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

The Web3 Fraud

usenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 377 posts

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#51

Post by CuriousCosmic »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #14
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

Hot take: The proponents of decentralized systems feel disenfranchised by those who own and govern centralized systems, therefore decentralized systems are their way around what they consider injustice. It is a grasp for control and power where they feel they have none. They don’t feel they have a seat at the table, so they argue for building their own table, which is, naturally, “superior” to the existing table (why…

While you are undoubtedly correct to some extent, there's also the entire academic side of decentralised systems which is more about solving the our (plural) system vs their (singular) system problem. The same tech that makes these complex decentralised services work also often functions just as well if not better (performance wise) in federated/centralised contexts.

These decentralised systems are a natural abstraction for so many different types of problems and systems. If you leverage them you can still get high performance systems in a centralised manner but the hard work making those systems resilient, localised, and highly available has already been solved. If you design your systems on top of this technical layer you can leverage the benefits without the costs of centralisation for the most part.

The other academic argument to be made is that this is basically the only industry that is meaningfully pushing cryptography forwards (IMHO). Concepts like Functional Encryption, Fully Homomorphic Encryption, Secure Multi-Party Computation, and Zero Knowledge Proof Systems have been primarily funded by cryptocurrency research and towards the application in decentralised zero trust systems (which are basically the "ideal" environment for exploring cryptography and game theoretic technologies).

Code doesn't fix people problems but it can augment existing systems and letting those systems evolve to their logical conclusions is a worthwhile endeavour.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#52

Post by endisneigh »

rvz wrote: post #41
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.…

Web3 wouldn’t stop that scenario from happening though.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#53

Post by DevKoala »

Wait what? Why is a centralized system being compared to a decentralized one?

I understand Web3 isn't there yet, but this comparison is egregious.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#54

Post by dexter89_kp3 »

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?

Depends on whether the NFT is on-chain or off-chain. Both are valid.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#55

Post by systemvoltage »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #40
systemvoltage wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a toxic way to look at it. Casting it as "they", you're implicitly condoning partisanship/tribalism and putting people into bins. Discussions around this would be guaranteed to be vile and full of hatred. Not just from "your" side, but "they" will also see you in the same way. As technologists, we ought to be better than this. Think about this like we do with on-prem vs cloud. It is decentralization v…

Crypto isn’t about technology. It’s about wealth and power (literally!) on top of a (slow) distributed database. As technologists, we ought to recognize the difference and see the forests for the trees. As a technologist, I cannot unsee the patterns nor look away. I’m sure you’d find similar musings in 2600 or Phrack decades ago.

I am not talking about Crypto (I presume you mean crypto currencies). I am talking about technologies that enable centralization vs. decentralization.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#56

Post by nexuist »

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 think part of this may be that the Internet is a Western world invention and we're used to somewhat functional governance in the West. In developing countries finding a trust-able entity is far more difficult, and in those instances it makes sense for people to come together and pool capital into these virtual institutions that can only operate according to their script(s).

We assume everyone in the world has access to non-rug-pulling companies like, say, BofA or TD Ameritrade but that's really not the case. These institutions have become trustworthy through decades of lawsuits and regulations.

Anecdote: My parents immigrated to the US from Albania, a few months before our planned move my dad's bank just decided to stop existing and the owners fled the country with all the (paper) money. My parents came to a new country with no money to their name because the FDIC is an American invention that a bunch of other countries still haven't copied.

So, I can see how it would work in that context, but I would agree here in the US where our tech overlords are generally benevolent it doesn't seem much more useful over web2.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#57

Post by selestify »

mwattsun wrote: post #42
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?

It's definitely a worry for people doing illegal businesses, for example all the drug markets. Depending on your political allegiances, that's either a good thing or a bad thing, but either way, real value is being created for some people here.

It's also a worry for people who are traditionally blocked from doing business -- for example, anyone who's got some sanctions placed on them. Again, could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your political opinions. But some people find it valuable, that's for sure.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#58

Post by VirusNewbie »

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

so do you not have an email address and only use slack/fb to talk to people on the internet?

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#59

Post by Misdicorl »

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…

Unless there is a killer feature it enables, it's an implementation detail and I don't care. And I will gladly compare other solutions against blockchain despite not having the same implementation detail you claim puts it above comparison.

And so will everyone else that isn't blinded by fanaticism.

Re: The Web3 Fraud

#60

Post by streetcat1 »

serverholic wrote: post #30

This has got to be trolling. Almost every point is nonsense or at best uninformed vitriol. I literally don't know where to start with a comment so I'll just make a series of points related to claims in the article. Nobody has ever claimed that you can run normal computer programs on the Ethereum blockchain. It isn't meant to run fucking Doom. Smart-contracts are more like financial protocols. Blockchains are a form o…

No it is not. There is no inherit value to bitcoin or any other token or coin. Those are just some hash values printed on a digital marker.

Imagine that I assign value to my monopoly money (as in the game), and it is traded in a stock exchange. Yes, it could reach 60K, but it is still monopoly money.

Post reply on HN