scams that this will never be enough.

Debit cards, credit cards and ATMs came with new best practices to be aware of. And no, not all gaffs result in reimbursals from the bank.

Here, we are acknowledging thats there are humans that commit malicious actions and they shouldn’t do that, and also acknowledge that there are programs that exist in perpetuity to do this which means there is no malicious human to educate, and requires (not just advises) the potential and actual victims to have agency themselves and their victim status is prevented by actually following the best practices that all predate the malicious actors to begin with.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#335

Post by mattlondon » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

dikei wrote: post #276

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…

I guess when people say `trustless`, it means that they don't have to trust every single elements of the chain between you and your target: if any steps of the chain acting untruthfully, it would be detected by other steps thanks to the protocol they're using. Of course, with enough failures in the link, anything can be compromised.

But how do you know who is holding the phone/keyboard? If my phone is stolen and someone then sells my house and drains my bank accounts, how can I prove it was not me?

The whole thing is built on sand.

Suggesting that it is all verifiable etc is fine and dandy, but that is risky as the onus of proof falls to the victim. It is a bit like when Chip+Pin first came in for the UK way back when - there was this suggestion by the banks that fraud was now impossible, and the only possible way for the card to be used was by you the account holder as you are the only person that knows your pin is 1234.

Obviously that was bullshit and they have softened their line since, but I worry that we'd just go through this all over again "You are the only person who has your private key! It must have been you that sold your house to someone in Nigeria for $1! It is in the blockchain now - it is irreversible there is nothing we can do. Case closed!" ... ignoring all of the possible ways we can imagine in just 30 seconds for how someone could access your computer/phone without your permission.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#336

Post by jallen_dot_dev » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

costac wrote: post #58

> what if the neighbors collude and vote that you failed to improve the park despite having done what was specified. The contract could further specify that some neutral third party acts as an arbiter in that case. If there's anything that shows that Web3.0, smart contracts and so on are a bad solution in search of a non-existent problem, it's this. The ``problem'' is apparently that we don't trust each other and our…

The solution of course is to use a collection of oracles that report the state of the park to the blockchain. You would need to use enough oracles to be sure they aren't just your neighbors running them or being manipulated by your neighbors.

I'm only half joking. This example is a bad use case and web3 isn't going to replace literally every aspect of society.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#337

Post by kall » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

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…

This is not a convincing argument. Just because I think something should be improved, doesn‘t mean I should applaud any and all attempts to improve it.

If my city has a hideous, impractical train station and you just take a wrecking ball to it overnight, I‘m not going to thank you, because I won‘t be able to ride a train for months.

Also consumer banking (in Europe) is great, I don‘t know what people are so mad about. If it‘s just "consumer banking sucks in the US" you have a much more straightforward improvement plan in "make it like Europe".

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#338

Post by hansonkd13 » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #321

qaq wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are pretending things like Revolut, Venmo, Zelle etc. do not exist. They are centralized but solve most things an avg. person dislikes about their bank services.

So, one bank and 2 transfer services with patchy compatibility? I disagree. My bitcoin wallet isn't looking to trap me in a cycle of debt[1] if I run low on money; most banks are. My bitcoin wallet is auditable down to first mathematical principles, and will never steal my identity[2], create accounts in my name without my knowledge[3], etc. Nobody can cancel my access to my wallet because I said something politicall…

I’m not sure about patchy. I transferred money about 10 times this year and all the recipients wanted Zelle.

All of your other criticisms are valid, but also exist in a system where you trust your wallet with a third party service. the majority of Americans would use a bank like service that manages their key instead of managing it themselves.

You also ignore the other risks that crypto introduces. Like losing your key, password, your exchange gets seized, your exchange just straight up steals your money, or having a 1 character bug in a smartcontract.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#339

Post by usrbinbash » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

fnoof wrote: post #170

jgilias wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.

No, they cannot. They can reduce these values, but that by itself doesn't enforce anything in the real world. If the entitiy doesn't care about these values (for example because it was a fake account/identity/whatever) then the only enforcement can come from outside.

That's why the word "force" is in "enforcement". States work because, among other things, they ultimately have a monopoly on the application of force.

Re: Is Web3 anything?

#340

Post by gandutraveler » Fri, Dec 10, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

nefitty wrote: post #130

infogulch wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes in theory. In practice, justice is expensive to procure even when you're in the right, and sometimes even then you can lose just by being out-monied. This leads to a more nuanced view of web3 and smart contracts: a way to acquire law-like order in business dealings at a vastly lower cost. Or put yet another way, if lawyers and the government got their act together and used technology to reduce the cost of their s…

So like, if you don't deliver those shipping containers of hot sauce, I just click the "I was scammed" checkbox on my smart contract dashboard? Where exactly does the leverage of smart contracts come into play? The biggest reason libertarianism is a nonstarter is that it outright rejects the state monopoly on violence. Without a lone arbiter, societies fragment due to intragroup competition and violence. As a society…

Next steps would be that they create another decentralized smart legal judiciary system to enforce and handle breach of smart contracts. And a supreme chain with Elon & Chamath on the bench.