The Web3 Fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#41

Post by rvz » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:51 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot. And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity. In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user

> I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot

So that means HN really loved the .org takeover [0], and the price increases for .io [1] and now the holder of all our beloved trendy top level domains are going into the hands of the great Ethos Capital (again) who are going to do all of the above again. [2] /s

Nothing terrible to see here folks, its for your own good! /s

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21611677

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/04/ethos-capital-grabbing...

[2] https://www.geekwire.com/2021/domain-name-registry-donuts-ac...

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#42

Post by mwattsun » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:52 AM UTC

v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

> opens up possibilities for your app to be shut down

Is this a big worry for a lot of people or is just one of the possible things that can go wrong incidental to doing business, like a traffic ticket is to driving?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#43

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:52 AM UTC

mediocregopher wrote: post #27

The reason I'm hyped about crypto (which in this article seems to be incorrectly equated to "web3") is because of the new possibilities it brings. The reason I put my money into stupid shit in crypto is because I don't know if it will work or not, but I'm excited to know if it will. Some of it does, most doesn't. I learn, progress has been made. Imagine a whole new continent is discovered, and all the people back hom…

> Imagine a whole new continent is discovered, and all the people back home are criticizing those who go there because it's not particularly safe at the moment, and look how warm and cozy they could be back in civilization.

Imagine a whole new black hole is discovered, and all the people back home are like "but it just absorbs everything that crosses the event horizon" and "it will destroy everything you put near it" and "it's the end of everything you care about" and saying you shouldn't try to spend any more time getting close to it.

Someone is going out of that scenario (or not) looking (or not) a little the worse for wear. So the question is: do you feel lucky?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#44

Post by dexter89_kp3 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot. And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity. In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user

I don't understand what problem email can solve that mail cannot.

Sorry to be sarcastic.

I am still skeptical of most web3 use cases touted on twitter, but have personally experienced a few that have made me pause and be a bit more open minded.

Personal experiences: - Transferring money was in seconds, compared to Fidelity/Venmo which took 3 days!!! - Very easy to loan money against crypto holdings vs stocks - ResearchDao's like ResearchHub

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#45

Post by kibibu » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

kibibu wrote: post #24

slimsag wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will mint NFTs of your comment, $300 pop so anybody who wants to prove you wrong can do so by buying the NFT of your comment that will surely age well. :) /s

Wouldn't that NFT point to a comment on a central service though? Or would the NFT contain the actual comment itself? Is there a difference between buying a "comment on HN" and the text of that comment?

Checking the Opensea API: https://docs.opensea.io/reference/asset-object

NFTs require at least one of two centralized services to remain functional - the original URL and the Opensea cached URL. So proof of ownership is decentralized, but the actual image is not.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#46

Post by jjnoakes » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

v64 wrote: post #39

jjnoakes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mostly the same features with self-hosted and local traditional apps for a fraction of the price and much lower general financial risk as well.

"mostly" being the key word :) If you're self-hosting, then your server is a weak point. It goes down, your app goes down. The additional cost and risk that comes with using blockchains provides a platform for your app to run on that you don't have to manage and is highly resistant to being shut down. Likewise, there always exists the possibility that your server can be compromised and the code can be altered. The im…

There are easy mitigations for those things though. My self hosted apps run on immutable infrastructure and are replicated and load balanced. Still stupid cheap and easy.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#47

Post by selestify » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

H8crilA wrote: post #37

v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

This is great, but I don't need it at 10^9 times the cost. Imagine if a single red apple costed about $100M, yet it had rather unique qualities such as indisputable, provable lack of contamination. That's the kind of cost difference we're talking about here.

Good for you. Not everyone needs to use Tor -- slow and inefficient, can't even do a proper 1080p livestream. Good for them.

But some people are willing to pay 10^9 the cost for certain guarantees. Good for them too, that such options now exist. Why the irrational hate?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#48

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

menzoic wrote: post #23

endisneigh wrote: post #5

I don’t understand what problem web3 can solve that a trusted entity cannot. And let’s keep in mind your reply to this comment will be using a trusted entity. In fact in the history of the internet I cannot find a single example of any technology working better in a decentralized fashion compared to centralized for the end user

Establishing yourself as a trusted entity is a huge barrier to entry. Decentralized, trustless systems allow small teams with little to no money achieve things that only institutions and heavily funded companies could do in the past. Technologies like blockchain are a great accelerator for innovations in this area and will also spark a new category of use cases that weren't possible before.

Examples where you he innovations are better than centralized alternatives?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#49

Post by jjnoakes » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

selestify wrote: post #38

jjnoakes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get mostly the same features with self-hosted and local traditional apps for a fraction of the price and much lower general financial risk as well.

The person you're replying to has already addressed your points: > Yes, blockchains are slower and more expensive. This is the current cost of enabling the two facets above. If we're not comparing blockchain dapps to other systems that offer the same assurances, then we're comparing apples and oranges. Could you please respond more meaningfully to the conversation?

I thought I did... That quoted paragraph doesn't negate my point which is that I do get the same (or very similar) assurances elsewhere, so I think the comparison is valid.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#50

Post by DannyBee » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

v64 wrote: post #13

Many criticisms of blockchain apps, comparing their use cases to conventional technologies (databases, conventional separation of services such as that described in the article, etc) all seem to miss a major point: Dapps running on the blockchain are immutable and highly resistant to being shutdown. Immutability is important because it's guaranteed that no matter how many times you interact with a contract address, y…

The problem you cite doesn't seem so common, or so large, that it is worth changing literally the entire architecture of everything over.

Maybe it will be someday, but it definitely isn't today, nor does it seem to be happening particularly soon!

Until developers feel like that day is coming, this neither makes sense, nor will it go anywhere.

(as an aside, the non-payment one seems kind of silly, since the blockchain apps don't work without payment either - network fees, etc. Sometimes they are covered, sometimes not)

You can't define away comparisons with how things are done now by saying it can only be compared with things that offer the same assurances. That makes no sense - all software architectures are tradeoffs of these sorts. Privacy vs Security vs Ease of Use vs Cost vs Performance vs ...

People are quite literally going to ask themselves whether it is worth getting those features for the current cost. They aren't going to say "well, we can't compare the cost because the current system doesn't do that". They are going to say "is it worth to get these things".